如果合约涉及的是物品的使用权益,例如租赁房屋、牲畜、汽车及类似之物,那么所订立合约的标的就是物品的使用权益,而估算相应的工资必然要参照那样一件物品:其使用权益与所租赁之物的使用权益相等。每当物品的租赁完成,承租人便可以获取其所租物品的使用权益:如果他租的是房屋,他可以在其中居住;如果是牲畜或汽车,他就可以骑乘。承租人在占有所租之物后,可以按照他租用时的同样价格,或更多、更少的价格,将其再次出租。这是因为占有所租之物等同于占有其使用权益,其证据是他有权处置它,因此就此物订立合约是被允许的。此外,这也是一种以本金进行的被允许的合约。 然而,如果他是为了获取某种使用权益而租用物品,那么他所获取的只能与该使用权益相当或更少,不能超过这一使用权益。这是因为他不得获取超出其权利的部分,或获取其应得之外的东西。如果他租用牲畜来骑乘,就不允许他在其上装载货物,因为骑乘比装载负担更轻。如果他租用汽车行驶某段距离,就不允许他超出所约定的距离驾驶。如果他租用房屋用于居住,他就不能将其改作存放木材、铁器或类似物品的仓库,因为这种用途对房屋的损害大于居住。 简言之,如果合约针对的是物品本身并以报酬交换,那就是买卖;如果合约针对的是物品的使用权益并以报酬交换,那就是租赁。因此,合约可以只针对物品本身,例如出售一棵已显现出果实优良而未单独出售果实的树;也可以针对物品连同其使用权益,例如出售一幢房屋。 它可以只针对农产品而生，例如出售已显现良好品质的农产品；它也可以针对非实体的利益本身，例如居住于某房屋。若其所针对的利益不被视为一件物品，则这属于租赁而非买卖。正如买下某物的买主拥有该物，并可对其进行各种处置，同样，租用某物的承租人拥有他通过租赁所占有的租用之物，并且一旦接收了该物，他便可对其进行各种处置。这是因为，在租赁物品时接收该物，即等同于接收其利益，其证据是他被允许对其进行处置，因此针对它的契约是被允许的，如同在树上出售果实一样。一旦物品的租赁完成，承租人接收了其利益，承租人便拥有其所租利益的一切伊斯兰法所允许的处置权，因为这是他的所有权。所以他可以按照他认为合适的租金将其再租出，无论达到多少。因此，若他以50的价格租下某物，又以500的价格将其再租出，这是被允许的，因为他拥有该利益，从而拥有将其再租出的权利，依据的是他自己的判断，而非其租入时的价格。 因此，对于仓库、房屋及其他物业所谓的“转让费”——即在规定的租金之外，向从其处租赁的前承租人支付一定数额的款项——是被允许的，其中并无不妥。因为承租人可以将其所租之房屋或仓库以规定的租金，并以高于其租入价格的金额再租给他人。这是被允许的事情，因为允许他以高于或低于租入价格的金额再租出，该契约是以本金进行的合法交易，因此允许其增加，正如出售已占有之货物时可以高于购入价格出售一样。

If the contract comes upon the benefits of things like hiring houses, animals, cars and the like, then that which is contracted upon is the benefit of the thing and estimating the comparable wage inevitably comes by looking to the thing whose benefit equals the benefit of the hired thing. Whenever the hiring of the thing is completed, then the hirer can take the benefit of the thing which he hired; so if he hired a house, he can reside therein or if it was an animal or car, then he can ride it. The hirer can hire the hired thing once he possesses it at the same (amount) he hired it or for more or less. This is because taking possession of the hired thing stands in the place of taking possession of the benefit with the evidence that he is allowed to dispose in it, thus the contract over it is permitted. And also because it is a contract permitted with the capital. However, when he hires the thing for the benefit he can take similar to that benefit or less, but he cannot take more than this same benefit. This is because it is not permitted for him to take more than his right or other than what he deserves. If he hires an animal to ride it, it is not permitted for him to load a burden upon it because riding is lighter than loading. If he hires a car for such a distance, it is not permitted for him to ride it for a greater distance than that which he hired it for. If he hired a house to reside therein, it is not for him to make a storehouse for wood, iron or the like which is of greater harm to the house than residing. In short, if the contract came upon the thing for compensation it is a sale, and if it came upon the benefit of the thing for compensation it is hiring. Accordingly the contract can come upon the thing alone like selling a tree with produce whose goodness has appeared without selling its produce and it can come upon the thing with its benefit like selling a house. And it can come upon the produce alone like selling a produce whose goodness has appeared, and it can come upon non-corporeal benefit itself like residing in a house. If it came upon a benefit which is not considered a thing, it is hiring not a sale. Just as the buyer of the thing owns the thing and disposes therein in all disposals, similarly the hirer of the thing owns the hired thing which he possesses by hiring and he can dispose in it in all disposals once he takes possession of it. This is because taking possession of the thing when it is hired stands the place of taking possession of the benefits with the evidence that he is permitted to dispose therein so the contract over it is permitted like selling the produce upon its tree. Whenever the hiring of the thing is completed and he takes possession of its benefit, the hirer possesses all of the Shari’ah disposals in the thing’s benefit which he hired because it is his ownership. So he can hire it at the wage he considers, whatever (amount) it reaches. So if he hired it for 50 and then hired it (to someone) for 500, it is permitted because he owns the benefit so he owns (the right to) hire it (to someone) according to what he considers not according to what he hired it for. Hence what is termed as Premium/Lease Premium for storehouses, houses and others—which is paying a specific amount of money on top of the decreed wage for the house or storehouse to the first tenant from those who hire from him—is permitted and there is nothing (wrong) in it because the tenant can hire the house or storehouse which is in his hire to another for the decreed wage and for a greater amount than for that which it was hired for.. This is a permitted matter because it is permitted for him to hire out what he hired for more or less than he hired it since it is a contract permitted with the capital so it is permitted for an increase like selling the sold good after he takes possession of it for more than he bought it for.

在租约结束后，将所租之物归还给其所有者，是否为义务？

Herein is a question of delivering the hired thing to the owner after the end of the contract: Is it obligatory or not?

对此的回答是：如果租赁之物仍在他的占有之中，则归还该租赁物对他而言是必须的，依据是艾哈迈德从萨穆拉处所传述的圣训，圣训中先知ﷺ说：

The response upon that is that returning the hired thing is obligatory upon him if the hired thing is in his possession due to what Ahmad narrated from Sumra from the Prophet (saw) who said:

然而，如果所租之物不在其持有之中，则需要进一步考察。如果它是被人强行夺走的，那么应由强夺者将所租之物归还给其所有者，而不是由承租人归还，因为被强夺者才是被命令归还该物的人。艾哈迈德引述自赛growth·本·叶兹德，后者从其父亲处转述说：

Whereas if the hired thing is not in his possession, then it is looked into. If it was seized forcefully from him, it is upon the one who seized by force to return the hired thing to its owner not upon the one who hired it since the one who seized is the one commanded to return the thing. Ahmad has narrated from As-Saib bin Yazid from his father who said:

这是一般性的规定，无论他是从其所有者处取得，还是从他人处取得。然而，如果承租人将所租之物出借给他人，或转租给他人，那么在他与财产所有者之间的合同结束后，他有义务将所租之物交还给其所有者。这是出于圣训的普遍含义：

This is general whether he took it from its owner or from someone else. However, if the hirer lends it to someone else or hires it to him, then after the end of the contract between him and the owner of the property it is obliged upon him to deliver the hired thing to its owner. That is due to the generality of the hadith:

在雇佣或其他方面，并不存在排除这一点的其他文本，也不存在像强占那样的情形。因此，它仍然属于他所说的“直到归还为止”这一普遍之义。不能说这段圣训也涵盖第二个承租人，因为他的手拿了它，所以他有义务归还，于是归还便成为他的责任。之所以不能这样说，是因为这段圣训即便适用于第二个承租人，也不会免除第一个承租人归还所租之物的责任。因此，第一个承租人有义务将所租之物归还给其所有者，第二个承租人有义务将所租之物归还给第一个承租人。第一个承租人归还的义务，并不免除第二个承租人归还的义务。同样，第二个承租人归还的义务，也不免除第一个承租人归还的义务，除非所有者从其报酬中补偿，并将该物交付给他，即第一个承租人。据此，如果某人将房屋出租给另一人，之后他又以更高的租金将其转租给他人，即他收取了所谓的“khalwu rajul”（转租费/租赁溢价），那么当第一个承租人的租期届满时，合同即告终止。此时他便有义务将房屋交还给其所有者，除非所有者与他续订合同，使房屋仍在其支配之下，即便不在其实际占有之中；或者所有者继续与第二个承租人保持合同，从而被视为所有者自己已经收回了房屋。在这种情况下，第一个承租人即免除了交付房屋的责任，并被视为已将房屋交还给所有者，所有者与房屋的关系则转到了第二个承租人身上。

And there does not exist another text in hiring or otherwise excluding it as came in seizing by force. Therefore it remains in the generality of his statement “until he restores it.” It is not said that the hadith also covers the second hirer because his hand took so it is obliged upon him to restore it so restoring becomes due upon him. This is not said because the hadith, even if it applies upon the second hirer, does not annul the first hirer from restoring the hired thing. So it is upon the first hirer to restore the hired thing to its owner, and it is upon the second hirer to restore the hired thing to the first hirer. The obligation of restoring it upon the first hirer does not annul restoring it upon the second hirer. Similarly the obligation of restoring it upon the second hirer does not annul restoring it upon the first hirer, except that the owner is adds from his wage and delivered the thing to him i.e. the first hirer. Accordingly if a person rents a house to another then he rented it to someone else for a greater rent i.e. he took what they call the khalwu rajul (premium/Lease premium) then if the renting period for the first tenant ends the contract ends. It becomes obligatory upon him to deliver the house to its owner except if its owner renews the contract with him so it remains under his authority even if not under his possession. Or its owner continues the contract with the second tenant so it is considered that he himself has taken over the house. At that point the first tenant is acquitted from delivering the house and it is considered that he delivered it to its owner and the owner’s relationship became with the second hirer.