First, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:

“If you sell fruit to your brother and a calamity strikes it…”

An unqualified reference to a sale can only mean a valid sale.

Second, he spoke of selling fruit without qualification; he did not say, “before it shows signs of ripeness.” There is therefore no basis for restricting his statement to fruit sold before it shows signs of ripeness.

Third, he made the ruling conditional upon a calamity occurring, whereas no payment is due under any circumstances for fruit sold before it shows signs of ripeness.

(Fourth, property taken into possession under an invalid contract entails liability for its loss. Thus, if fruit still on the trees were considered to have been taken into possession, the buyer would necessarily bear liability for it under an invalid contract. This argument requires that the hadith of Anas be cited as evidence for remitting the price of fruit lost to calamities under a valid sale, just as it is remitted under an invalid sale. For whatever entails liability under a valid contract also entails liability under an invalid one, and whatever does not entail liability under a valid contract does not entail liability under an invalid one.

As for their claim that the fruit perished after possession had been taken, we dispute this. Rather, we say that it perished before possession had been fully completed—indeed, before the buyer was even able to take possession. The seller remains responsible for completing its cultivation by watering it; were he to neglect this, he would be negligent. Even assuming that the seller had done everything within his power to place the fruit at the buyer’s disposal, the buyer is only required to take possession of it in the customary, usual manner. Thus, delivery has occurred, but receipt has not been completed. This is