grounded in Islamic law—a scriptural text, consensus, analogical reasoning, or the like. As for disputed cases raised as objections, we give a general answer:

If the evidence we have cited establishes the validity of this lease, that evidence must be applied consistently and acted upon. If it does not establish its validity, this constitutes no flaw in our argument.

As for the evidence said to invalidate this lease, if it can be reconciled with the evidence already mentioned, there is no contradiction. Otherwise, the evidence we have cited carries greater weight, for prohibiting benefits rests only on the same kind of grounds invoked in the disputed case here.

If it is objected:

“Ibn ʿAqīl permitted leasing land and trees together because of need, following Mālik’s approach. However, Mālik stipulated that the trees be few, whereas Ibn ʿAqīl imposed no such restriction. There is a need to lease open land containing trees, and leasing the land separately from the trees is impossible or difficult because of the harm this entails. He therefore permitted the trees to be included in the lease, just as al-Shāfiʿī permitted land to be included incidentally with trees in contracts to tend trees for a share of their fruit.

“Part of Ibn ʿAqīl’s argument is that this amounts, at most, to permitting fruit to be sold before its ripeness becomes apparent, as an adjunct to something else, because of need. Scriptural evidence and consensus permit this when someone sells trees bearing fruit that has already appeared, with the purchaser stipulating that the fruit be included. The purchaser has thus bought both trees and fruit before the fruit’s ripeness becomes apparent. Yet what you have stated implies that permitting this accords with analogical reasoning, and that it is permissible without such need, even when the trees are leased on their own.”