And from Jabir, we took the hadith, he said: If you sold to your brother fruit: If this is conditional, it is a particle of non-occurrence due to non-occurrence, you say: If Zayd had come, I would have honored you.

The Shaykh : He said: And from Jabir, we took the hadith, he said: : If this is conditional, it is a particle of non-occurrence due to non-occurrence, you say: If Zayd had come, I would have honored you, so the honoring was prevented due to the non-occurrence of the coming. And its counterpart is "lamma" (when), for it is a particle of occurrence due to occurrence, you say: When you visited me, I honored you, so the occurrence of the honoring was due to the occurrence of the visit. And between them is "lawla" (if not), for it is a particle of non-occurrence due to occurrence, you say: If not for your absence from visiting me, I would have honored you. Ha, the honoring was prevented due to the occurrence of the absence. So these three particles exhaust the time or circumstances:
"Law" (if) is a particle of non-occurrence due to non-occurrence, "lamma" (when) is a particle of occurrence due to occurrence, and "lawla" (if not) is a particle of non-occurrence due to occurrence.
And "law" here is conditional, in the position of "idha" (when), and his saying: from: means upon, meaning upon your brother. And describing him with brotherhood is from the chapter of predominance, otherwise, if he sold to a disbeliever, the ruling does not differ, but he attached it to brotherhood from the chapter of predominance.
And his saying: fruit: means the fruit of the palm, the fruit of the grape, the fruit of the fig, the fruit of the orange, i.e., fruit. The hadith is general, and the aspect of generality in it, or the form of generality in it, is: the indefiniteness in the context of the condition, and the indefinite in the context of the condition implies generality.
And his saying: calamity: is an active participle, and the calamity: is that which necessitates the thing, and the devastation is the total destruction, and from it is the hadith: , so then calamity means that what destroys it struck it, such as hail or storms or severe heat that dried it out or otherwise -O 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Rustam- this is the calamity, the calamity is everything that destroys it.
He said: i.e., from your brother, , : And the Shari'ah mentions permissibility and its counterpart is prohibition, so if permissibility is negated, prohibition is established, for they are opposites in the Shari'ah, and if you wish, say: they are contradictory in the Shari'ah, not in sense and intellect, in the Shari'ah, for if the legal permissibility is negated from a thing, its prohibition is established. Do you not see his saying, the Exalted: to his saying: , so He made this the counterpart of this. And his saying: from it: the pronoun refers to the brother the buyer, : i.e., any thing, because the fruit has all spoiled, so it is not permissible for you to take anything from it.
Then he gave the reason and said: And the interrogation here is for denial and rebuke, meaning that he rebukes the one who took the money for which he sold this fruit, because he took it without right, and the opposite of right is falsehood, he took it by falsehood, why?
Because this fruit that he sold, the buyer did not benefit from it at all, the buyer did not benefit from it at all, what devastated it came to it.
So the hadith, as you see, its form is clear: a man sold palm fruit to another, let it be for a hundred riyals, then a calamity struck this fruit, rain fell on it and spoiled it until it poured into the ground, so the buyer then does not benefit from it at all, we say: it is not permissible for the seller to take a hundred riyals from the buyer, and the spoiled fruit belongs to whom? To the seller, yes, and here he says: : this indicates that the price did not transfer to the seller, because if it had transferred to the seller, it would not be valid to say: your brother's money.
So the price is still with the buyer, and nothing of it is permissible for the seller.
So in this hadith: is evidence for issues:
The first issue: what the scholars refer to as the setting aside of calamities, meaning: are calamities set aside or not?
The scholars differed on this, and some of them said: that the calamity is not set aside, and that it is upon the buyer, because the buyer bought it in a valid manner, the price is known and the item is known, did you understand? And it entered the ownership of whom? The buyer, and delivery occurred, because the delivery of fruit on the tree is by relinquishment, and the seller relinquished the fruit between the fruit and the buyer, he said: please: take it, and if that is the case, then the calamity does not cause the annulment of the sale, and the price is lawful for the seller, and the fruit struck by the calamity belongs to the buyer, and this is his share, this is a statement and we know its reasoning, what is its reasoning?
That the buyer owned this fruit by a valid legal contract, and that the delivery was fully completed, so the sold item is in possession and the sale is valid, and the produce is with the guarantee, so its guarantee is upon the buyer and nothing is upon the seller.
Now, the second statement in the issue: that the establishment of the setting aside of calamities: meaning that we establish that, and that if the fruit is struck by a calamity, it is not permissible for the seller to take anything from the buyer, and the loss is upon whom? The loss is upon the seller, these people said: and between us and you is the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and the Sunnah is a ruling authority, not one that is ruled upon, and everything that contradicts the Sunnah, even if it is built on opinion and consideration, is invalid, and on this basis, we are happier with the evidence than you, they say this to those who say that calamities are not set aside, because we have a hadith from the Messenger (may the prayer and peace of Allah be upon him).
They said: it is possible that the hadith is to be understood as being from the chapter of chivalry and good character, and that it is from the chapter of chivalry that it is not befitting to take anything from him, because the man bought the fruit to eat and did not get to eat it, so it is not befitting for us to take anything from him.
They said to them: this is refuted by the text, because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) says: , he did not say: so it is better for you, he said: it is not permissible for you, what do we say before Allah on the Day of Resurrection and his Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) says: , it is not possible, so the hadith is explicit, and we say: its setting aside is not from the chapter of chivalry but from the chapter of obligation by the Shari'ah, so nothing is permissible for the seller.
Now, they said: so this hadith is contrary to the legal principles, so what is the answer? The answer: that this is in accordance with the legal principles, it follows the legal principles, and the aspect of that is:
First: that the text is a legal principle in itself -hold on to this- , because some people say: the lease is contrary to the principle, the lease is contrary to the principle, because it is the sale of a non-existent thing, the benefits come bit by bit, the forward sale is contrary to the principle because it is excessive uncertainty, it is not known whether the forward seller will get it or not, and they come to such things, these are contrary to the principle, so we say to them: may Allah bless you: " the evidence is a principle in itself " , so what is the need to say: contrary to the principle, but we say: the evidence is a principle, it is a principle, so if the hadith is established and the indication is established, then this is the principle, so we say: this is in accordance with the principle because it is a text of a hadith, and the hadith is a principle, you always say: the principle in this is the Book and the Sunnah, so it is a principle.
Second: from the aspect of consideration, it follows the principle, because the buyer only bought the fruit why? To benefit from it and eat it, so a calamity came to it before the time of eating and it died, did he fulfill what he wanted? Answer?
The student: He did not fulfill it.

The Shaykh : He did not fulfill it, so if they say: relinquishment, we say: what is the benefit in relinquishment? Relinquishment in real estate, in the house, correct, if you lease it, give him the key and he enters and resides, if you sell it, give him the key and he enters and resides, but you sold the fruit for him to eat and the defect came to it before the time of eating, what is the benefit of relinquishment now? The buyer says: leave your palm tree with you until the fruit appears, the goodness appears, my intention is until its eating becomes good and it is eaten, is it clear now? So the hadith is in accordance with the principles from two aspects, what are they, O Ibn Dawud?
The student: First: that the evidence is a principle in itself.
The Shaykh: It is a principle in itself.
The student: Second: that it is in accordance.

The Shaykh : With the general legal principles, yes.
The student: Because the buyer bought the fruit to eat it.

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: And when he did not receive it.

The Shaykh : When it was prevented from him?
The student: He did not benefit.

The Shaykh : Yes, complete.
The student: And here they delivered and received, we say there is no benefit in the delivery, because he did not benefit, and the benefit is when he delivers and benefits from it.

The Shaykh : Like the relinquishment between it and the leased house or the dwelling, now, so this follows the principles.