Islamic Law of Transaction: Simple Loan, Usufruct, and Mere Possession in the Hanafi School

Under the Hanafi view in your textbook, a simple loan for use is associated with usufruct, not merely possession.

A simple loan here means ‘āriyah: the owner allows another person to use an asset without payment, while ownership of the physical asset remains with the owner.

1. Why Is a Simple Loan Usufruct?

Suppose Ali tells Ahmad:

“You may use my bicycle for one week.”

Ali has not sold the bicycle.

So:

Ali → owns the bicycle

But Ali has given Ahmad a legal right to:

ride and benefit from the bicycle for one week

That right to use is the usufruct.

Under the Hanafi position stated in your passage:

The right to use property is treated as ownership of its usufruct.

Therefore:

Simple loan (‘āriyah)

↓

legal right to use

↓

ownership/right of usufruct under the Hanafi approach

So Ahmad has more than mere physical possession.

2. But Ahmad Also Possesses the Bicycle

Yes. Once Ali hands the bicycle to Ahmad, Ahmad normally has both:

Possession → the bicycle is physically under Ahmad’s control.

and

Usufruct → Ahmad has the legal right to ride it.

But these are two different things.

Ahmad’s position

Possession ✅

Usufruct ✅

Ownership of bicycle itself ❌

3. What Would Mere Possession Look Like?

Suppose Ali gives the bicycle to Yusuf and says:

“Please keep this bicycle safely for me while I travel.”

Yusuf physically possesses the bicycle.

But Ali has not given Yusuf permission to ride it.

Therefore:

Yusuf → possession ✅

Yusuf → usufruct ❌

He is only a custodian.

He cannot say:

“Because I have the bicycle, I can ride it.”

So:

Possession tells us who physically holds the asset. Usufruct tells us who legally has the benefit of using it.

4. Simple Loan Compared With Safekeeping

Simple loan

Ali says:

“Use my car for three days.”

Ahmad receives:

possession + legal right to drive

Therefore, under the Hanafi approach:

usufruct exists.

Safekeeping

Ali says:

“Keep my car at your house for three days.”

Ahmad receives:

possession only

He does not receive the right to drive it for himself.

Therefore:

no usufruct merely from possession.

5. What Makes the Difference?

The key is the purpose for which possession was given.

If possession was given so that the person may use and benefit from the asset:

usufruct exists

If possession was given only so that the person may:

• store it,
• protect it,
• repair it,
• transport it,

without personal use:

mere possession exists

6. Example With a Car

Ali owns a car.

Case A — Simple loan

Ali tells Bilal:

“You may use my car for one week.”

Bilal gets:

Car possession

• ●

right to drive it

=

Possession + usufruct

Ali still owns the car itself.

Case B — Mechanic

Ali gives the same car to Hamzah for repairs.

Hamzah gets:

physical possession

But Hamzah cannot use the car for his own holiday.

Therefore:

Possession only

No personal usufruct arises merely because the car is in his workshop.

7. Does the Borrower Own the Usufruct Forever?

No.

His right exists only within the limits of the simple loan.

For example:

“You may use my car for two days.”

means the borrower has the use for:

two days

not permanently.

He must also respect:

• the owner’s conditions,
• the agreed purpose,
• accepted custom,
• Islamic legal rules.

8. Can the Hanafi Borrower Let Someone Else Use It?

According to the Hanafi principle in the passage you provided, the usufruct holder may generally use the benefit himself or transfer its use to another, unless this is prevented:

• expressly by the owner, or
• implicitly by custom or the nature of the arrangement. [1]

Citation [1]: Your passage states that the Hanafis treated the right of use as equivalent to ownership of usufruct and normally allowed the usufruct holder to extract the benefit personally or transfer it, unless the owner or convention prevented this.

Example

Ali says:

“You may borrow my ordinary bicycle for one week.”

Depending on the conditions and custom, Ahmad may have some ability to let another suitable person use it.

But if Ali says:

“Only you may use it,”

then Ahmad must respect that restriction.

9. Easiest Rule to Remember

Simple Loan — ‘Āriyah

“The owner gives me possession so that I may use the asset.”

Therefore:

Possession + right to use = usufruct

Mere Possession

“The owner gives me possession, but not for my own use.”

Therefore:

Possession without right to benefit = no usufruct

One-line Hanafi rule

Under the Hanafi approach, a simple loan creates a legally recognized right of use and therefore usufruct; mere physical holding of the property without a right of personal use is only possession.