types; for they are less than it. Thus, when he generalizes or speaks absolutely, it encompasses the maximum, and he is entitled to what is less than it. This differs from different genera, for some do not enter into others. If it is said: If one rents an animal for riding, the rider must be specified. We respond: This is because renting a mount for the rider who causes the most harm is not permissible, unlike the cultivated crop. Furthermore, an animal has a sanctity in itself, so it is not permitted to leave it unrestricted, unlike land. If it is said: If one rents a house for residence without qualification, it is not permissible to house someone who causes damage to it, such as a fuller or a blacksmith, so why do you say it is permissible to cultivate it with what causes damage to it? We respond: Residence does not necessitate damage; therefore, it is prohibited to house one who causes damage because the contract did not stipulate it. However, cultivation necessitates damage, so if he left it absolute, he was satisfied with its maximum, and thus it is permissible. He does not have the right to plant in this land, nor to build, because their damage is greater than what was contracted for.

The second issue: He rented it to cultivate wheat, or a specific type. He has the right to cultivate what he specified and what is equal in damage to it or less. What he specified is not fixed according to the opinion of the generality of scholars, except for Dawud and the literalists (Ahl al-Zahir), for they said: He is not permitted to cultivate other than what he specified. Even if he described the wheat as brown, it is not permissible for him to cultivate white wheat, because he specified it in the contract, and it is not permissible to deviate from it, just as if he specified the mount, or specified the dirhams in the price. Our view is that the subject of the contract is the benefit of the land, not the wheat; thus, the compensation is established by the passage of time once he has taken possession of the land, even if he does not cultivate it. He mentioned the wheat only to estimate the benefit, so it is not fixed, just as if he rented a house to live in, he is entitled to let someone else live in it. It differs from the mount and the dirhams in the price, for those are the objects of the contract, so they are fixed. Here, the object of the contract is an estimated benefit, and it is also fixed, while that which it was estimated by is not fixed, just as the measure and the scale are not fixed in measured and weighed goods.

The third issue: He said: "To cultivate it with wheat, and what is equal in damage to it, or less." This is