specific to him, does not prevent the fulfillment of the benefit entirely, and thus it resembles his illness. Likewise, if he were imprisoned, or fell ill, or his provisions were lost, or his property was destroyed, he does not possess the right to rescind the lease for that; because he abandoned the fulfillment of the benefits for a reason from his own side, so that does not prevent the obligation of its wages upon him, just as if he had abandoned them by choice.

Section: If one leases a specific object and finds in it a defect he was not aware of, he has the right to rescind the contract, without any difference of opinion that we know of. Ibn al-Mundhir said: If he leases a specific beast and finds it to be stubborn, a biter, skittish, or having some other defect that hinders riding it, the lessee has the option: if he wishes, he may return it and rescind the lease, and if he wishes, he may keep it. This is the position of Abu Thawr and the scholars of reasoning (Ashab al-Ra'y), and because it is a defect in the object of the contract, it establishes an option, like a defect in the sale of specific items. The defect for which it may be returned is that which reduces the value of the benefit, such as stumbling of the mount while walking, lameness that causes it to fall behind the caravan, the animal lying down under the load, its being stubborn or a biter, and similar things. Regarding what is leased for service: poor eyesight, insanity, leprosy, and vitiligo. Regarding a house: the collapse of a wall, the fear of it falling, the cessation of water from its well, or its contamination such that drinking and ablution become impossible, and similar deficiencies. Whenever any of these defects occurs after the contract, the lessee is established with the option of rescission; because the benefits are not obtained except gradually, so when the defect occurs, it has been found before the possession of the remainder of the object of the contract, thus it establishes rescission for what remains of it. Whenever he rescinds, the ruling regarding it is as if the contract were rescinded due to the destruction of the object. If he is content to remain and does not rescind, the entire compensation is binding upon him; because he accepted it while defective, resembling a case where one accepts sold goods while defective. If they differ regarding what is present, whether it is a defect or not, it is referred back to experts. If they say: 'It is not a defect,' such as if the beast is