contrary to the consensus of Muslims—indeed, of all rational people. The intended subject matter of a lease need not be produced by either party to it. Rather, it may be provided by another living creature or an inanimate object, even though neither party is capable of producing that benefit.

For example, someone may hire out a slave or an animal, whose service is performed through its own voluntary actions. Likewise, someone may let a house as a dwelling: the benefit derived from it depends on Allah keeping it in its existing form, not on any action of the lessor. Similarly, water falling from the sky and springing forth from the earth is included in the subject matter of the contract, although neither party has power over it. The same applies when someone hires out movable property, such as weapons, books, clothing, tools of a trade, or anything else: the benefit it provides is not produced by the lessor. There are many comparable examples.

Likewise, the benefit that Allah creates in the land, enabling crops to grow through its soil, water, air, and sunshine, is the intended subject matter of the contract, even though most of it lies beyond human power. If this subject matter is lost, the contract becomes void. If part of it is lost, the case is like that of a loss of benefit from any other leased property. Indeed, there are stronger grounds here for voiding the lease or reducing the rent than in cases of calamities affecting fruit crops.

Those followers of Abū Hanīfa and al-Shāfi‘ī who disputed the ruling in the latter case argued that the fruit had perished after possession had been taken of it, making it comparable to fruit that perished after being harvested or after