draw an analogy between the two. Undoubtedly, the Prophet’s prohibition, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, against selling fruit before it begins to ripen did not encompass this lease arrangement. If the trees should fail to bear fruit, or the fruit should perish after appearing without negligence on the lessee’s part, this is equivalent to the loss of the benefit under a lease: rent is due only when the tenant is able to benefit from the property.

The second case:

Only the fruit is purchased, while the seller bears the cost of watering. If the orchard contains several varieties, there are likewise two opinions concerning this case. The first—the opinion of al-Layth ibn Saʿd—is that all the orchard’s fruit may be sold once one variety begins to ripen, just as an entire variety may be sold once some of it begins to ripen. This is because selling the varieties separately entails considerable harm: a purchaser for one variety may also be available for another, whereas someone willing to buy one variety on its own may not be found. This opinion is stronger than the second, which categorically prohibits this, as is the well-known position.

Need alone establishes permissibility here. This is because muzābana is graver than selling fruit before it begins to ripen: it involves exchanging, by estimate, a commodity subject to the rules of ribā for another of the same kind. Ribā is graver than contractual uncertainty. Moreover, exceptions have been made to his prohibition against selling fruit before it begins to ripen, including its sale together with the trees. It is therefore clear that the prohibition does not encompass every sale of fruit together with something else.

Indeed, it may even be said: it was only