Another example is a man who rents a shop for selling jewelry, then a baker comes to him and says, “I want to rent it from you.” In that case, he may not sublease it to him, because the owner of a bakery would cause more damage to the shop than a jeweler would. Thus, he may sublease it to someone who takes his place—that is, someone whose use of the benefit is like his own or causes less harm.

Another example: a man rents this shop to a baker, then a jeweler comes and says, “Lease it to me for the duration of your rental term.” This requires further detail.

If the lessor had a legitimate purpose in leasing it to the baker—namely, to serve this area because it has no baker—and the owner prohibited the lessee from subleasing it to anyone else, even someone whose use would cause less harm, then we say: if he stipulated this, saying, “You must operate a bakery here,” then the lessee has no right to sublease it to someone who will not bake there. If he did not explicitly stipulate it, then it appears to me that, so long as he has a legitimate purpose, he has the right to prevent him from doing so, because some people may have a particular purpose in mind. But if there is no legitimate purpose, then there is nothing wrong with subleasing it to someone whose use causes less harm.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that he may sublease it for the same rent or for more. Should we follow this apparent meaning? The answer is yes: the lessee may sublease the remainder of his rental term to someone else for more than the rent he himself pays.

For example, someone rents a shop in a city that has peak seasons, such as Mecca or Medina. He makes use of it outside the peak season, then someone comes to him wishing to rent it from him during the peak season for several times the rent at which he rented it. This is permissible, and it is the apparent meaning of the author’s words, because the author did not