its people eat it fresh. If he leaves it until it becomes dates, the contract becomes void. We will mention that, God Almighty willing.
Meaning, if the purchaser does not take it as fresh fruit, the contract becomes void, contrary to al-Shafi'i in his statement: "It does not become void." [And it is reported from Ahmad similarly], because for any fruit that it is permissible to sell as fresh fruit, the contract does not become void if it becomes dates, unlike the 'ariyya. Our evidence is the statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "Its people eat it fresh." Also, because its purchase [was only permitted] due to the need to eat fresh fruit; so if it becomes dates, we realize that the need is absent, thus the contract becomes void. Furthermore, there is no difference between his leaving it because he is wealthy and does not need it, or because he needs it, or leaving it due to an excuse, or for no excuse; this is based on the report. If he took it as fresh fruit then left it with him and it became dates, or he dried it in the sun until it became dates, it is permissible because he had already taken it. A different narration was reported from Ahmad regarding one who bought fruit before its ripening was apparent, then left it until its ripening became apparent, the sale does not become void. Thus, a similar ruling can be derived here. If he took some of it as fresh fruit and left the rest until it became dates, does the sale become void regarding the remainder? There are two views.
Section: It is not permissible to sell the 'ariyya in other than palm trees. This is the choice of Ibn Hamid and the view of al-Layth ibn Sa'd. Unless it is of the sort whose fruit is not subject to riba, then it is permissible to sell its fresh fruit for its dried fruit, due to the absence of riba in it. It is possible that it is permissible in grapes and fresh dates, but not other than them. This is the view of al-Shafi'i, because grapes are like fresh dates in the obligation of Zakat for both, the permissibility of estimating both, the measuring of both in wasqs, the frequency of drying both, the consumption of both as a staple in some countries, and the need to eat both as fresh fruit. The explicit mention of a thing necessitates the establishment of the ruling in its equivalent. It is not permissible in
(1) Omitted from: the original. (2) Its verification was mentioned on page 124. (3) Omitted from: the original. (4) In manuscript M: "ma" [what/that which].