possible to utilize the benefit, the wage is established upon him. This was also the opinion of al-Shafi'i, because the benefits perished by his choice. Abu Hanifah said: There is no wage due upon him. This is the view I find more correct, because it is a contract for something (not yet in existence) as a liability, so its compensation is not established by merely offering delivery, just as in the case of a salam sale (advance payment sale). Also, because it is a contract for a benefit not fixed by time, its compensation is not established by the offer of delivery, like a dowry (sadaq) when the woman offers to deliver herself and the husband refuses to accept her. If this occurs in an invalid lease, then in the case where he offers it to the lessee and he does not take it, there is no wage due upon him, because it did not perish under his possession nor in his property. If he takes possession of it and the period passes, or a period passes during which it is possible to utilize the benefit or it is not possible, there are two narrations from Ahmad. One is that he owes the wage of a similar (ajr al-mithl) for the period it remained in his possession; this is the view of al-Shafi'i, because the benefits perished under his possession in exchange for a compensation that was not delivered to him, so it returns to its value, just as if he had utilized them. The second is that he owes nothing; this is the view of Abu Hanifah, because it is an invalid contract for benefits he did not utilize, so their compensation is not binding upon him, like an invalid marriage. If he utilized the benefit in an invalid contract, he owes the wage of a similar (ajr al-mithl). This was said by Malik and al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifah said: The lesser of the two amounts becomes due, either the specified amount or the wage of a similar, based on his principle that benefits are not guaranteed (daman) except through a contract. We say: That which is guaranteed by a specified amount in a valid contract must be guaranteed by its full value in an invalid one, like tangible assets. What he mentioned, we do not accept. And Allah knows best.

892 - Issue: He said: (And if the lease is for every month for a known amount, neither of them may cancel it until every month has passed.)

The sum of this is that if he says: I lease this to you every month for one dirham. Our companions differed. The Qadi went to the view that the lease is valid. This is what was explicitly stated by Ahmad in a narration by Ibn Mansur and is the choice of al-Khiraqi, except that the lease for the first month becomes binding by the absolute nature of the contract, because it is known and follows the contract, and has a known wage. The months following it are made binding in the contract by embarking upon