the landowner: “No, it was under a lease”—then the landowner’s account is accepted, as expressly stated by the imams Mālik, Ahmad, al-Shāfiʿī, and others.

Al-Shāfiʿī held one view concerning a dispute over a riding animal, where the rider says, “You lent it to me,” and the owner says, “Rather, I hired it out to you.” In this case, he held that the rider’s account is accepted. Some scholars of his school treated the two cases alike. The school’s established position in both cases is that the owner’s account is accepted.

Others distinguished between them, saying that people customarily lend riding animals freely, unlike land. Thus, according to one report, Mālik held that the owner’s account is accepted unless he is someone who would not ordinarily hire out animals. Abū Hanīfa likewise held that, in the case of a riding animal, the rider’s account is accepted. This is also one view within Imam Ahmad’s school.

In short, the correct position concerning land, held by the majority of scholars, is that the owner’s account is accepted. He is therefore entitled to demand rent in this case. But may he demand the rent he claims, the fair rental value, or the lesser of the two? There are three views on this within Ahmad’s school and elsewhere.