Section: It is a type of sale, because it involves the transfer of ownership (tamlik) by each of the two parties to the other. Thus, it is a sale of benefits (manafi'), and benefits are on the same level as tangible assets (a'yan), because it is valid to transfer their ownership during one's lifetime and after death; they are subject to liability (daman) through possession and destruction, and their compensation can be either a tangible asset or a debt. It has been singled out by a name, just as some sales have been singled out by a name, such as al-sarf (currency exchange) and al-salam (advance sale). Once this is established, it is concluded with the term 'ijarah' (hire) or 'kira'' (rent), as both are established for it. Is it concluded using the term 'bay'' (sale)? There are two viewpoints: First, it is concluded with it, because it is a sale, so it is concluded with its term, like al-sarf. Second, it is not concluded with it, because it has a specific meaning, so it requires a term that indicates that meaning. Furthermore, ijarah is attributed to the tangible asset in the same way that sale is attributed to it, and thus a term is needed to distinguish between them, like distinct contracts. Also, it is a contract that differs from sale in both legal ruling and name, so it resembles marriage (nikah).

Section: It is only valid when performed by one who has the capacity for legal action (ja'iz al-tasarruf), because it is a contract of transfer of ownership during life, so it resembles sale.

891 - Issue: He said: (And when the hire is contracted for a known duration, for a known wage, the lessee has come to own the benefits, and the wage has become due from him in full at the time of the contract, unless they stipulate a deferred payment term.)

This issue points to six rulings: The first is that the object of the contract is the benefits. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars, including Malik, Abu Hanifah, and the majority of the companions of Al-Shafi'i. Some have mentioned that the object of the contract is the tangible asset, because it is the existing thing, and the contract is attributed to it; one says, 'I have rented to you my house' [as one says, 'I have sold it to you'] (1). Our position is that the object of the contract is what is obtained through the contract, and that is the benefits, not the tangible assets. Furthermore, the wage is in exchange for the benefit, which is why they are subject to liability (daman) and the tangible asset is not. Whatever the compensation is in exchange for is the object of the contract. The contract is only attributed to the tangible asset because it is the locus of the benefit and its source, just as the contract of musaqah (sharecropping) is attributed to the garden, while the object of the contract is the fruit. If one said: 'I have rented to you the benefit of my house,' it would be valid.