the crops, buildings and planted trees themselves, as a buyer is, the scholars have rejected that view. This appears to be the meaning of Ahmad’s explicit ruling as transmitted by our scholars, such as al-Qādī and Abū Muhammad. They stated—the wording is Abū Muhammad’s:

“If someone leases land and cultivates it, and the crop is destroyed, the lessor bears no liability. Ahmad explicitly stated this, and we know of no disagreement concerning it. This is because the contract concerns the benefits of the land, which have not been destroyed; what has been destroyed is merely the lessee’s property on it. It is therefore like a house that someone leases to bleach garments in, and the garments are destroyed there.”

This statement entails that the lessor bears no liability for any part of the lessee’s crop, unlike the seller’s liability for the buyer’s crop. Hence, he discussed this in the chapter on calamity damage to tangible property, explaining that what was destroyed was the lessee’s own property, not the benefit. This is sound insofar as it denies liability for the crop itself. This is particularly clear when the crop is destroyed after reaching full maturity.

We have already explained that the very benefit covered by the contract may be diminished or lost through an affliction affecting the crop. The rent is therefore reduced in proportion to the diminution in benefit. Thus, the matter on which the Shaykh reported no disagreement was liability for damage to the property itself. He did not discuss liability for diminished benefit here, although he did discuss it in the Book of Leasing.

This is a point liable to confusion, and most scholars’ statements on it lack sufficient distinction. The correct position becomes clear through the analysis we have presented. And Allah, glorified and exalted is He, knows best.