What is the ruling on the "leasing" contract that combines debt and usury, with conditions such as the buyer bearing the maintenance of the commodity, prohibiting its disposal before full payment of the price, calculating payments with usurious increments, adding a 5% penalty for late payment, and the possibility of repossessing the commodity in case of non-payment, all under circumstances that protect the buyer from confiscation of his funds? And do extenuating circumstances permit changing some Sharia rulings, as Umar ibn al-Khattab did with the Hadd punishment for theft during the Year of Ash?

Firstly: Purchasing goods through a bank has two forms: The first is when the bank is merely a financier, and this is forbidden because it is an interest-based (riba) loan. The second is when the bank buys the commodity and then sells it to the client for a higher deferred price, which is known as murabaha sale for the one who commands the purchase, and this is permissible.

Secondly: It is permissible for the bank to retain the documents related to the commodity until the client pays all installments, and this is a permissible pledge (rahn).

Thirdly: The client is responsible for guaranteeing and maintaining the commodity after acquiring ownership. They are prohibited from selling it if it is pledged to the bank, except with the bank's permission.

Fourthly: It is not permissible for the bank to stipulate interest or a penalty for late payment of installments. However, dealing with the bank with this usurious condition is permissible out of necessity, such as the inability to cancel the condition or fear of the state seizing funds.

Fifthly: It is not permissible to explicitly state the interest in the contract; rather, it should be included within the total price of the commodity.

Sixthly: The lease-to-own contract in the described form is not permissible.