“If you sell fruit to your brother and a calamity strikes it, it is not lawful for you to take any of your brother’s money. On what grounds would any of you take his brother’s money without right?”

Reasoning by analogy also supports this view: the goods sold perished before the purchaser could take possession of them. This resembles the loss of the benefits of a leased property before the tenant can make use of them.

If it is objected, “This fruit perished after possession,” the response is that taking possession of fruit that has not fully ripened is comparable to taking possession of the benefits of a lease. The purpose is to harvest the fruit once it is fully ripe. Thus, if the purchaser stipulates taking possession of it after it has fully ripened, he bears the risk of its loss.

The jurists have differed over whether he may sell it before harvesting it. There are two opinions, both reported from Ahmad:

The first is that this is not permissible, because it amounts to selling purchased goods before taking possession of them. Had he taken possession of the fruit, he would bear the risk of its loss.

The second—and this is the correct view—is that selling it is permissible. He has taken possession in a manner that permits him to dispose of it, although not in a manner that transfers the risk of loss to him. This resembles taking possession of leased property: once the tenant takes possession of it, he may dispose of its benefits, even though the lessor bears the loss if the leased property perishes.

However, the jurists have differed over whether he may sublet the property for more than he rented it for. There are three opinions, all reported from Ahmad.