her authorization or the testimony of witnesses that she authorized such a transaction. Rather, once this becomes known, the sale must be annulled in all circumstances.

He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

Has any scholar stated that if the first purchaser is not permitted to dispose of the property before taking possession of it, and it is destroyed, he nevertheless bears liability for it? Or that permission to dispose of it and liability necessarily entail one another in both directions? Is there not well-known disagreement on this matter?

He replied:

There are two views within Ahmad’s school:

The first is the approach of al-Qādī and his followers. The later scholars of Ahmad’s school, together with Abū Hanīfah and the Shāfiʿīs, hold that permission to dispose of property and liability necessarily entail one another. According to them, whatever comes under the purchaser’s liability may be disposed of by him, while whatever has not come under his liability may not. Accordingly, al-Shāfiʿī applied this principle consistently to the sale of fruit still on the trees and did not hold that relief should be granted for losses caused by calamities. This was based on the premise that once the purchaser takes possession of the fruit and is permitted to dispose of it, liability for it passes to him.

The second view within Ahmad’s school, mentioned by al-Khiraqī and other early scholars and supported by Ahmad’s fundamental principles, is that liability and permission to dispose of property do not necessarily entail one another. Hence, the apparent position of Ahmad’s school is that if the fruit is destroyed before the purchaser is able