a man engages in is futile, except shooting with his bow, training his horse, and playfully engaging with his wife, for these are legitimate pursuits.” Such pastime thereby becomes legitimate.

It is well known that the harm people would suffer from prohibiting these transactions is greater than the feared risk that they might engender hatred or lead to the consumption of wealth without right. This is because, as explained above, the undue uncertainty involved is slight, while the need for these transactions is pressing. A pressing need offsets slight undue uncertainty. The entire Sacred Law is founded upon the principle that when the harm warranting prohibition is outweighed by a greater need, what would otherwise be prohibited becomes permissible. How much more so when that harm is altogether absent?

Thus, when there was a need for fruit sold on the tree to remain there until it became fully ripe, the Sacred Law permitted this. The majority of scholars hold this position, as we shall establish its governing principle—Allah Most High willing. For this reason, the school of the people of Medina and the hadith jurists holds that if the fruit is destroyed by a crop disaster after the sale, the loss falls upon the seller. Muslim relates in his Sahīh from Jābir ibn Abd Allah that the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—said: “If you sell your brother fruit and it is then struck by a crop disaster, it is not lawful for you to take anything from him. On what basis would you take your brother’s wealth without right?” In another version narrated from him by Muslim: “The Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—ordered that losses caused by crop disasters be remitted.”

Since this hadith had not reached al-Shāfiī—may Allah have mercy on him—and only a hadith transmitted by Sufyān ibn Uyaynah, in which he was inconsistent, had reached him, he adopted the position of the Kufans on this matter: the loss falls upon the buyer because the item sold perished after possession had been taken, since leaving the buyer free to take it constitutes possession. This is more consistent with the Kufans’ foundational principle;