His statement, “a young female slave,” indicates that if he were to lend out a free woman, this would not be permissible, because a free woman is not owned, and a loan for use can only be made by an owner.

“No payment is due to one who lends out a wall until it collapses; if it collapses, it is not to be rebuilt except with his permission. A borrowed article is liable for its value on the day it perishes, even if exemption from liability was stipulated. The borrower must bear the cost of returning it, unlike a hired item; and he may not lend it out …”

His statement, “No payment is due to one who lends out a wall until it collapses”: the scenario is that a person has a neighbour who owns a private wall. The person needs to make use of his neighbour’s wall, so he asks permission to place beams upon it as a loan for use. His neighbour grants him its use, and he builds upon it. Then, after having lent him the wall, its owner demands payment from his neighbour, saying, “I have withdrawn my loan; therefore, pay me rent for the beams remaining on the wall.” He has no right to do this. Indeed, even his withdrawal from the loan is not valid, because withdrawing a loan for use in a manner that harms the borrower is impermissible, in light of the Prophet’s saying: “There should be neither harm nor reciprocating harm.” (1)

Likewise, if he lends him land to cultivate, and the borrower plants it, then during the growing period the lender says, “I have withdrawn it,” this withdrawal is not binding upon him. Is the lender entitled to payment? The correct view is that he is not entitled to payment, because granting him permission to plant entails his consent to its remaining until it is harvested. The well-known position of the madhhab is that if he withdraws during the growing period, he is entitled to payment; but this is a weak view, and one can scarcely find any difference between this case and that of the wall.

Likewise, according to the preponderant view, if the loan for use is restricted to a specified period