and the spring outright. He may also sell an undivided share of it amounting to one or two “fingers”—out of twenty-four—just as an orchard or house may be sold together with its water entitlement, such as one or more “fingers” from a particular channel. This applies even if the water feeding that channel originates underground; how much more so, then, if the source of the water is on his own property. I know of no disagreement concerning this.

Even if the spring’s water emerges only gradually, a sale does not require that the buyer see everything being sold; rather, he need only see what is customarily inspected. As for what is continually renewed, such as benefits of use and the water accumulating in a well, no scholar requires that it be seen, whether in a sale or a lease.

The scholars disagree only about selling the water separately from the ground containing it: is the sale valid because the water is owned, or invalid because it is not owned? There are two well-known views, both reported from Ahmad. Most scholars permit its sale. This is the position of Abū Hanīfa and Mālik, and al-Shāfiʿī explicitly stated it; indeed, he explicitly stated that water is owned. They also disagreed over whether water is included when someone sells land without mentioning it.

As for selling a well or spring in its entirety, or selling a share of it, I know of no disagreement concerning this when the land is privately owned. Indeed, “The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, encouraged the purchase of the well of Rūma from its Jewish owner, and ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān bought