as is the case with others. The companions of Al-Shafi'i have two views, similar to these two (46). It is not permissible to lease that whose benefit cannot be delivered, whether its sale is permitted or not, such as if one’s benefit is usurped, for example, if a person claims that this house is under his lease for a year and forcibly takes possession of it from its owner; in this case, it is not permissible to lease it during that year except from the usurper or from someone capable of retrieving it from him. Our companions said: The leasing of a shared property (musha') to someone other than the partner is not permissible, unless both partners lease it together. This is the view of Abu Hanifah and Zufar, because one is unable to deliver it, so its leasing is invalid, like usurped property. This is because he is unable to deliver it except by delivering his partner's share, and he has no authority over his partner's property. Abu Hafs al-'Ukbari chose the view that this is permissible. Ahmad hinted at this, and it is the view of Malik, Al-Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad, because it is a known thing whose sale is permissible, so its leasing is permissible, just like an individual portion (47). Also, because it is a contract regarding his property which is permissible with his partner, it is therefore permissible with others, just like a sale. Furthermore, because it is permissible if the two partners do it together, it is permissible for one of them to do it regarding his own share separately, just like a sale. Those who supported the first view distinguished between the disputed case and the case where the two partners lease it, or he leases it to his partner, on the grounds that it is possible to deliver it to the lessee, so it resembles the leasing of usurped property from its usurper, but not from others. If the house belongs to one person and he leases half of it, it is valid because he is able to deliver it. Then, if he leases the other half to the first lessee, it is valid because he is able to deliver it to him. If he leases it to someone else, there are two views, based on the previous issue, because he is unable to deliver what he leased to him. If he leases the house to two people, each receiving half, it is the same, because he is unable to deliver the share of each of them to him.

Section: There are two views regarding the leasing of the Mushaf (copy of the Quran). One is that its leasing is not valid, based on the principle that its sale is not valid. The reason for this is to exalt the Word of God and His Book above being used as an object of exchange and being debased by a price.