(1) What is the ruling on renting out a house in exchange for renting another house?

Question: What do the scholars of Islam say about the following matter: I have my own house in Korangi and I want to rent it out. The person I want to rent it to lives in New Karachi. I will rent their New Karachi house, and the rent for both will not be determined separately; rather, both parties will use each other's houses as rent. Is this permissible?

الْجَوَابُ بِعَوْنِ الْمَلِكِ الْوَهَّابِ اللَّهُمَّ هِدَايَةَ الْحَقِّ وَالصَّوَابِ

Answer: The transaction mentioned in your question, that you want to rent out your own house in Korangi and in return rent the house of the person from New Karachi, while the rent for both will not be determined separately but one's house will be used as rent for the other's, is impermissible. This is because the ruling in the Shariah is that Ijārah (leasing) of benefit for benefit is permissible only when the genus of both benefits is different, such as renting cultivation land in exchange for residence in a house. But if the genus of benefit is the same on both sides, then this is impermissible.

Permissible alternative solution:

In the above-mentioned situation, the Shariah requires that both parties set the monthly rent for their respective houses in the form of a specific amount. At the end of the month, they should settle (exchange) the agreed amount. In this way, this transaction will be in accordance with the principles of Ijārah and there will be no Shariah-related problem. For example, if both parties rent out their respective houses for twenty thousand rupees per month, then at the end of the month, twenty thousand rupees will be due from each to the other. Then each can settle their one thousand against the other's one thousand, balancing the transaction. If the rents are set at a varying amount, then the owner of the house with the higher rent should only take the additional amount. In this way, this Ijarah contract will be in accordance with its principles and there will be no Sharia-related problem.

Imam ꜤAlāˈ al-Dīn al-Haṣkafī, رَحْمَةُ الـلّٰـهِ عَـلَيْه, writes:

(إجارة المنفعةبالمنفعة تجوز إذا اختلفا) جنسا كاستئجار سکنی دار بزراعۃ ارض (واذا اتحدا لا) تجوز کإجارة السکنی بالسكنى

(Ijārah of benefit for benefit is permissible when both differ) in genus, such as renting residence in a home in exchange for cultivation of land. But if the genus of both is the same, then it is not permissible, such as residence in exchange for residence.”[1]

The erudite Hanafi jurist, Mufti Amjad ꜤAlī al-AꜤẓamī رَحْمَةُ الـلّٰـهِ عَـلَيْه writes:

That which can be the price in a sale can also be rent, but it is not necessary that whatever can be rent can also be the price. For example, one benefit can be the rent for another benefit, provided both are of different kinds, but a benefit cannot be the price.[2]

وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ وَرَسُولُهُ أَعْلَم صَلَّى الله عليه واله وسلَّم

(2) What is the ruling on renting a cow to obtain milk?

Question: What do the scholars of Islam say regarding the following matter: A cow is about to give birth. Zayd wants to rent that cow from Bakr for one year for fifty thousand rupees. Zayd's main objective is to obtain milk from this cow and sell it. However, when the cow gives birth, Zayd will look after the calf for two months. After two months, when the calf stops suckling, Zayd will return the calf to Bakr, and all matters of feeding, watering, and looking after the cow will be paid for by Zayd himself. If the cow dies during the year, Zayd will not be held responsible. At the end of the year, Zayd will return the cow to Bakr. Is such a transaction between Zayd and Bakr permissible? Note: Bakr will have no connection with the milk or earnings derived from the milk.

الْجَوَابُ بِعَوْنِ الْمَلِكِ الْوَهَّابِ اللَّهُمَّ هِدَايَةَ الْحَقِّ وَالصَّوَابِ

Answer: According to the scenario described in the question, the agreement between Zayd and Bakr is not permissible in Islamic law because the respected jurists have clarified that renting a cow to obtain milk from it is impermissible. Zayd's purpose in renting the cow from Bakr is to obtain milk and sell it. Renting a cow to acquire milk is impermissible for Zayd.

Ijarah on the consumption of the Ꜥayn (substance itself) is impermissible. It is stated in Radd al-Muḥtār:

الاجارة اذا وقعت على العين لا تصح

An Ijarah contract is not valid if it is upon ]the consumption of[ the substance itself. [Meaning: when Ijarah is based on consuming the substance, it is impermissible[.[3]

The Reviver of Islam, the Imam of Ahl al-Sunnah, Imam Aḥmad Razā Khan رَحْمَةُ الـلّٰـهِ عَـلَيْه, writes:

The general principle is that just as a sale contract pertains to the substance itself (Ꜥayn), similarly, Ijarāh is a contract that pertains purely to benefits, the outcome of which is that the substance itself remains in the ownership of the owner, and the lessee obtains benefit from it. Any Ijārāh specifically pertaining to the consumption of a substance itself is absolutely void.

However, what Shariah has made an exception for, such as the Ijārāh of a wet nurse (for breastfeeding) and so forth, is permissible. Therefore, if a garden is leased for residence, it is permissible; but to consume its fruits is impermissible, because residence is a benefit while fruits are a substance. Leasing a cow for carrying loads is permissible, but for consuming its milk is impermissible, because carrying loads is a benefit while milk is a substance.”[4]

Mufti Amjad ꜤAlī al-AꜤẓamī رَحْمَةُ الـلّٰـهِ عَـلَيْه, states:

Any Ijārah that pertains to the consumption of the substance itself, where the lessee takes possession of the substance itself, is impermissible. For example, if a cow or buffalo is rented out for the lessee to obtain its milk.[5]

وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ وَ رَسُولُهُ أَعْلَم صَلَّى الله عليه واله وسلَّم