it is clear that the reason for the prohibition was not the fruit’s prior nonexistence. Even after it shows signs of ripening and is safe from blight, it develops additional parts that did not exist when the contract was concluded. Nor is what is meant safety from rare calamities, for that is unattainable. The fruit may suffer what Allah described concerning the owners of the garden who

“swore to harvest its fruit in the morning, making no exception,”

or what He described in Sūrat Yūnus:

“Until, when the earth has taken on its adornment and is beautified, and its people think they have power over it, Our command comes upon it by night or by day, and We make it a harvested field, as though it had not flourished the day before.”

Rather, what is meant is that the danger of regularly occurring blight has passed. Such blight strikes crops before the grain hardens and before signs of ripening appear in the fruit; after that, it is rare compared with its occurrence beforehand. Moreover, if selling it were prohibited beyond this stage, there would be no time at which it could lawfully be sold until it was fully ripe. Yet selling fruit on the trees after it has fully ripened is impracticable, since it does not all ripen at once. Requiring its owner to harvest it would cause harm outweighing the harm of contractual uncertainty.

It is thus clear that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave precedence to the benefit of permitting a sale that people need over the harm of minor contractual uncertainty. This accords with the principles of wisdom with which he was sent, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and which he taught his community.

Whoever consistently applies an analogy he has formed in his own mind, without considering an overriding impediment that counters its underlying rationale, will undermine much of religion and find both his understanding and his religion unduly constricted.