say that this was conditional upon his not charging more than the rent he himself pays. This is because he owns the right of usufruct outright, and an owner may dispose of what he owns: he may sell for a little or for much, and there is nothing to prevent that.

Some scholars said that he may not sublease it for more. They cited as evidence that the Prophet ﷺ prohibited profiting from that for which one does not bear liability (1). Rights of usufruct are not guaranteed; thus, if the shop were to collapse, for example, the lease would be dissolved, and the owner of the shop would not be required to provide him with another shop. Those who permit it answered that the hadith applies specifically to sales and does not include leasing. The practice today follows the first view: the lessee may sublease for the duration of his lease, even for more than the rent he pays. This appears to be closer to what is correct than the view of prohibition, because the hadith does not explicitly address leasing.

Issue: If a person is hired to perform work stipulated as a liability—for example, he is told, “We want you to clean this house every day, and you will receive one hundred riyals per month”—and he hires someone to clean the house every day in accordance with the terms of the contract he accepted, but for fifty riyals, this is permissible. It is analogous to the case in which we say that it is permissible for him to sublease the remainder of his term for more than the rent. This is how people conduct their affairs today. For example, the government may contract with a company to clean the mosques, each mosque for such-and-such an amount per month, and then that company comes