For the harvesting of the crop, the reaping of fresh fodder, the gathering of fruit, and the cutting thereof is the responsibility of the buyer. This is because transferring the sold item and clearing the seller's property of it is the responsibility of the buyer, just as moving purchased food from the seller's house is. It differs from measuring by volume (kayl) and weighing (wazn), for those are the responsibility of the seller; because they are part of the expenses of delivery to the buyer, and delivery is the responsibility of the seller. Here, delivery has been achieved through handing over (takhliya) without the cutting, as evidenced by the permissibility of selling it and disposing of it. This is the school of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i, and I know of no dissenter regarding it.

The second section: If he stipulates it upon the seller, our companions differ. Al-Khiraqi said: The sale is void. Ibn Abi Musa said: It is not permissible. It is also said: It is permissible. If we say it is not permissible, does the sale become void due to the invalidity of the condition? There are two narrations. Al-Qadi said: The school (madhhab) holds that the condition is permissible. Ibn Hamid and Abu Bakr mentioned this. I (1) did not find this which al-Khiraqi mentioned to be a narration in the school. The companions of al-Shafi'i also differed; some of them said: If he stipulates the harvesting upon the seller, the sale is corrupt, as a single opinion. Others said: It is based on two views. Those who deemed it corrupt said: It is invalid for three reasons: First, that he stipulated labor on the crop before he owned it. Second, that he stipulated what the contract does not require. Third, that he stipulated a delay in delivery; because the meaning of that is delivering it after it is cut. Those who permitted it said: This is a sale and a lease; for he sold him the crop and leased himself to harvest it, and each of them is valid to be contracted individually, so when he combines them, it is permissible, like two distinct items. Their statement: "He stipulated labor on what he does not own" is invalidated by the condition of pledging the sold item for the price in a sale. The second point is invalidated by the condition of pledging, a guarantor, and an option (khiyar). The third point is not a delay, because it is possible for him to deliver it while it is standing, and because the condition is from the recipient, so it is not a delay of delivery. When these reasons are invalidated, it becomes valid, for what we have mentioned. If it is said: The ruling of a sale differs from the ruling of a lease; because liability transfers in a sale upon delivery of the item, unlike a lease, so how is it valid to combine them? We say: Just as it is valid to sell a share of property (shiqs) and a sword,