Every scholar we preserve knowledge from holds that the leasing of houses and riding animals is permissible. Their leasing is only valid for a specified, known duration, and it must be sighted and defined; for it does not become known except by that, and it is not permissible to leave it absolute or merely described. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Thawr said: If it is determined by description, it is sufficient. The scholars of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y) said: He has the option of inspection (khiyar al-ru'yah), similar to their view on sale. A similar position is derived for us based on the law of sale, and the disagreement here is built upon the disagreement in sale. He did not suffice with description because it does not become known except by inspection, just as it is not known in sale except by that. If it is a house or a bathhouse, it requires the inspection of the rooms; for the purpose differs according to their smallness, largeness, and facilities. It also requires the inspection of the size of the bathhouse to know its size, and the knowledge of the bathhouse's water, whether it is from a canal or a well. If it is from a well, it requires inspecting it to know its depth and the cost of drawing water from it. It also requires inspecting the furnace, the ash pit, the manure disposal site, and the bathhouse's water drainage. Whenever there is a deficiency in this or part of it, the lease is not valid due to the uncertainty regarding what the purpose depends upon.

Section: Ahmad disliked the leasing of a bathhouse. He was asked about its lease and said: "I fear (it is problematic)." It was said to him: "What if he stipulates that the lessee shall not enter it unless he is wearing an izar (waist wrapper)?" He said: "And who will enforce this?" It was as if he did not approve of it. Ibn Hamid said: This is by way of dislike of impropriety (tanzih), not prohibition (tahrim); because the private parts of people are exposed in it, so the lease is concluded upon a prohibited act, thus he disliked it for that reason. As for the contract itself, it is valid. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars. Ibn al-Mundhir said: All the scholars we preserve knowledge from have reached a consensus that the leasing of a bathhouse is permissible if it is defined and all its equipment is mentioned for named months. This is the opinion of Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the scholars of opinion; because the lessor only takes the wage as compensation for entering the bathhouse and washing with its water, and the states of the Muslims are assumed to be safe and sound; even if some of them commit what is not permissible, the wage taken from him does not become prohibited, just as if he had leased a house to inhabit and then drank wine in it.