from it, this is not valid, because the additional amount is unknown. But if he says, “I have rented this house to you for ten thousand, with the repair of whatever collapses from it to be counted against the rent,” then this is valid, because the rent is known. Even if it is assumed that damage occurs requiring repairs worth five thousand, it is permissible. However, another condition must be added: he must say, “It is to be counted against the rent, and any excess is the responsibility of the owner of the house,” because the damage may exceed the amount of the rent. For example, the rent may be one thousand riyals, while damage occurs requiring repairs worth two thousand riyals.

In summary: renting a house in return for repairing whatever collapses from it is not permissible, and the lease is invalid. As for renting it on condition that the repair of whatever collapses is counted against the rent, this is permissible, provided that it does not exceed the amount of the rent.

His statement, “If he enters a bathhouse”: this is a hire contract concluded through conduct. Thus, if someone enters a bathhouse, bathes there, and leaves, while a sign states that it is rented out at such-and-such an amount per hour, and he has not seen its owner, this is valid at the customary rate. In such a case, custom determines the charge according to time—so much per hour—and the person who entered the bathhouse is charged what is customary.

Similar to this is what people do nowadays when they park their cars in parking facilities: one enters and takes a ticket recording the time of entry, then pays upon leaving, without any verbal exchange. We say that this too is unobjectionable. Indeed, it may be even more clearly permissible than bargaining—that is, than saying, “I will not let you enter except at such-and-such an hourly rate”—because this is known to everyone.