fresh dates for dried dates, because this involves exchanging an item subject to the rules of ribā for another of the same kind without measuring their quantities—and the prohibitions concerning ribā are stricter than those concerning gambling—yet he permitted ‘arāyā sales on the basis of estimated yields because of need, and instructed a man to sell a tree he owned on another person’s property, or give it to him, because the property owner suffered harm from the man entering his property. When he did neither, the Prophet ordered the tree to be uprooted. Thus he required a transfer for compensation to remove the harm suffered by the property owner, just as he established a co-owner’s right to acquire a share at its sale price to avert the harm arising from co-ownership and partition. How much more so, then, when the harm is as described!

It is well known that the Sharia came to secure and perfect benefits, and to eliminate and reduce harms. We have been commanded to give precedence to the greater of two benefits by forgoing the lesser, and to avert the greater of two evils by tolerating the lesser. The harm in this situation is greater than the harm we previously mentioned as possibly affecting one of the parties to the exchange. Here, the harm is considerable and certain; there, if any harm occurs, it is slight and doubtful.

Moreover, fruit-sharing and crop-sharing agreements depend on the cultivator’s trustworthiness, which may often be difficult to find. People therefore need leasing arrangements, under which payment is a binding debt. For this reason, many people in many places and times turn from crop-sharing to leasing.

It is well known that the Sharia imposes obligations according to what is possible, and likewise stipulates conditions for acts of worship and contracts according to what is possible. Thus, despite a ruler’s sinfulness, legal effect may still be given to such of his acts of governance and distribution