The ruling on demanding a specific amount daily from a taxi driver, and that any shortfall is his responsibility

The questioner : How?

The Shaykh : Is it like what some people are doing now in limousines? Yes, he says, “Take this, what is it? Bring me, for example, three hundred today, and whatever is more is yours.” Is that permissible? Yes, it is permissible. But if he said, “And whatever is less is on you,” that is not permissible. Because it is not possible to combine for this worker the work and the fatigue with the loss. Is that clear, people? It is as if you are walking in darkness. Now, a man has a car and comes to a man and says, “O so-and-so, take this car, use it today, yes. Three hundred riyals, and whatever is more is yours.” That is fine. But if he said, “And whatever is less is on you,” it would be forbidden, it would be forbidden. Is that clear now? Good.

The questioner : Shaykh.

The Shaykh : How is it not empty?

The questioner : Good, this is three hundred riyals. Yes. Good, Allah gave us two hundred.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Good, come.

The Shaykh : Like the partner in a profit-sharing partnership, the partner in a profit-sharing partnership may toil and travel here and there and not earn, like a deluded person completely. But the prohibited thing is to say, “And whatever is less is on you,” this is not permissible, yes.

The questioner : What?

The Shaykh : This is a trust. This is a trust. If we said that every possibility that the mind can conceive invalidates contracts, no person would have a contract. No, no, it is not permissible. But it has a parallel. Perhaps you want this: if one agrees with a contractor to build him a house and specifies the period as six months, for example, and says, “If you do not complete the house in these six months, then whatever is more is on you, a loss of one hundred riyals every day,” is that permissible or not? No, this requires a distinction. If the period is specified and this work can be completed within it, there is no harm, in order to warn against negligence and tampering. But if the period is imaginary.
By saying, “Build me this building to be ten floors, in each floor ten apartments, in each apartment ten rooms, in each room ten bathrooms, yes, the period is six months, is that permissible? No, it is not permissible. That means this is like gambling. That means we returned to the car? Good. Good. Leave it, yes.
No, it is not possible. They agreed that he brings three hundred riyals every day, he must bring it to you, and if it is less, it is on him. But if he said, “Whatever is less is on you,” it would be harm.

The questioner : Shaykh, if we made it a lease, meaning he leases a car for three hundred riyals a day, whatever profit he makes.

The Shaykh : There is nothing wrong with it, this is like the others.

The questioner : This is the result. Why can’t this result be between the limousine owner and the scholar? He says, “I lease you a car for three hundred million.”

The Shaykh : No, no. The car, as we know, the decoration of the car is at the expense of the man, meaning everything is on the man, even if it is damaged.

The questioner : This is my friend.

The Shaykh : Everything is on its owner. Yes.

The questioner : Yes, as mentioned, it is consistent by analogy with the profit-sharing partnership.

The Shaykh : If he said.

The questioner : And someone said, “It is not consistent to analogize it to the profit-sharing partnership, and it is required that the profit be shared and unknown.”

The Shaykh : No, the intention of the profit-sharing partnership is, if the owner of the capital says, “If you lose, then the loss is on you,” this is the issue of the analogy.