have the right to rescind the lease. On this approach, Ahmad’s ruling concerning interruption of the water supply is extended to the flooding of crops, and his ruling concerning the flooding of crops is extended to interruption of the water supply, since the underlying consideration is the same in both cases. Where a crop is flooded, if flooding before sowing prevents sowing, flooding afterward prevents the crop from growing, just as interruption of the water supply prevents it from growing. The intended subject matter of the contract is the ability to benefit from the land until harvest; sowing the seed does not constitute the whole of what is contracted for. If that alone were the subject matter of the contract, it would follow that, if the water supply were interrupted afterward, the lessee would have no right to rescind and no reduction in rent would be due. Yet they have not maintained this, nor can it legitimately be maintained. We know with certainty that the benefit the lessee seeks and contracts for is the ability to make use of the land’s soil, air, water, and sunlight until his crop reaches full maturity. Whenever the benefit of the soil, water, air, or sunlight is lost, the crop does not grow, and the lessee does not obtain the benefit intended by the contract. This is comparable to renting a house to live in and then being unable to reside there for some reason, such as a ruined wall, interruption of the water supply, a collapsed roof, or the like.

There is no disagreement within the Muslim community that the loss of the contracted benefit through a natural calamity entails the cancellation or reduction of rent, or rescission of the lease, even when the lessee has had no hand in it—as when a hired animal dies, a house collapses, or rainfall ceases. The same therefore applies to flooding