is slight, as noted earlier, and the need for these transactions is pressing. A pressing need overrides a slight degree of uncertainty. The whole of Islamic law rests on the principle that when the harm warranting a prohibition is outweighed by a need, what is prohibited becomes permissible. How much more so when that harm is absent? Thus, because there is a need to leave fruit on the trees after its sale until it has fully ripened, Islamic law permits this, as do the majority of scholars. We shall explain the underlying principle, Allah Most High willing.

Accordingly, the position of the people of Medina and the jurists of the hadith tradition is that if the fruit is destroyed by a calamity after its sale, the seller bears the loss. Muslim narrated in his Sahīh that Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“If you sell fruit to your brother and a calamity strikes it, it is not lawful for you to take anything from him. On what grounds would you take your brother’s wealth without right?”

In another report narrated by Muslim, Jābir said:

“The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ordered remission of the price for fruit lost to calamities.”

Since this hadith had not reached al-Shāfiʿī, may Allah be pleased with him—he had received only a report transmitted by Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah with conflicting versions—he adopted the position of the Kufan jurists on this matter: the buyer bears the loss, because the purchased goods have perished after possession was taken, and granting the buyer access to them constitutes taking possession.

This is more consistent with the Kufan jurists’ own principle, since the buyer has no right to leave the fruit on the trees. Rather, in their view, the contract requires immediate possession in all circumstances. This consistently applies an analogy whose basis and weakness we shall explain, together with