Section

The second category, where the hire charge is payable immediately by stipulation or custom, divides into two cases: (first) where payment has not yet been made; and (second) where payment has been made, whether or not the recipient has gone away with it. This applies when the hirer seeks rescission with an additional payment. If the seller seeks rescission with an additional payment, I would divide it into two cases: (first) where payment has not been made, or has been made but the recipient has not gone away with it; and (second) where payment has been made and the recipient has gone away with it.

These four divisions give rise to twenty-four cases, following the detailed classification and explanation we gave concerning guaranteed transport. Any case that is impermissible because the hire charge is exchanged for a deferred additional payment from the hirer to the owner is likewise impermissible when a specified animal is hired. The same applies to any case that is impermissible because, before payment, the guaranteed entitlement to ride is exchanged for a deferred additional payment from the owner to the hirer. As for cases that are impermissible because the owner makes an additional payment to the hirer, whether immediate or deferred, after having gone away with the original payment, two views may be derived concerning them, according to the principles we established and explained fully at the beginning of this chapter. Success comes from Allah, glorified and exalted be He.

Section

Rescission of a house lease is governed by the same rules as rescission of the hire of a specified riding animal in every respect, with one exception that I shall mention, Allah willing. If a man leases a house and then seeks or grants rescission with an additional payment, whatever its nature and whichever party makes it, the ruling depends on the view adopted. According to the view that leasing a house resembles a salam sale creating a guaranteed obligation, since the benefits are received gradually, invalidity is assessed both by considering the two transactions together, on grounds of suspicion and to block avenues to prohibited dealings—as in sales involving deferred payment—and by considering the rescission on its own. According to the view that such a lease resembles the sale of specified goods, invalidity is assessed only by considering the rescission on its own: whether it entails something impermissible, such as replacing one debt with another, deferred currency exchange, or a similar transaction prohibited in sales. To explain this general statement: if a man leases a house