A question related to the previous issue of the khulu?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Shaykh, so we say that paying the khulu reduces the value of the monthly rent... instead of the rent being two to three thousand riyals per month, he takes a khulu upfront and reduces the rent to five hundred dinars. So, financially speaking, is it the same thing?
The Shaykh : It is not the same thing.
The questioner : Yes?
The Shaykh : It is not the same thing. If it were the same thing, it would be mere circular reasoning, but it is not the same thing. The proof is that if it were the same thing, let us do an approximate calculation: if the khulu is added to the rent, and the rent is, for example, five hundred, what would the rent become? One thousand, is that not so? For example.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Well, why doesn't he rent it out in advance? He says, "This is the rent for the property." If it is like part of it, why doesn't he do it this way?
The questioner : ... He takes the capital from the beginning and invests it elsewhere.
The Shaykh : There is also an answer to this.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : He takes the capital and receives from it the rent for five years.
The questioner : Yes...
The Shaykh : Upfront, in advance. This is pure and lawful, but they do not do it this way because their goal is to firmly control people. And you perhaps know better than I do: when I rent this property from you and pay a khulu of five thousand, it is possible that one day I am forced to vacate this place. Either I vacate against my will and travel or move to another place, and you benefit from the high price a second time, or you say to me, "My brother, I paid you the khulu, so I must take the khulu now." Then the khulu I paid you, which was five thousand, will become ten thousand, and this will lead to... a dispute between the landlord and the tenant. But if the matter were clear and explicit, my brother, the rent for the property is so much per year, then you either make it a station for a five-year rental period or one year. When the five years are over, we can continue with this rate of rent, or increase or decrease it according to what we agree upon. If people did it this way, they would be saved from many, many problems and disputes. Therefore, do not think that the issue is the same whether one takes a khulu and reduces the rent, or takes a higher rent but does not take a khulu; they are not the same. We have this problem in the Levant, perhaps like you or more than you. So, after thinking about the matter, some people said to me, "We take a khulu as a precaution, because this man might do whatever Allah wills in this property, and then he wants to hand the property over to another man, and the law helps him. And at that point, I become outside [of control], so I control him before he controls me... I impose this khulu on him, and then if he is able to overcome me through the existing system, which is of course not Islamic, I will have secured for myself in advance something of..."
In summary, the matter is clearer than it needs to be discussed, because when you call it "khulu", it is not a khulu. What is the value of a thing that is nothing? The value of a thing that is nothing is nothing. The khulu is the rent that enables the tenant to benefit from it. So either we say that the rent does not enable its payer to benefit from the vacancy of the property, and this is false speech, or we say—and this is the truth—that the khulu is not the price of benefiting from this vacancy, because we obtained it through the lease. So it is certainly, except in the first case, from the category of[Al-Baqarah 2:188].
The Shaykh : It is not the same thing.
The questioner : Yes?
The Shaykh : It is not the same thing. If it were the same thing, it would be mere circular reasoning, but it is not the same thing. The proof is that if it were the same thing, let us do an approximate calculation: if the khulu is added to the rent, and the rent is, for example, five hundred, what would the rent become? One thousand, is that not so? For example.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Well, why doesn't he rent it out in advance? He says, "This is the rent for the property." If it is like part of it, why doesn't he do it this way?
The questioner : ... He takes the capital from the beginning and invests it elsewhere.
The Shaykh : There is also an answer to this.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : He takes the capital and receives from it the rent for five years.
The questioner : Yes...
The Shaykh : Upfront, in advance. This is pure and lawful, but they do not do it this way because their goal is to firmly control people. And you perhaps know better than I do: when I rent this property from you and pay a khulu of five thousand, it is possible that one day I am forced to vacate this place. Either I vacate against my will and travel or move to another place, and you benefit from the high price a second time, or you say to me, "My brother, I paid you the khulu, so I must take the khulu now." Then the khulu I paid you, which was five thousand, will become ten thousand, and this will lead to... a dispute between the landlord and the tenant. But if the matter were clear and explicit, my brother, the rent for the property is so much per year, then you either make it a station for a five-year rental period or one year. When the five years are over, we can continue with this rate of rent, or increase or decrease it according to what we agree upon. If people did it this way, they would be saved from many, many problems and disputes. Therefore, do not think that the issue is the same whether one takes a khulu and reduces the rent, or takes a higher rent but does not take a khulu; they are not the same. We have this problem in the Levant, perhaps like you or more than you. So, after thinking about the matter, some people said to me, "We take a khulu as a precaution, because this man might do whatever Allah wills in this property, and then he wants to hand the property over to another man, and the law helps him. And at that point, I become outside [of control], so I control him before he controls me... I impose this khulu on him, and then if he is able to overcome me through the existing system, which is of course not Islamic, I will have secured for myself in advance something of..."
In summary, the matter is clearer than it needs to be discussed, because when you call it "khulu", it is not a khulu. What is the value of a thing that is nothing? The value of a thing that is nothing is nothing. The khulu is the rent that enables the tenant to benefit from it. So either we say that the rent does not enable its payer to benefit from the vacancy of the property, and this is false speech, or we say—and this is the truth—that the khulu is not the price of benefiting from this vacancy, because we obtained it through the lease. So it is certainly, except in the first case, from the category of