Continuation of the discussion on rulings related to leasing.

The questioner : If, Shaykh, some empty houses are still available at the same price that was in effect previously, meaning if a person wants to rent a house in the current situation and finds the same reasonable prices that exist in the market?

The Shaykh : Put yourself in the position of the lessor.

The questioner : He asked me for this kind of rent.

The Shaykh : You put yourself in the position of the lessor.

The questioner : If you hear that your rent is going up, and if you hear... Shaykh, there are currently some empty apartments, and some are leased. He naturally lowered the rent from what it was when he first raised the rent... because he was leasing it for eighty dinars and now he made it seventy dinars. There are empty apartments he wants to lease, so he leases them at the same price in this situation.

The Shaykh : This is a question that is not relevant. We said that the one who rents the house twenty years ago and pays twenty-five dinars now, if he vacates it, does he pay twenty-five?

The questioner : No, Shaykh, it has been five years...

The Shaykh : My brother, we do not want to argue about examples, my brother. The point is to clarify the issue. It is not from twenty-five years ago, it is from five years ago, not from five years ago, it is from two years ago. If he vacates this house and its renter was paying twenty-five, is it leased for twenty-five or twenty-six?

The questioner : No, Shaykh, for twenty-five.

The Shaykh : Okay, when it is in this form, the issue is clear. But is the general case in the matter of rentals like this?

The questioner : Shaykh, could you repeat that?

The Shaykh : I am saying we brought up examples from twenty-five years ago. I said no, the price difference is from five years, of course. No, of course the price differs. We went down to two years. Does it differ or not? The question came: Are the general problems raised now between the lessor and the lessee included in the last example, or the first, or the second?

The questioner : The example... all the examples are one.

The Shaykh : I did not understand me. The last example, the price from two years ago. We do not want to repeat the price that was from two years ago; it is like this now, agreed, of course.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : On your honor... but the price from five years ago, today, if I lose out, he has to increase it, is that not so? And the one from twenty-five years ago.

The questioner : He has to increase it.

The Shaykh : He has to increase it more and more. The problems occurring today between the lessor and the lessee, are they of the last type, where he does not accept the increase, or does he accept the increase?

The questioner : Of the last type, of course.

The Shaykh : I do not think, I do not think. It is just that he did not understand my question. Now, the rentals, the problems that occur between the lessor and the lessee, meaning the price did not change?

The questioner : It did not change, Shaykh. Since two years, it did not change.

The Shaykh : I am not saying from two years and coming. I am saying the problems that occur between the lessor and the lessee, not in the circumstance of two years.

The questioner : Yes, it changed. Yes, it changed, meaning from twenty-five years, it changed.

The Shaykh : No, my brother, may Allah guide us and you. My brother, now if we assume there is a dispute between fifty lessors and fifty lessees, do you think the proportion of the difference between the fifties, do you see, is included in the last type only, or is there a second type, and a first type?

The questioner : All of them, Shaykh, now it will be.

The Shaykh : Here is the answer.

The questioner : In all of them.

The Shaykh : In all of them.

The questioner : Because the one who raised the first thing is the last one.

The Shaykh : So, since we came with a form, which is the last form, minimized, that in the span of two years the same rent is paid now, because there is no difference, but why are we forgetting the differences that they agree are important and have an increase, as long as the reality is that the dispute exists in all its types, not only of the last type.

The questioner : Here our brother Khalid Shahada - wait -

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner : He rented a house two months ago, as far as I know from him, at a very cheap price. Previously it was much more expensive than what he took now.

The Shaykh : We did not differ, my brother. Look, the last number, we signed for you in blank, but the problem is not solved by this example, because it is not the example that occurs in the existing disputes between lessors and lessees, correct?

The questioner : Correct.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.