Section

(With this established, if someone leases land for cultivation, its water supply may be cut off or it may be flooded before sowing. [Its water supply may be cut off or it may be flooded] or the crop may be struck by a calamity after sowing and before harvest. What is the ruling in these cases?) (*).

The explicit position reported from Ahmad, the scholars of the school, and others concerning the loss of water supply is that its loss after sowing is treated like its loss before sowing: if some benefit has been obtained despite this, a proportionate amount of rent is due; if all benefit is lost, no rent is due.

Ahmad ibn al-Qāsim said:

“I asked Abū ‘Abd Allāh about a man who leased land to cultivate it, but its water supply was cut off before the end of the term.

“He replied: ‘His rent is reduced to the extent that he was unable to benefit from the land, or in proportion to the interruption of its water supply.’”

He thus expressly stated that the loss of water supply after sowing requires a reduction in rent proportionate to the loss of benefit. This is the position of the scholars of our school, without any disagreement that I know of.

Al-Qādī and others stated that if someone leases land for cultivation and sows it, but it is then struck by disastrous flooding from a source other than irrigation, so that the crop does not sprout, he remains liable for the rent. He mentioned that Ahmad had expressly ruled to this effect, and that if the land were flooded at sowing time so that the lessee could not cultivate it,