of its own genus; however, with a different genus, there is no harm in it, due to Ahmad's explicit statement regarding its permissibility. Malik said regarding the leasing of jewelry and garments: It is among the doubtful matters. Perhaps he is of the view that the objective of that is adornment, and that is not among the primary objectives. Those who forbade that for a fee of the same genus argued that it undergoes wear from usage, causing parts of it to be lost even if they are minimal; thus, the fee is obtained in exchange for this, and in exchange for the benefit derived from it, which leads to the sale of gold for gold and something else. Our view is that it is an entity from which a permissible and intended benefit is derived, while the entity remains intact, so it resembles all other things whose lease is permissible. Adornment is among the primary objectives, for Allah the Almighty has bestowed it upon us through His saying: "That you may ride them, and for adornment" [An-Nahl: 8]. He also said: "Say, who has forbidden the adornment of Allah which He has brought forth for His servants" [Al-A'raf: 32]. Allah the Almighty permitted women to wear ornaments and clothing that He forbade to men, because of their need to beautify themselves for their husbands, and He waived Zakat on their jewelry to assist them in acquiring it. What they mentioned regarding its decrease due to wear is incorrect; because it is minimal, not compensated for by a substitute, and barely appears in weight. Even if it were to appear, the fee is in exchange for the benefit, not in exchange for the parts, because the fee in a lease is only a compensation for the benefit, as in all other cases. If it were in exchange for the lost part, it would not be permissible to lease one of the two types of currency (gold/silver) for the other, as it would lead to a disparity in the exchange of one for the other before possession. And Allah knows best.

Section: It is permissible to lease dirhams and dinars for weighing and adornment for a known duration. This is also the view of Abu Hanifa. It is one of the two opinions held by the Shafi'i scholars; the other opinion is that their lease is not permissible because this benefit is not the one intended from them, and for that reason, their benefit is not guaranteed upon their usurpation, thus they resemble wax. Our view is that it is an entity from which it is possible to derive a permissible benefit while the entity remains intact, so it resembles jewelry and is distinguished from wax, for wax is only utilized in a way that destroys its essence.