lease is invalid, because it does not concern a benefit: it cannot walk, so how can loads be carried on it? The lease is therefore invalid and void. If the lessee says, “I wish to benefit its owner and console him, because his animal has become crippled and he is heartbroken. He used to earn ten riyals a day by leasing it out, so I shall lease it from him for ten days, at ten riyals per day—what is wrong with that?” We say: If you wish to console him, then console him by giving him a gift: give him money and leave his camel with him. But to enter into an invalid contract, thereby consuming wealth unlawfully, is not permissible. The door of voluntary giving and kindness is open; we are not saying to you, “Do not help him.” Thus, leasing a disabled animal for carrying loads is not valid.

If someone leases out a car with a defective engine for travel, the lease is not valid. If the lessee says to its owner, “Once you repair it, I have leased it from you for one month for such-and-such an amount,” the lease is likewise invalid, for the following reasons:

First: according to the authoritative position in the school, contracts and exchange transactions cannot be made contingent.

Second: this is unknown—namely, the beginning of the term is to commence upon the repair, while the time of repair is unknown. Therefore, it is invalid. However, if it has only minor damage and it is known that it will be repaired within a day or two, then leasing it is permissible.

“And nor land that does not produce crops; and the benefit must belong to the lessor, or he must be authorized concerning it. It is permissible to lease the property to one who takes his place, provided that this entails no greater harm. ……”

His statement: “nor land that does not produce crops” means that it is not valid to lease land that does not yield crops. For example, a person has a large tract of land, but it is saline and never produces anything. If he leases it for cultivation, we say: it is not permissible.