to the original property, when the Prophet ﷺ said, “There should be neither harm nor reciprocating harm” (1)? We reply: there is no wrongful harm here. The seller sold it, and customary practice is that he remains responsible for preserving and tending it until the time of picking. Thus, he has bound himself to that, and has accepted this harm for himself; consequently, he is obliged to bear it.

His statement, “if it needs that,” implies that if it does not need it, he is not obliged to water it. This is correct, contrary to the position of the school in this issue, for they held that he is obliged to water it whether it needs watering or not. The correct view is that he is obliged only if it needs it.

If it is destroyed by a natural calamity, the purchaser may recover from the seller

His statement, “If it is destroyed by a natural calamity,” refers to the fruit. That is, if the fruit is destroyed after having been sold once its soundness has become apparent, by a natural calamity—such as intense heat that spoils the fruit, hail that causes it to fall, or locusts that consume it—then the term “natural calamity” is broader than its wording may suggest. What is meant is anything for which the purchaser cannot hold someone liable, whether it is a natural calamity in which no human agency is involved, or an act of a human being from whom compensation cannot be recovered, either because of his power or because he is unknown. An example is when enemy troops descend upon the area around a town and destroy the orchards: such people cannot be held liable, so their destruction is like loss caused by a natural calamity. This is a sound view.