It is also established in the Sahīh that he ordered payment to be remitted for crops struck by calamities, saying:

“If you sell fruit to your brother and a calamity strikes it, it is not lawful for you to take any of your brother’s money. On what grounds would any of you take his brother’s money without right?”

The position of Mālik and the scholars of Medina on this matter is more consistent with the Sunnah and justice than that of their opponents among the scholars of Kufa and others. Their opponents held that a sale is valid whenever its subject matter exists, whether or not the fruit has begun to show signs of ripeness. They also held that every contract requires possession of the item sold immediately upon its conclusion, and did not permit possession to be deferred. Thus, they said that purchasing fruit is valid whether or not it shows signs of ripeness, but the contract requires it to be picked immediately: the buyer may neither leave it until it fully ripens nor stipulate that he may do so.

They regarded such taking possession as transferring the risk of loss from the seller to the buyer. Applying this principle consistently, they said that selling an item already under lease is invalid because its delivery is deferred. They also said that a sale is impermissible if the seller reserves the use of the item sold, such as riding a camel or living in a house. All these rulings derive from that analogical reasoning.

The scholars of Medina and the scholars of hadith disagreed with them on all these points and followed the authentic texts. Their position also accords with sound and equitable analogical reasoning. To someone who says that a contract requires possession immediately upon its conclusion, the response is: the effect of a contract must derive either from the Lawgiver or from the intention of the contracting party. There is nothing in the Lawgiver’s words to imply that this