Book of Loan for Use (ʿāriyah)

The lender must satisfy two conditions: his act of generosity must be legally valid, and he must own the usufruct. Therefore—according to the sounder opinion—a lessee may sub-lend, whereas a borrower may not. He may also appoint an agent to take the benefit on his behalf.

The item lent must be something from which benefit is obtained while the item itself remains intact. It is permissible to lend a female slave so that she may serve a woman or a maḥram, and it is disliked to lend a Muslim slave to a non-Muslim.

The sounder view is that a clear verbal formula is required, such as “I lend it to you” or “lend it to me.” It suffices that one party utters the formula while the other completes the act.

If he says, “I lend it to you so that you may fodder it,” or “I lend it to you in return for your lending me your horse,” the transaction is an invalid lease that obliges payment of the fair rental value. The cost of returning the article rests with the borrower.

Should the article perish through a cause other than the permitted use, the borrower is liable for it even when he was not negligent. The sounder opinion, however, is that he is not liable for what is consumed or worn out through normal use, while a third opinion holds him liable for whatever is completely consumed.

A borrower who receives the item from a lessee is, on the sounder view, not liable. Likewise, if the owner’s mount dies while in the hand of an agent sent on the owner’s business, or in the hand of someone to whom he had given it for training, no liability is incurred.

The borrower may benefit only within the limits of the permission granted. Thus, if the land is lent for sowing wheat, he may plant wheat and similar crops unless the lender forbids it; but if it is lent for barley, he may not sow anything superior to it, such as wheat. When the loan is granted simply “for cultivation,” it is valid according to the sounder view, and he may cultivate whatever he wishes.

If he borrows the land for building or for planting trees, he may also sow crops, but not vice-versa. The correct opinion, however, is that someone who borrowed it for building may not plant trees, and likewise, one who borrowed it for trees may not build.

An open-ended loan of land is invalid; the type of benefit must be specified.