Benefits of the Hadith: (If you sold fruit to your brother and it was struck by a calamity . . . ).

The Shaykh : It is derived from this: If the fruit is struck by a calamity, the seller has no claim.
Now, the second benefit from the benefits of the hadith: If the fruit is damaged by the action of the buyer, for example, if the buyer does not know how to harvest. Do you know what harvesting is?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : Do you know, Ahmad?
Harvesting: Picking the fruit from the palm tree. One person climbs the tree and picks from it. What is this called in your area? Hmm?
The student: It is called picking the fruit.

The Shaykh : What? You don't know what it is called in your area?
The student: Picking, picking.

The Shaykh : Picking. Well, in any case, if this damage is due to the action of the buyer, because the buyer does not know how to pick, does not know how to harvest, does not know how to pluck, yes, and the fruit is affected, and this actually happens. If one who does not know how to harvest handles the harvesting, the dates are spoiled. So, is it upon the seller or not? Hmm?
The student: The buyer.

The Shaykh : It is upon the buyer, because the hadith is: .
Now, and from the benefits of the hadith: If it is damaged by the action of a human other than a calamity and other than the buyer, does he take anything from him? Does the seller take anything from the buyer or not?
The student: He takes.

The Shaykh : Well, we say: If this person who took the fruit is someone from whom compensation cannot be demanded, it is like a heavenly calamity, like a heavenly disaster. What is an example of something from which compensation cannot be demanded?
Like soldiers, for example. Soldiers came and took it, or the disbelievers came and took it, and compensation cannot be demanded from them.
We say: This is like a calamity from the sky because compensation cannot be demanded from the taker. And if the taker is someone from whom compensation can be demanded, like a specific man, what is the ruling?
The scholars said: The buyer is given the choice between returning to the one who took it or returning to the seller. If he returns to the one who took it, the seller is safe. If he returns to the seller, the seller takes from the one who spoiled it, from the one who spoiled the fruit. For example: I sold fruit to a person, and a thief came at night, cut it down, and took it, and he is known. Or a man came and made a mistake, thinking it was his palm tree, and took its fruit. What do we say?
We say: The buyer is given the choice between keeping the sale or keeping the contract and demanding from the one who took the fruit, or canceling the contract, and the one who demands is? The seller.
Well, which is better?
The student: According to the benefit.

The Shaykh : In any case, one looks at the benefit, because the choice here is a choice of preference. If he wishes, he confirms the sale and returns to the one who took the fruit. If he wishes, he cancels the sale, and the seller returns to the one who took the fruit.
Well, these are three issues regarding a calamity. This is one.
The second: By the action of the buyer.
And the third: By the action of a stranger. And we mentioned that this is divided into two categories:
If he destroys it, and he is someone from whom compensation can be demanded, or someone from whom it cannot.
The fourth: If it is destroyed by animals. Animals were hungry at night, saw the fruit, and ate all the palm trees. And no owner is known for them. So what is the ruling?
The student: Like a calamity.

The Shaykh : This is like a heavenly calamity, meaning that the buyer returns to the seller.
Well, the fifth issue: If the buyer delayed the harvesting of the fruit, picking the fruit, plucking the fruit, if he delayed it past its time until it was struck by a calamity, is there a guarantee upon the seller?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : No, the guarantee is upon the buyer because he was negligent in delaying it past the time of cutting it down until it was spoiled.
May Allah be pleased with them both. From the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), he said: : Read to us, Sami. If part of the fruit is spoiled and not the rest, each has a ruling. Because of his saying, what? .
So if the seller takes compensation for the remaining sound dates, he has taken it by right. But he does not take for the spoiled dates.
But does he take it by its proportion of the value or by its proportion of the price? Answer? Which one will answer with the student's difference, or say: By Allah, we do not know the difference between them, and the ruling on a thing is a branch of its understanding.
The student: Causality.

The Shaykh : No, by its proportion of the price. An example of that: He bought this fruit for two hundred dirhams, and a calamity struck half of it. How much is the remaining half?
The student: One hundred.

The Shaykh : One hundred. When we wanted to appraise it, they said: Now, if the fruit were sound, it would be worth only one hundred, only one hundred. So do we say: He takes it considering the value, so it would be fifty, or considering the price, so it would be one hundred? We say: Considering the price, because the man bought it for two hundred, for two hundred dirhams, so half of it is gone. Does half of the price drop from him or half of the value? Half of the price. And if we said: Half of the value, how much would drop from him? Fifty would drop from him, and the reverse is the reverse. The value may be more than what the contract was for.
Well, so we know from where he takes his proportion? From the price, because that is what the contract was for. From the benefits of the hadith: The religion of Islam is a religion of justice, such that it does not rule with injustice against either of the contracting parties. Rather, it is a religion of justice. And this benefit, in reality, branches out into many issues in the chapter of crimes, and in the chapter of retaliation, and in many issues. For example, if a man cuts off the hand of a man—may Allah grant us safety—in a sickle. Do you know a sickle? Do you know it, Abd al-Rahman ibn Dawud? The sickle, ibn Dawud?
The sickle with which one harvests the crop and finds the fruit.
The student: We call it the harvester.

The Shaykh : What? It is not a harvester. Well, if he cut off his hand with a sickle and we ruled with retaliation, and we ruled against the cutter with retaliation, do we cut off his hand with a sickle or with a sharp, quick tool? With a sickle. We cut it with a sickle, because this is justice. How do we cut off this criminal, this sinner, with something quick and comfortable, while he has harmed the victim? And this is indicated by the generality of the saying of Allah the Exalted: and His saying: . And it is also indicated by the specific hadith regarding the story of the Jew who crushed the head of the Ansari girl, and took from her her ornaments of gold or silver. So they caught her while she was in her last breath, and they said: : Even though it is possible to slaughter him with a sword, but justice requires that he be treated as he treated her. And the important thing is that the religion of Islam is built on justice: .
And many issues have passed us that are built on this principle, such as his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): , and its examples are many.
Well, from the benefits of the hadith: The good teaching of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and that is by mentioning the cause after the ruling. Because in mentioning the cause after the ruling there are benefits:
Among them: Clarifying the nobility of the Shari'ah, and that it is built on causes and correct meanings that necessitate the rulings.
And the second: Reassuring the soul with the ruling, because when a person knows the source of the ruling, his reassurance increases. There is no doubt in this. And therefore, you are now asking when we say: This is forbidden, you say, what is the evidence? And if you do not have evidence, give us a reasoning, even if you agree with the answer, but you want more reassurance.
Well, the third: The possibility of analogical reasoning in what has this cause.
Well, the fourth: If the cause is absent, the ruling is absent. Yes or no?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : An example of that: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . It is known from this that if it does not cause sadness, there is no prohibition. Because the absence of the cause necessitates the absence of the ruling. And if the cause is found in something other than whispering, which is causing sadness to the companion, the ruling is established even if it is not whispering.
An example of that: Two men know the Persian language, and I am with them and I do not know Persian. So each one started speaking to the other in the Persian language, and they look at me. He speaks to him, and with every sentence he looks at me. Does it cause sadness or not?
The student: It causes sadness.

The Shaykh : It causes sadness, no doubt. He fears them, even though they did not whisper, but raised their voices. But because I do not know what they are saying in the language, they became like whisperers who speak secretly. Is that not so?
So the benefit of linking the ruling with the reasoning, or the benefits of linking the ruling with the reasoning, are four. Tell them to us, hmm? You?
The student: The nobility of the Shari'ah.

The Shaykh : Yes, wait. What is the meaning of the nobility of the Shari'ah?
The student: That it is the cause in linking the ruling with the cause.

The Shaykh : Yes, with the meanings and attributes that necessitate the rulings. Well, this is one.
The student: The second: Removing the ruling by the cause.

The Shaykh : No, this is wrong. This is a reversal of the reality. I said this is a reversal of the reality.
The student: If the ruling is absent, the cause is absent.

The Shaykh : This is the same thing. This is a reversal of reality, Ahmad. It is not the same thing. May Allah guide you. Everyone knows that this statement is the opposite. They know it. I consider this a mistake, and what comes after it?
The student: The possibility of analogical reasoning.

The Shaykh : The possibility of analogical reasoning in cases where the ruling shares the operative cause. Good.
The student: Increasing tranquility.

The Shaykh : Increasing tranquility, yes!
The student: That if the operative cause is absent, the ruling is absent.

The Shaykh : That if the operative cause is absent, the ruling is absent, is that right or not? Good.