as the limit of 'a small amount,' as evidenced by the saying of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) regarding a will: "The third, and the third is a lot" (15). This indicates that it is the upper limit of what is 'much,' and therefore it was measured by it. The reasoning for the first [position] is the general nature of the hadiths, for the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) ordered the reduction for calamities (16). What is less than a third is included in it, so it must be reduced. Also, because this fruit had not been completely possessed, so whatever of it was destroyed is from the seller’s wealth, even if it is small, like that which is on the ground. What birds eat (17) or what falls does not have an effect according to custom, nor is it called a calamity, so it does not enter under the report, and it is not possible to guard against it; its existence is known according to custom, so it is as if it were a condition. Once this is established, if something of a measurable amount beyond the custom is destroyed, he shall reduce the price according to the amount that is gone. If everything is destroyed, the contract is invalidated, and the buyer regains the entire price. As for the other narration, he considers the third of the amount, and it was said: the third of the value. If everything is destroyed, or more than a third, he regains the value of everything that was destroyed (18) [from the price] (19). And if they disagree regarding the calamity, or the amount that was destroyed, the statement is that of the seller, because the original state is safety. And because he is the debtor, and the statement in the principles is the statement of the debtor.

Section: If the fruit reaches the time of harvesting and he does not harvest it until it is struck by a calamity, al-Qadi said: In my view, it is not deducted for him; because he was negligent by omitting the transfer at its time when he was able to do so, thus the risk was upon him. If he purchased fruit before its ripening was apparent under the condition of cutting, and it was possible for him to cut it, but he did not cut it until it was destroyed, then it is at his risk; because its destruction was due to his negligence. And if it was destroyed before it was possible to cut it, then it is at the risk of its seller, like the issue before it (20).