the jurists of our school hold three views:

The first is that the loss is likewise borne by the seller, because the purchaser has not taken full possession. This is the position categorically adopted by al-Qādī in al-Mujarrad, by Ibn Aqīl, and by most jurists of our school. It is also the position of Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī. However, in al-Mujarrad, al-Qādī explained it with reference to the case in which the purchaser had no excuse, rather than one in which illness or some other impediment prevented him. Others, however, adopted the third view: that the ability to remove and harvest the fruit is not taken into account.

Ibn Aqīl said:

“This is what our school’s position entails.”

It is indeed as he said, for this fruit is comparable to the benefit contracted for in a lease. If an impediment particular to the lessee, such as illness or the like, prevents him from enjoying that benefit, he is not relieved of the rent. A general impediment, by contrast, relieves him of the rent corresponding to the benefit it has deprived him of.

Section

This applies when someone purchases the fruit or field crop. If, however, he purchases the trees themselves after the fruit has appeared, or before pollination, and stipulates that the fruit be included, no compensation for calamity-related loss is due, according to the jurists of our school, Mālik, and others.

Al-Khiraqī therefore excluded this case by saying:

“If someone purchases the fruit without the trees, and it is destroyed by a natural calamity, he has recourse against the seller for the loss.”

This is because, in the case under discussion, full possession has been achieved by taking possession of the trees themselves. For this reason, there is no obligation