If the route does not have a custom, and they leave the contract absolute, the Qadi said: It is not valid, just as if they left the price absolute in a town where there is no known custom. The more preferred view is that this is not a condition, because if it were a condition, the contract would not be valid without it on a dangerous route, and because the custom has not been to specify the estimation of travel on a route; whenever they differ, it is referred to custom in other than that route.

Section: If he stipulates carrying a specified provision, such as one hundred ratls, we examine it: if he stipulates that he may replace what is lost from it due to eating or otherwise, he has that right. If he stipulates that what is lost due to eating is not to be replaced, he does not have the right to replace it. But if it is lost through other than eating, such as theft or falling, he may replace it, because that was not included in his stipulation. If he leaves the contract absolute, he has the right to replace what is lost due to theft, falling, or unusual eating, without disagreement. If it decreases due to customary eating, he may also replace it, because he is entitled to carry a known amount, so he owns the right to replace what is lost from it, just as if it were lost due to theft. It is possible that he does not own the right to replace it, because the custom is that provisions decrease, and they are not replaced, so the contract in its absolute state is interpreted according to custom, and it becomes as if it were explicitly stated. Al-Shafi'i said: The analogy is that he has the right to replace it. And if it were said: he has no right to replace it, that would be a school of thought, because the custom is that the provision does not last for the entire distance, and for that reason, its rent is less than the rent of merchandise.

Section: If he hires a camel to perform Hajj on it, he has the right to ride it to Mecca, and from Mecca to Arafat, and to travel on it to Mina; because it is part of the completion of the Hajj. It has been said: He does not have the right to ride to Mina, because it is after the deconsecration (tahallul) from Hajj. The preferred view is that he has the right to do so, because it is part of the completion of the Hajj and its dependencies, and for this reason, it is obligatory for those upon whom it is incumbent, not others; therefore, it is included in the saying of God Almighty: {And [due] to Allah from the people is a pilgrimage to the House - for whoever is able to find thereto a way}. Whoever hires it only to Mecca, he does not have the right to ride for the Hajj, because it is an addition. It is possible that he has the right to do so, because the hire to Mecca is an expression for the hire for Hajj, given that it is not hired to go there except for Hajj in most cases, so it is in the position of one hired for Hajj.