it is not owned by him. In the case of a loan, he does not own the benefits; he only owns the right to fulfill them in the manner for which he was permitted, thus resembling one who is permitted to eat food. Based on this, if he lends it, the owner may reclaim the equivalent rent, and he may demand it from whichever of the two he wishes; because the first gave authority (31) to another to take the property of someone else without his permission, and the second fulfilled it without his permission. If the first pays compensation, he may return to the second, because the fulfillment occurred through him, so the liability is settled upon him. If the second pays compensation, he may not return to the first, unless the second was unaware of the true situation, in which case it is possible that the liability rests with the first, because he deceived the second and handed over the entity to him under the assumption that he would fulfill its benefits without consideration. If the entity is destroyed in the hands of the second, the liability is settled upon him in any case, because he took possession of it with the understanding that it would be under his liability. If he returns to the first, the first may return to the second, and if he returns to the second, he may not return to anyone.

Section: If he lends him something and grants him permission to lease it for a known period, or to lend it absolutely, or for a period, it is permissible, because the right belongs to its owner, so what he permits is permissible. He does not have the right to retract it after the lease contract until it expires, because the lease contract is binding, and the entity is under the liability of the borrower, but not under the liability of the lessee, because the lease contract does not necessitate liability. If he leases it without permission, the lease is not valid, the liability is upon the lessee, and the owner may hold whichever of the two he wishes liable, as we have mentioned regarding the loan.

Section: It is permissible to borrow a slave in order to pledge him. Ibn al-Mundhir said: They are in consensus that if a man borrows something from another man to pledge it with a person for a known amount of debt, for a known time, and he pledges it according to what he was permitted for, it is permissible; this is because he borrowed it to fulfill his need, so it is valid, like other loans. Knowledge of the amount of the debt and its type is not considered, because knowledge is not considered in a loan. Abu Thawr and the scholars of jurisprudence (ashab al-ra'y) said this. Al-Shafi'i said: It is considered, because the harm varies accordingly. Our view is that it is a loan for a type of benefit, so knowledge of its amount is not considered, like borrowing