The first follows the ruling permitting the sale of concealed produce, based on one of the two positions reported from him concerning the sale of something the purchaser has not seen. This is clearly a sound view, since prohibition would apply only if we held that the sale of something the purchaser has not seen is invalid. If we recognize the validity of selling unseen goods, this falls within that category.

The second permits their sale without qualification, as in Mālik’s school, by analogy with walnut kernels.

This latter view accords with the principles of Ahmad and others for two reasons:

First, experts can determine the true condition of these underground crops by examining their leaves, and their knowledge of them is more reliable than their knowledge of a slave gained by seeing his face. In every matter, reference should be made to upright people with expertise in it. Such experts affirm that they can assess these things as well as—or even better than—other goods whose sale Muslims unanimously agree is permissible.

Second, people have a pressing need to sell such produce. If it cannot be sold until it is uprooted, its owners suffer considerable harm: they may be unable either to uproot it themselves or to appoint someone to do so. If they uproot it all at once, it spoils as a result. Leaving it in the ground is therefore like leaving walnuts, almonds and similar nuts in their green husks. Ahmad and other jurists of the hadith tradition permit ʿarāyā sales despite the muzābanah they involve—the exchange of fresh dates on the palm for dried dates—because the purchaser needs fresh dates to eat, or the seller needs dried dates to eat. The seller’s need here is far more pressing. We shall establish this in due course, if Allah Most High wills.