New questions on the issue of khulu and the Shaykh’s answers to them.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner: Excuse me, Shaykh, please, go ahead. You told us that it is not permissible for the owner of a new building to take a khulu fee, considering that... the shop... but the new tenant might sublet it. He rents this shop, and after a month or three months, he receives an offer to vacate the shop, so this new tenant earns a sum of money that might be large, more than what the building owner received?
The Shaykh: And where were you? I mentioned this in my speech. I mentioned this in my speech just now, is that not so?
The questioner: Excuse me... it is permissible, but only if it is agreed upon...?
The Shaykh: No, no, I meant, how do we justify the khulu fee in our region of Sham? Because the first tenant might sublet to someone else, so he vacates it for another and takes a khulu fee more than what he paid, do you understand? I mentioned this. But I said there: to ensure the tenant does not exploit the landlord, we impose a pledge on him. A pledge that I do not deserve, and I do not eat from it, and I do not benefit from a single coin of it, except when he breaches the agreed-upon conditions, so he continues to deal with my property as if he were the owner; at that point, I take this pledge in compensation for the harm he caused me; because he invoked the law of the disbelievers against me. As for the khulu fee, there is no basis for it, not at all.
The questioner: Shaykh, suppose it is a new building, to avoid the process of khulu, he says: I will rent it for, say, five hundred dinars, but I will take an advance of two hundred and fifty... for five years... and you pay me two hundred and fifty monthly. In this case, two hundred and fifty monthly for five years, is it permissible to give it to me in one lump sum, and the rest two hundred and fifty every month...?
The Shaykh: The rest, what is the rest?
The questioner: The rent is five hundred dinars monthly.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner: Based on the fact that the building is new, and the shop is five hundred dinars, but in the contract he states that he paid half the rent, to be paid upon taking possession of the shop for these five years, and the rest two hundred and fifty every month.
The Shaykh: Yes, and if you mean he took from the property owner an advance of two and a half years' rent.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Are not all roads leading to the mill?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Okay, so for example, we said two years or three, is there a difference in your view?
The questioner: No, it is the same thing.
The Shaykh: Why did you assume half? Because I fear there is something behind the veil.
The questioner: ... May you be safe, meaning the whole process... .
The Shaykh: And may I be safe, may I be safe and may you be safe, but this is a scholarly discussion, we need to see what it means, what is the difference? Why did you assume half, I mean?
The questioner: No, Shaykh, I... the man.
The Shaykh: My brother, I am not blaming you or taking you to task, do not be offended, this is a discussion, because when you say may you be safe.
The questioner : May Allah keep you safe.
The Shaykh: Did you notice anything, I mean, when you assumed half?
The questioner: No, may you be safe, the whole subject that I imagine... is that based on the fact that he wants to take the khulu... we take the money for half of these five years?
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner: Half the rent, is this permissible in this case?
The Shaykh: Yes, if it is movable, meaning he took two and a half years' rent, it is permissible.
The questioner : Yes, it is permissible.
The Shaykh: If he took an advance of two and a half or three years' rent.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Not the rent for half of five years, because I am afraid of too much twisting and turning, and we said this just now to the brotherThe questioner : here, do you not remember?
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner: It differs.
The Shaykh: No, it does not differ, in what he says it does not differ.
The questioner: ... the advance for five years.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: No... it is a form, a form of pledge, but he takes cash for five years' rent, four years, ten years, as they agree, there is no objection, we said this just now.
Another questioner: - Also - Shaykh.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner: He pays exceeding... .
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner: In this case, if we say he took an advance of two and a half or three years' rent.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner: And - also - with... he will pay monthly rent in addition to this amount... .
The Shaykh : Who is he?
The questioner: The virtual world that... .
The Shaykh: The tenant?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: No, he assumed that he pays in cash.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Cash for half the rent, meaning instead of paying within the period of five years' rent, he pays half of five years' rent, and during each month he pays half a month's rent.
The questioner: Is not this the point where I objected to the question and what is behind the question?
The Shaykh: Yes, but I do not yet see what is behind it?
The questioner: Because it might go... .
Another questioner: Leave the years out of theThe Shaykh : numbers, for example, the rent for the year is ten thousand, five fifty, what is the difference if I come to the shepherd of the... .
The Shaykh: The shop.
The questioner: The shop, and he conditions that I pay twenty-five thousand as an advance, and twenty-five thousand for the rest.
The Shaykh: Every month.
The questioner: Every month two hundred and fifty.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: This is a case.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: Is this permissible?
The Shaykh: I see no difference, but he frightened me.
The questioner: Fine, this is one... .
The Shaykh: Abu Khalid brought me that he has a note.
The questioner: No... the issue, if he took an advance, then it is required that the tenant does not pay his rent monthly... for the period he paid for three years.
The Shaykh: Of course.
The questioner: This is one.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: And if, for example, he pays part of the money, he pays half the rent, which is less than the actual rent of the property.
The Shaykh: No, why is it less?
The questioner: Yes, because... .
The Shaykh: This is the form that Abdullah is bringing up.
The questioner: The question Muhammad asked is clear.
The Shaykh: It is itself.
The questioner: That one rents a building shop, he takes from the shop for five years, the year is ten thousand, fifty thousand, the shop owner finds it heavy for the tenant to pay fifty thousand at once, he tells him give me twenty-five thousand, and the second twenty-five thousand is paid in monthly installments, correct? He might tell him give me twenty-five thousand, and you do not pay anything for two and a half years, and after two and a half years you start paying fifty thousand every month, ten thousand every year.
The Shaykh: This is one form and that is another form.
The questioner : The Shaykh :
The Shaykh: But what is the difference?
The questioner: I have a point, actually.
The Shaykh : Bring it so we can see.
The questioner: If he paid monthly rent and took half, the tenant took half the agreed period, it follows that the rent should be half its actual rent, because this shop in the building might have an actual or known rent, for example, two hundred and fifty dinars, so here the property owner or the tenant or the landlord borrows or adds, saying my property's rent is five hundred dinars, and I take from you for three years half the rent in advance and the half is two hundred and fifty dinars, while the actual rent of the location is two hundred and fifty, not five hundred.
The Shaykh: Yes, but... .
The questioner: Here it is a kind of... .
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : Understood.
The Shaykh: But this - Abu Khalid - if we now assume the form includes a clarifying addition, which is that I rented you this property for five years, for five years.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: At an annual rent of five hundred, and the form he proposed, would the matter differ for you?
The questioner: No, this does not differ.
The Shaykh: That is it, so the issue has no relation to this form.
The questioner : ... .
Another questioner: There is an issue Abu Khalid is discussing that sometimes I am a tenant from someone for the building before five years, and it became... a new shop, I am renting for fifty, but now prices have risen, so the rent became five hundred.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: So you find in the same building.
The Shaykh: ... there is a difference.
The questioner: Yes, and a contract for five hundred, is there anything religiously wrong with this?
The Shaykh : Here I am returning to the point of why I placed this condition; because I understood where he is aiming. So, if we agree that the annual rent for this property for ten years is five hundred, and if the rent for such a property becomes five thousand, do you want to keep taking five hundred from me, or do I take five hundred from you? Why? But when the agreed period passes, whether it is ten years, five years, or one year, after that each of us is free from the other, and neither can impose anything on the other. If I am the owner of the property and I agreed with you that the annual rent is, for example, five hundred, but after the year passes, I am not bound to you, and you are not bound to me. The year has ended, and the annual rent for the property has become five thousand instead of five hundred. At that point, it is a new contract, as if you had not rented from me and I had not rented to you. If you agree to pay the market rate, that is fine and good; otherwise, you leave the place, despite your nose, considering that you are a Muslim holding fast to . As for when we agreed on a long-term period with a low rent, but prices have risen, the owner of the property does not have the right to impose an increase on the tenant, even a relative one. Rather, it is a matter of what? The noble qualities of character. He will say, "My brother, you see the situation is such and such." If the tenant is willing to increase the rent, he increases it; otherwise, the lessor has no right to impose any increase on him.
The Shaykh : And the reverse is the same. If we suppose that rents have dropped, if we suppose that rents have dropped, and although we have not seen this yet! But from the Sharia perspective, the owner of the property is not obligated to return the difference to him, because they agreed on this.
The Shaykh: And where were you? I mentioned this in my speech. I mentioned this in my speech just now, is that not so?
The questioner: Excuse me... it is permissible, but only if it is agreed upon...?
The Shaykh: No, no, I meant, how do we justify the khulu fee in our region of Sham? Because the first tenant might sublet to someone else, so he vacates it for another and takes a khulu fee more than what he paid, do you understand? I mentioned this. But I said there: to ensure the tenant does not exploit the landlord, we impose a pledge on him. A pledge that I do not deserve, and I do not eat from it, and I do not benefit from a single coin of it, except when he breaches the agreed-upon conditions, so he continues to deal with my property as if he were the owner; at that point, I take this pledge in compensation for the harm he caused me; because he invoked the law of the disbelievers against me. As for the khulu fee, there is no basis for it, not at all.
The questioner: Shaykh, suppose it is a new building, to avoid the process of khulu, he says: I will rent it for, say, five hundred dinars, but I will take an advance of two hundred and fifty... for five years... and you pay me two hundred and fifty monthly. In this case, two hundred and fifty monthly for five years, is it permissible to give it to me in one lump sum, and the rest two hundred and fifty every month...?
The Shaykh: The rest, what is the rest?
The questioner: The rent is five hundred dinars monthly.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner: Based on the fact that the building is new, and the shop is five hundred dinars, but in the contract he states that he paid half the rent, to be paid upon taking possession of the shop for these five years, and the rest two hundred and fifty every month.
The Shaykh: Yes, and if you mean he took from the property owner an advance of two and a half years' rent.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Are not all roads leading to the mill?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Okay, so for example, we said two years or three, is there a difference in your view?
The questioner: No, it is the same thing.
The Shaykh: Why did you assume half? Because I fear there is something behind the veil.
The questioner: ... May you be safe, meaning the whole process... .
The Shaykh: And may I be safe, may I be safe and may you be safe, but this is a scholarly discussion, we need to see what it means, what is the difference? Why did you assume half, I mean?
The questioner: No, Shaykh, I... the man.
The Shaykh: My brother, I am not blaming you or taking you to task, do not be offended, this is a discussion, because when you say may you be safe.
The questioner : May Allah keep you safe.
The Shaykh: Did you notice anything, I mean, when you assumed half?
The questioner: No, may you be safe, the whole subject that I imagine... is that based on the fact that he wants to take the khulu... we take the money for half of these five years?
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner: Half the rent, is this permissible in this case?
The Shaykh: Yes, if it is movable, meaning he took two and a half years' rent, it is permissible.
The questioner : Yes, it is permissible.
The Shaykh: If he took an advance of two and a half or three years' rent.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Not the rent for half of five years, because I am afraid of too much twisting and turning, and we said this just now to the brotherThe questioner : here, do you not remember?
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner: It differs.
The Shaykh: No, it does not differ, in what he says it does not differ.
The questioner: ... the advance for five years.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: No... it is a form, a form of pledge, but he takes cash for five years' rent, four years, ten years, as they agree, there is no objection, we said this just now.
Another questioner: - Also - Shaykh.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner: He pays exceeding... .
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner: In this case, if we say he took an advance of two and a half or three years' rent.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner: And - also - with... he will pay monthly rent in addition to this amount... .
The Shaykh : Who is he?
The questioner: The virtual world that... .
The Shaykh: The tenant?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: No, he assumed that he pays in cash.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Cash for half the rent, meaning instead of paying within the period of five years' rent, he pays half of five years' rent, and during each month he pays half a month's rent.
The questioner: Is not this the point where I objected to the question and what is behind the question?
The Shaykh: Yes, but I do not yet see what is behind it?
The questioner: Because it might go... .
Another questioner: Leave the years out of theThe Shaykh : numbers, for example, the rent for the year is ten thousand, five fifty, what is the difference if I come to the shepherd of the... .
The Shaykh: The shop.
The questioner: The shop, and he conditions that I pay twenty-five thousand as an advance, and twenty-five thousand for the rest.
The Shaykh: Every month.
The questioner: Every month two hundred and fifty.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: This is a case.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: Is this permissible?
The Shaykh: I see no difference, but he frightened me.
The questioner: Fine, this is one... .
The Shaykh: Abu Khalid brought me that he has a note.
The questioner: No... the issue, if he took an advance, then it is required that the tenant does not pay his rent monthly... for the period he paid for three years.
The Shaykh: Of course.
The questioner: This is one.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: And if, for example, he pays part of the money, he pays half the rent, which is less than the actual rent of the property.
The Shaykh: No, why is it less?
The questioner: Yes, because... .
The Shaykh: This is the form that Abdullah is bringing up.
The questioner: The question Muhammad asked is clear.
The Shaykh: It is itself.
The questioner: That one rents a building shop, he takes from the shop for five years, the year is ten thousand, fifty thousand, the shop owner finds it heavy for the tenant to pay fifty thousand at once, he tells him give me twenty-five thousand, and the second twenty-five thousand is paid in monthly installments, correct? He might tell him give me twenty-five thousand, and you do not pay anything for two and a half years, and after two and a half years you start paying fifty thousand every month, ten thousand every year.
The Shaykh: This is one form and that is another form.
The questioner : The Shaykh :
The Shaykh: But what is the difference?
The questioner: I have a point, actually.
The Shaykh : Bring it so we can see.
The questioner: If he paid monthly rent and took half, the tenant took half the agreed period, it follows that the rent should be half its actual rent, because this shop in the building might have an actual or known rent, for example, two hundred and fifty dinars, so here the property owner or the tenant or the landlord borrows or adds, saying my property's rent is five hundred dinars, and I take from you for three years half the rent in advance and the half is two hundred and fifty dinars, while the actual rent of the location is two hundred and fifty, not five hundred.
The Shaykh: Yes, but... .
The questioner: Here it is a kind of... .
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : Understood.
The Shaykh: But this - Abu Khalid - if we now assume the form includes a clarifying addition, which is that I rented you this property for five years, for five years.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: At an annual rent of five hundred, and the form he proposed, would the matter differ for you?
The questioner: No, this does not differ.
The Shaykh: That is it, so the issue has no relation to this form.
The questioner : ... .
Another questioner: There is an issue Abu Khalid is discussing that sometimes I am a tenant from someone for the building before five years, and it became... a new shop, I am renting for fifty, but now prices have risen, so the rent became five hundred.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: So you find in the same building.
The Shaykh: ... there is a difference.
The questioner: Yes, and a contract for five hundred, is there anything religiously wrong with this?
The Shaykh : Here I am returning to the point of why I placed this condition; because I understood where he is aiming.
The believers are bound by their conditions.
المؤمنون عند شروطهمThe believers are bound by their conditions.
المؤمنون عند شروطهمThe believers are bound by their conditions.
المؤمنون عند شروطهمThe Shaykh : And the reverse is the same. If we suppose that rents have dropped, if we suppose that rents have dropped, and although we have not seen this yet! But from the Sharia perspective, the owner of the property is not obligated to return the difference to him, because they agreed on this.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.