And if he hires it for some task—for example, an animal to ride to a specified place, cattle for ploughing or threshing crops, or someone to guide him along a route—then that task must be known and precisely defined in a manner that admits of no variation.

His statement, “And if he hires it,” means the specific property.

His statement, “for some task—for example, an animal to ride to a specified place, cattle for ploughing or threshing crops, or someone to guide him along a route—then that task must be known and precisely defined in a manner that admits of no variation,” shows that the author considers it permissible to hire a specific property for a task; that is, to hire an item in order to use it for work. Examples include hiring a car to travel to Mecca, a generator to produce electricity for a specified period, or a pump to draw water for a specified period, and the like. All of this is permissible, since it entails no monopoly over people.

However, the author says that one who hires an animal for riding must specify a known destination. Thus, if he says, “I have hired this animal from you in order to search for my lost animal,” the lease is invalid because it is unknown: we do not know whether he will find it nearby or far away. Therefore, the destination must be specified. If he says, “I have hired this camel from you to go to some town,” it is invalid because of the uncertainty. Or if he says, “I have hired this camel from you to go to a specified town,” but the camel’s owner does not know where that town is, it is likewise invalid, because both the lessor and the lessee must know.

Must the nature of the route also be known—whether it is easy or rough, safe or dangerous? Yes, because the intended use differs accordingly. For example, hiring a camel to travel to a town by a safe and easy route is not the same as hiring it to travel to a town by a dangerous and difficult route. There is a great difference between them. In short, everything that causes the rent to differ must be known.