from it, as al-Khiraqī stated. If an irresistible event prevents the lessee from enjoying the use contracted for, he owes rent in proportion to the period during which he benefited.

If some use remains, but it is not the use intended by the contract—for example, land leased for cultivation loses its water supply but can still be used for storing firewood or pitching a tent; a collapsed house can still accommodate a tent; or flooded land can still be used for fishing—does the lease become void, or does this constitute a diminution that entitles the lessee to rescind it?

There are two views:

The first is that the lease becomes void. This is the view of most scholars, including Abū Hanīfa, Mālik, and al-Shāfi'ī in the case of a collapsed building. Since the remaining use was not what the contract intended to provide, its existence is equivalent to its absence.

The second is that the lessee is entitled to rescind the lease. This is al-Shāfi'ī’s explicit position in the case of a loss of water supply. Al-Qādī and Ibn 'Aqīl also adopted it in some of their discussions, while other scholars of the school adopted the first view.