contrary to analogy (qiyas). As for us, it is a duration whose beginning is not known, so it is not permissible, just as if (25) he said: I have rented you my house from the time the pilgrims depart (26) until the end of the year. They have acknowledged its contradiction to the evidence, and we do not concede that what they claimed as evidence is actually evidence.

Section: The third ruling is that it is a condition for the rental compensation to be known. We do not know of any disagreement regarding this; this is because it is compensation in a contract of exchange, so it must be known, like the price in a sale. It has been narrated from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) that he said: "Whoever hires a worker, let him inform him of his wage" (27). Knowing it by sight or by description is considered the same as in a sale. If the compensation is known by observation without a specific quantity, such as a heap of grain, there are two potential views, the most likely of which is permissibility; because it is known compensation with which a sale is permissible, so rental is permissible with it, just as if its quantity were known. The second view: it is not permissible; because the contract might be dissolved after the heap is destroyed, and he would not know how much he is entitled to return, so knowledge of its quantity is a condition, like the compensation in a deferred sale (salam). The first view is more appropriate. The apparent meaning of the words of Al-Khiraqi is that knowledge of the quantity in salam compensation is not a condition; then the difference between the two is that the benefit here is treated like physical objects (a'yan) because it relates to a present object, whereas salam relates to something non-existent, so they differ. Al-Shafi'i holds a view similar to what we have mentioned in this section.

Section: Everything that is permissible as a price in a sale is permissible as compensation in a rental; because it is an exchange contract that resembles a sale. Based on this, it is permissible for the compensation to be an object or another benefit, whether the genus is the same, such as the benefit of a house for the benefit (28) of another, or different, such as the benefit of a house for the benefit of a slave. Ahmad said: There is no harm if one rents for a described and known food. The same is held by Al-Shafi'i. Allah the Almighty said, reporting about Shu'ayb, that he said: {I wish to marry you one of these two daughters of mine, on condition that you serve me for eight years}, so he made the marriage the compensation for the service. Abu Hanifa said, according to what was narrated from him: It is not permissible to rent a house in exchange for living in another, and it is not permitted unless (29) the genus of the benefit differs, such as living in a house in exchange for the benefit of an animal; because in his view, a single genus prohibits deferred exchange (nasi'ah). Al-Thawri disliked renting for described food. The correct view is its permissibility, which is the opinion of Ishaq, the proponents of reason (Ashab al-Ra'y), and the analogical deduction (qiyas) of the view of Al-Shafi'i; because it is compensation that is permissible in a sale, so it is permissible in a rental, like gold and silver. What Abu Hanifa said is not correct; because benefits in a rental are not subject to the estimation of deferred exchange (nasi'ah), and even if it were a deferred exchange, it would not be permitted in two different genera, because it would be selling a debt for a debt.

Section: If a man hires someone to skin an animal for him in exchange for its hide, it is not permissible; because it is not known whether the hide will come off intact or not, and whether it is thick or thin. Furthermore, because it is not permissible for it to be a price in a sale, it is not permissible for it to be compensation in a rental, like other unknown matters. If he skins it for that, he is entitled to the wage of his equivalent work (ajr al-mithl). If he hires him to remove a carcass in exchange for its hide, the invalidity is more pronounced; because the hide of a carcass is impure (najis) and its sale is not permissible, and it has ceased to be property upon its death. If he does it, he is also entitled to the wage of his equivalent work.