had been given to him to repay his debt. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: ‘Take what you find; you are entitled to nothing more.’” They argued that, had he been entitled to seek compensation from the seller, the Prophet would have told him so.

As we have said, this provides no evidence for their position, since it recounts an action and concerns a particular case. The fruit may have been damaged after it had been harvested; the damage may have affected less than one third; or the loss may have resulted from theft or some other circumstance that would not entitle the buyer to seek compensation from the seller. Alternatively, the seller may not have been found or may have had no funds. Since the hadith admits these possibilities, it cannot serve as evidence for their argument.

They also cited the report that “a man purchased the fruit of an orchard, laboured over it and tended it until the loss became apparent to him. He asked the orchard’s owner to reduce the price or release him from the sale, but the owner swore that he would not. The buyer’s mother went to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and told him about this. The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: ‘He has sworn not to do good!’ The orchard’s owner heard this, came to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and said: ‘Messenger of Allah, he may have it.’” … It is not reported that he compelled him to do so. Rather, the apparent meaning of his words, “He has sworn not to do good,” is that this was voluntary.

This likewise provides no evidence for their position, because the report does not mention that a calamity struck the fruit. It may simply have been a financial loss resulting from a change in market prices. Indeed, this is the apparent meaning of the words, “He laboured over it and tended it until the loss became apparent to him.” This imposes no obligation on the seller.

They also supported their position by drawing an analogy with merchandise and livestock. This analogy does not hold, because, once possession of merchandise or livestock has been taken, the seller has no outstanding obligation to complete delivery. Fruit is different: the seller still has an obligation to complete its delivery. The evidence for this is the agreed ruling that, if the fruit were damaged through lack of water, the seller would bear the loss. Merely making the fruit available to the buyer therefore does not constitute full possession. If the buyer took possession simply by its being made available to him, he would bear the risk of its loss, as with a slave or a garment.

Section

As for the circumstances in which such a reduction is granted, a reduction for calamity damage must be granted when the fruit is damaged at a stage when it still needs to remain on the trees. This is because a reduction for calamity damage to fruit is required only