the Almighty: {And pay its due on the day of its harvest} (11). The benefit of this disagreement is that if he disposes of the fruit or grain before the obligation [time], he owes nothing, because he disposed of it before the obligation became due, similar to if he consumed the grazing livestock or sold it before the completion of the year. However, if he disposes of it after the obligation is due, the Zakah is not remitted, just as if he had done so with grazing livestock. The obligation is not settled according to both opinions until the fruit is placed in the drying ground (12) and the grain is in the threshing floor. If it is destroyed before that without his destruction or negligence, then no Zakah is due upon him. Ahmad said: If it is estimated (kharas) and left on the palm trees, they are responsible for preserving it; if a disaster strikes it and the fruit is lost, the estimation is voided for them, and they are not held accountable for it. We know of no disagreement regarding this. Ibn al-Mundhir said: The scholars have unanimously agreed that if the estimator (kharis) estimates the fruit (13) and then a disaster strikes it, he owes nothing provided it was before the harvest. This is because, before the harvest, it is in the status of that over which possession is not established, as evidenced by the fact that if one purchases fruit and it is destroyed by a disaster, he has recourse against the seller. If part of the fruit is destroyed, the Qadi said: If the remainder is a threshold amount, Zakah is due on it, otherwise not. This opinion coincides with those who say that Zakah is not due except on the day of harvest, because the existence of a threshold is a condition for the obligation, so if it is not found at the time of the obligation, it does not become due. As for those who say that the obligation is established (14) when the ripening begins and the grain hardens, the analogy of their position is that if part is destroyed, if it was before the obligation, it is as the Qadi stated, but if it was after, it becomes due on the remainder proportionally, whether or not it reaches the threshold, because the cause for exemption was specific to the part [destroyed], so the remission is specific to it, just as if part of the grazing livestock threshold was destroyed.