What is the legal ruling if the purpose of leasing currency is stated vaguely (i.e., without specifying weighing or ornamentation)?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Leasing
Primary text
If the leasing contract is made without specifying the purpose, the contract is valid according to Abu Al-Khattab. The benefit is understood to be for either weighing or ornamentation, as these two permissible uses are closely related. This is analogous to leasing a house without specification, which generally covers both residence and storage. The correct approach is to uphold the contract when it is possible to interpret it validly, as this is preferred over invalidating it.
Supporting text
Al-Qadi states that such a lease is invalid and should be interpreted as a loan (qard), aligning with the view of Abu Hanifa, because the customary benefit of dirhams and dinars involves their substance, which is typically realized through lending (which functions as a loan of substance). The Shafi'is argue against both validity and interpretation as a loan, asserting that because ornamentation diminishes the coin's substance while weighing does not, the differing nature of the benefits prevents unrestricted leasing. Furthermore, they reject equating lease with loan because a lease requires the asset's preservation while a loan involves transferring ownership.