leasing it for planting and cultivation is valid without any disagreement that we know of. The same applies to land that is watered by rainwater, and the customary amount is considered sufficient, because that is by the rule of custom and it only ceases rarely, so it is like the other mentioned scenarios. The second category is that it does not have a permanent water source, and this is of two types: The first is what drinks from a customary flooding that arrives at the time of need, such as the land of Egypt which drinks from the Nile flood, what drinks from the flooding of the Euphrates and similar rivers, the land of Basra which drinks from the tides, and the land of Damascus which drinks from the flooding of the Barada; or what drinks from flowing valleys of rainwater. It is valid to lease such land before or after the existence of the water by which it is irrigated. Ibn al-Sabbagh narrated this as a doctrine for Al-Shafi'i. His companions said: If he leased it after the flood, it is valid, but it is not valid before it, because it is non-existent, and we do not know whether he will be able to obtain it or not. Our view is that this is customary, and its existence is the default, so the leasing of land irrigated by it is permissible, like land irrigated by rainwater; and because the presumption of ability to deliver it at its time is sufficient for the validity of the contract, like a forward sale (salam) of fruit until its season. The second type is that the arrival of water is rare or not certain, such as land that is only sufficient for heavy, abundant rain, the occurrence of which is rare, or its irrigation is from a flash flood that rarely arrives, or from a rare flooding of a river or a strong spring. Such land, if he leases it after the existence of water with which to irrigate it, is also valid, because it is possible to benefit from it and cultivate it, so its leasing is permissible, like that with permanent water. If he leases it before that for planting or cultivation, it is not valid, because cultivation is usually impossible, and the object of the contract is, by appearance, impossible, so its leasing is not valid, like [the contract for] a runaway slave or a usurped object. If he rented it on the basis that it has no water, it is permissible, because he is able to benefit from it by settling on it, placing his luggage, and gathering firewood on it, and he has the right to cultivate it in hope of water. If water reaches him before he cultivates it, he has the right to cultivate it, because that is among its benefits that are possible to fulfill. He does not have the right to build or plant, because that is intended for permanence. And the estimation of the lease by a period necessitates clearing it.