The states of Muslims are assumed to be sound, and if a forbidden act is committed by some of them, the wage taken from him does not become forbidden, just as if he had leased a house to inhabit and then drank wine in it.

894 - Issue: He said: "The owner of the property may not dispose of it until the period has expired."

I interpret this to mean that the lessee owns the usufruct through the contract, just as the purchaser owns the sold item through a sale, and the lessor's ownership of it terminates, just as the seller's ownership of the sold item terminates. [Thus, he may not dispose of it, for it has become owned by another, just as the seller may not dispose of the sold item]. If he does dispose of it, we examine the situation: if this happens in a circumstance where it becomes apparent to the lessee before the term has expired—such as if he leases a house for a year, resides in it for a month, then leaves it, and the owner resides in it for the remainder of the year or leases it to another—it is possible that the contract is rescinded regarding what the owner has utilized, because he is disposing of it before the lessee has taken possession of it; this is similar to the case where a measured commodity is destroyed before delivery, while the remainder is delivered. According to this view, if the owner disposes of it during part of the term but not the other, the contract is rescinded for the portion he disposed of, but not for the portion he did not dispose of, and the lessee remains liable for the remainder. Thus, if the lessee resided for one month, left it for one month, and the owner resided in it for ten months, the lessee is liable for two months' rent. If he resided in it for a month, and the owner resided in it for two months and then abandoned it, the lessee is liable for ten months' rent. It is also possible that the lessee remains liable for the rent of the entire term, and he has a claim against the owner for the fair rental value (ajr al-mithl) for what the owner resided in or disposed of, proportional to the rent the lessee is liable for, and he remains responsible for the remainder; this is because he disposed of what the lessee possessed without his permission, resembling the case where one disposes of a sold item after the purchaser has taken possession of it. Possession of the house here takes the place of possession of the usufruct, evidenced by the fact that he has the right to dispose of the usufruct through residence, leasing, and other means. Based on this, if the fair rental value owed by the owner were equal to the amount stipulated in the contract, nothing would be owed by the lessee, and if there were any surplus, the owner would be obligated to pay it to the lessee. The first view is preferable, and it is the apparent position of the Shafi'i school. If the owner disposes of it before delivery of the object, or refuses to deliver it until the lease term has expired, the lease is rescinded by necessity, because the contracting party has destroyed the object of the contract before its delivery, so the contract is rescinded, just as if he had sold him food and destroyed it before delivery. If he delivers it to him during the term, it is rescinded for the past, and the rent for the remainder is due proportionally, like a sold item if part is delivered and part is destroyed.

895 - Issue: He said: "If the owner removes him before the period expires, he is not entitled to rent for the period he resided in it."

Meaning, if he leases a property for a term, resides in it for part of the term, and then the owner evicts him and prevents him from completing the residence, he is not entitled to any of the rent. The majority of jurists say: He is entitled to rent for the period he resided, because he utilized the property of another by way of exchange, so he is liable for its compensation, like a sold item if he utilizes part of it and the owner prevents him from the remainder, and like the case if the fulfillment of the remainder becomes impossible due to an overwhelming circumstance (amr ghalib). Our position is that he did not deliver to him what the lease was contracted upon, so he is not entitled to anything, just as if he had leased him to carry a book [to a location], and he carried it for part of the way, or leased him to dig twenty cubits, and he dug ten and refused to dig the rest. An analogy of a lease to a lease is more appropriate than an analogy to a sale. It differs from the case where he refuses due to an overwhelming circumstance, because in that case, there is an excuse. The ruling is the same for someone who hires a riding animal, and the lessor refuses...