The lender may retract the loan at any time he wishes, whether it was absolute or time-bound, provided he has not granted permission for its occupation in a way that would cause harm by retracting it. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i. Malik said: If it is time-bound, he does not have the right to retract it before the specified time, and if no duration is specified, he is obligated to leave it for a period during which it is typically utilized. This is because the lender has granted him the benefit for (34) a period, and the entity has come into his possession through a permissible contract; therefore, he does not have the right to retract it without the owner's choice, similar to a slave whose service is bequeathed or a leased item. Our view is that the future benefits have not yet come into his possession, so they are not owned through the loan, just as if the entity itself had not come into his possession. As for the slave whose service is bequeathed, the testator has the right to retract it, but the heirs do not have the right to retract it, because the donation is from someone other than them. As for the leased item, it is owned through a commutative contract, so it is binding, unlike our case. It is permissible for the borrower to return it whenever he wishes, without any disagreement that we know of; because it is a permission, so it is for the one permitted to leave it, like the permission to eat food.

Section: If he leaves the duration in the loan unspecified, he may benefit from it as long as he has not retracted it. If he specifies it, he may benefit from it as long as he has not retracted it or the time has not elapsed; because he has made it lawful through permission, so beyond the scope of that permission, it remains under its original state of prohibition. If the borrowed item is land, he does not have the right to plant, build, or sow after the time has elapsed or the retraction. If he does any of that, he is obligated to remove his planting and construction, and his ruling is the ruling of a usurper in that regard, due to the Prophet's saying—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—: "A wrongful claim to land has no right" (35). He is liable for the rent of what he utilized of the land's benefits in a hostile manner, and he is obligated to perform the removal, level the excavation, repair the depreciation of the land, and all other rulings of usurpation, because it is an act of hostility.

Section: If he lends him something that he benefits (36) from in such a way that retracting the loan while he is using it would cause harm to the borrower, he may not retract it; because the retraction would harm the borrower, and it is not permissible for him to cause harm.