and an orphan’s property or similar assets, nor with the property of his absent principal or anyone in a similar position.

Another ground is that the substantial payment made by the party undertaking the damān is clearly not for the use of the land, which may not be worth even a tenth of that payment; rather, it is for the fruit. Likewise, the owner knows that he has not stipulated any fruit for himself. He does not claim that negligible, worthless share, but has assigned all the fruit to the party undertaking the damān.

In short, either this contract is valid in the form commonly practised among people, or it is not valid under any circumstances. The latter position, however, entails grave harm that the Sharia cannot countenance, so the former must be accepted. As for this stratagem, its invalidity is apparent upon even the slightest reflection.

Accordingly, if a calamity causes losses under this damān arrangement, and we hold that the contract is invalid, then the purchaser has bought fruit before it showed signs of ripening, and the seller has allowed him free access to it, but it has perished before fully ripening or has never appeared at all.

As explained earlier, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, prohibited selling fruit before it showed signs of ripening precisely for the reason expressed in his words:

“What if Allah withholds the fruit?”

Or he said:

“Tell me, if Allah does not bring forth the fruit, on what grounds does any of you take his brother’s wealth without right?”

If a calamity strikes the fruit, preventing it from fully ripening and destroying it, then Allah has indeed withheld the fruit. He must therefore not take his brother’s wealth without right.

Anyone who holds that the purchaser becomes liable for the fruit upon taking possession under a valid contract must also