your brother fruit, and a disaster strikes it, it is not lawful for you to take anything from him; why would you take the wealth of your brother without right?" Narrated by Muslim and Abū Dāwūd, and his wording is: "Whoever sells fruit, and a disaster strikes it, let him not take anything from the wealth of his brother; upon what [basis] would one of you take the wealth of his Muslim brother?" This is explicit regarding the ruling, so one should not deviate from it. Al-Shāfiʿī said: It has not been established to me that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) commanded the remission of disasters, and if it were established, I would not deviate from it, and if I were one who says they should be remitted, I would remit them in both small and large amounts. We say: The hadith is established. The Imams narrated it, among them: Imam Aḥmad, Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn, ʿAlī ibn Ḥarb, and others, from Ibn ʿUyayna, from Ḥumayd al-Aʿraj, from Sulaymān ibn ʿAtīq, from Jābir. Muslim narrated it in his "Ṣaḥīḥ", Abū Dāwūd in his "Sunan", Ibn Mājah, and others. There is no argument for them in their hadith, for the performance of an obligatory act is good, so if he swore not to perform the obligatory act, he has sworn not to perform good. As for compulsion, the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) does not do it merely by the claim of the claimant without an admission from the seller, nor his presence. And because the handing over is not a complete taking of possession [qabḍ], as evidenced by what if it were destroyed by thirst according to some of them. It does not follow from the permissibility of disposal that there is complete possession, as evidenced by the usufructs [manāfiʿ] in a lease; disposal is permitted in them, and if they were destroyed, they would be from the liability of the lessor. Likewise the fruit, for it is on its tree like the usufructs before their attainment, existing state by state, and their analogy is invalidated by the handing over in a lease.