between them. He said: I dislike that. Abu Ayyub and Abu Khaythama held the same opinion. I do not know of any dissenter regarding this. This is because the compensation is unknown and non-existent, and it is not known whether it will come into existence or not, and the basis is its non-existence; thus, it is not valid for it to be a price. If it is said: You have permitted giving an animal to someone who works with it for half of its profit. We reply: That was only permitted there by analogy to mudarabah (profit-sharing partnership); because it is an entity that is made to grow through work, so it was permissible to stipulate a portion of the growth. [And musaqah (sharecropping) is like mudarabah, but in our issue, this is not possible; because the growth] occurring in the sheep does not depend upon his work with them, so it is not possible to append it to that. If he hires him to herd them for a known duration in exchange for half of them, or a known portion of them, it is valid; because the work, the wage, and the duration are known, so it is valid, just as if he had set the wage as dirhams. The resulting growth then belongs to both of them by right of ownership, because he owned the portion assigned to him from them immediately, so he owns its growth, just as if he had purchased it.

Section: The fourth ruling is that when the rental is concluded and it is for a specified duration, the lessee owns the benefits stipulated in the contract for the duration, and their occurrence takes place on his property. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Hanifa said: They occur on the property of the lessor, and the lessee does not own them through the contract; because they are non-existent, so they cannot be owned, like fruit and offspring. Our argument is that ownership refers to a legal status through which a specific disposal is achieved, and it is established that the owner of the entity used to dispose of this future benefit just as he disposed of the entity itself. Therefore, when he rented it out, the lessee became the owner of the right to dispose of it, just as the lessor used to own it. Thus, it is proven that it was owned by the owner of the entity, then transferred to the lessee, unlike offspring and fruit, for the lessee does not have the right to dispose of them. Their statement that benefits are