land of this kind; indeed, the entire open countryside shares with this land the possibility of serving as a resting place at midday and at night. A benefit that customarily has no monetary value is like a tangible object that has no monetary value. By agreement, the former cannot validly be the subject of a lease, nor the latter of a sale. Examples include benefiting from shade or light at a distance. However, leasing land to make the customary use that someone in the lessee’s position would make of comparable land is permissible.

As for the wording, “He leased it as a resting place at midday and at night, and also for cultivation if possible, to make the customary use that someone in his position would make of comparable property,” the lease is valid. However, the words “as a resting place at midday and at night” are superfluous and serve no purpose. If the land cannot be used, no rent is due. If only part of it can be used, rent is due in proportion to that part. If the two parties dispute whether it can be used, the matter should be referred to others, for people know whether or not the land has been irrigated.

He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

A man leased land and expressly declared in the lease that he had inspected it, although he had not inspected it before leasing it. The lessor described it as land that was irrigated every year. The lessor did not hand it over to the lessees and expressly stated that it provided a resting place at midday and at night. It then became apparent that approximately a quarter of it was unirrigated. Is this lease valid if the lessees have not inspected the land? And