One view permits it, as al-Shāfiʿī holds.

Another prohibits it, as Abū Hanīfah and his two companions hold, because it constitutes profit from something whose risk he does not bear, since he does not bear the risk of loss of the benefits.

A third view permits it if he has made improvements to the property, but not otherwise. The first view is the most correct, because taking possession makes him bear the risk of losing those benefits: if he fails to make use of them, their loss is borne by him, not by the lessor. This is comparable to fruit perishing after it has begun to ripen and could have been harvested. However, if the leased property itself perishes, the lessor bears the loss of its benefits, because the tenant was unable to make use of them. A distinction must therefore be drawn between loss occurring before and after the tenant has had the opportunity to use them.

Section

As for someone who leases land for cultivation and a calamity strikes it: if the crop perishes after the tenant has had the opportunity to gather it—for example, a thief steals it from the threshing floor, or the tenant delays harvesting it beyond its proper time until it perishes—then the tenant must pay the rent.

If, however, the calamity prevents cultivation, no rent is due from him, and there is no disagreement on this point. But if the crop has sprouted and the calamity prevents it from reaching full maturity, such as