on al-Shāfiʿī’s own principles. As for Abū Hanīfah, no genuine disagreement with him on this principle can actually arise, because one of his principles is that he makes no distinction between fruit before and after it begins to ripen. In his view, an unqualified sale contract requires the fruit to be picked immediately. Even after it begins to ripen, a sale stipulating that it remain on the trees would, in his view, be invalid. This rests on his view that the contract requires an immediate exchange of possession, which may not be deferred, since such a stipulation conflicts with what the contract entails. Thus, in his view, if the fruit perishes after the sale and after the buyer has been given unrestricted access to it, it has perished after picking it became obligatory—just as, according to other scholars, it might perish after becoming fully ripe.

He applies his principle consistently to leasing as well. In his view, the lessee acquires the benefits only by receiving them progressively; they are not acquired merely through the contract and taking possession of the leased property. This is why he holds that the lease is annulled by death and other causes.

It is well known that the hadiths from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) distinguishing between fruit before and after it begins to ripen are mass-transmitted. This distinction is upheld by the vast majority of scholars, for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited selling fruit until it begins to ripen. This is established in the collections of authentic hadith through the reports of Ibn ʿUmar, Ibn ʿAbbās, Jābir, Anas, and Abū Hurayrah. Had Abū Hanīfah held that fruit could be sold after it begins to ripen and left on the trees until fully ripe, the disagreement with him would have become apparent.

Those who dispute remitting the price of produce lost to calamities do not dispute that, if the item sold