and was not at fault; thus, if it perished, the seller bore the loss. For this reason, fruit that perishes after the buyer has neglected to take possession is at his risk. Likewise, a slave or riding animal that he has had the opportunity to take possession of is at his risk, according to the reports of Alī and Ibn Umar.

Whoever makes the right to dispose of property dependent on liability for its loss is mistaken. Scholars agree that if the benefits conferred by a lease are lost before the lessee has the opportunity to enjoy them, the lessor bears the loss. Nevertheless, the lessee may sublet at the same rent. They disagree only over subletting at a higher rent, lest this constitute profit from something for which one bears no liability. The correct view is that this is permissible, because the lessee does bear liability for those benefits: if they are lost when he has had the opportunity to enjoy them, he bears the loss; but if they are lost before he has had that opportunity, he does not.

This is also the underlying principle. It is authentically reported that Ibn Umar said:

“We used to buy food in unmeasured quantities during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. He forbade us to sell it until we had moved it to our dwellings.”

It was also Ibn Umar who said:

“The established Sunnah is that whatever is alive and intact when the sale is concluded is at the buyer’s risk.”

It is therefore clear that food of this kind is at the buyer’s risk, yet he may not sell it until he has moved it. As for fruit yields and usufructs, he may dispose of them; yet if they are lost before he has had the opportunity to take possession of them, the lessor or seller bears the loss. Usufructs cannot be disposed of until after