at its expiration. If it is said: If he leased it for planting and building, it is valid with the stipulation of a duration. We say: The explicit mention of building and planting diverts the duration from its requirement, according to its apparent meaning, to clear it upon the expiration of the duration, unless he stipulates removing that upon the expiration of the duration, in which case the planting and building are diverted from what is intended for them by their apparent meaning, unlike in our current issue. If he leaves the leasing of this land unrestricted, despite knowing its condition and the lack of its water, it is valid; because they both entered into the contract on the basis that it has no water, so it is similar to if they had stipulated it. If he did not know of the lack of its water, or the lessee thought that it was possible to obtain water for it by some means, the contract is invalid, because he might have entered into the contract on the basis that the owner would provide water for it, and that he is renting it for cultivation despite its impossibility. It is said: The contract is invalid with an unrestricted approach even if he knows its condition; because the unrestricted renting of land necessitates cultivation. The more correct view is its validity; because knowledge of the condition takes the place of a stipulation, just as knowledge of a defect takes the place of its stipulation. Whenever it has water that is not permanent, or it is likely to be cut off before cultivation, or it is insufficient for cultivation, it is like land that has no water. The doctrine of Al-Shafi'i regarding all of this is as we have mentioned.

Section: If one rents land flooded with water, where cultivation is not possible before it recedes, and it may or may not recede, then the contract is void; because utilizing it at present is not possible, and the obstacle generally does not vanish. If it recedes at the time when there is a need for cultivation, such as the land of Egypt during the time of the Nile flood, the contract is valid; because the intended purpose is realized by the rule of continuous custom. If cultivation is possible therein, but there is a fear of it being flooded, and the custom is its flooding, its leasing is not permissible; because it is in the category of flooded land by the rule of continuous custom.

Section: Whenever the crop is drowned or destroyed by fire, locusts, extreme cold, or other causes, there is no liability upon the lessor, and there is no option for the lessee. Ahmad has explicitly stated this. We know of no disagreement regarding it. This is the doctrine of Al-Shafi'i; because what was destroyed is not the object of the contract; rather, the lessee's property therein was destroyed, so it is like someone who bought a shop and his goods therein burned down.