The jurists also disagreed when the starting point of the term is left unspecified, or it is specified yet set for a time that does not begin immediately after the contract.
• Mālik held that the lease is still valid provided the overall term is fixed, even though its commencement is not, as when one says, “I rent this house from you for a year for such-and-such,” or “for a month for such-and-such,” without stating the first day of that month or year.
• Al-Shāfiʿī ruled it invalid. According to Mālik, the period begins the moment the contract is concluded; al-Shāfiʿī forbids this on the grounds of gharar, whereas Mālik allows it because common practice makes the starting date known.
Likewise, al-Shāfiʿī disallowed setting the opening of the term for a date deferred from the contract itself, while Mālik permitted it. Among Mālik’s own disciples there is disagreement regarding the hire of land that is not secure and the changes that may occur to it over time.
Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī also differed over how long such benefits may be measured. Mālik allows lengthy periods—one may, for example, let a house for ten years or more, so long as the house would not normally deteriorate during that span—whereas al-Shāfiʿī permits no lease for more than a single year.
Ibn al-Qāsim and Ibn al-Mājishūn diverged over rain-fed land, land irrigated by springs, and land watered by wells and rivers. Ibn al-Qāsim allowed leasing any of these for many years. Ibn al-Mājishūn distinguished between them, saying: rain-fed land may not be rented for more than one year; land irrigated by springs for no more than three or four years; and land irrigated by wells or rivers for no more than ten years.
Thus, the points of dispute here are three: fixing the start of the term, its overall length, and how far it may be set from the time of contract.
Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī further disagreed when the total duration is left open but a rate is fixed for the smallest unit of time—for example, “I lease this house from you at such-and-such per month,” without agreeing on an overall limit. Al-Shāfiʿī declared it invalid; Mālik and his companions deemed it valid by analogy with the sale formula, “I sell you from this heap at the rate of one qafīz for a dirham,” though that wording is impermissible elsewhere.
The root of the disagreement is whether the uncertainty involved is the kind of gharar overlooked by the Law or the kind that is forbidden.
Under the same heading falls their divergence about combining a sale and a lease in a single contract: Mālik allows it, whereas al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Ḥanīfah forbid it. Mālik permits only the pairing of sale with lease and nothing beside that.
They likewise differed over leasing undivided (shared) property. Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī allow it; Abū Ḥanīfah does not, because, in his view, benefiting from it while it remains undivided is impossible. Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī maintain that one can benefit from it alongside one’s partner just as the lessor himself does—that is, the co-owner.
Also included here is hiring a worker for his food and clothing, and the hire of a wet-nurse. Al-Shāfiʿī absolutely forbids this; Mālik absolutely permits it (that is, for any worker), whereas Abū Ḥanīfah permits it only for a wet-nurse. The dispute turns on whether such a hire is deemed an unknown (majhūl) lease or not.
These, then, are the conditions of leasing that relate to the rent and to the benefit received.