like the one before it, except there is no disagreement regarding it, because he stipulated what is necessitated by absolute terms, and his explicit text clarified that, so the ambiguity was removed.

The fourth issue: He said, "To cultivate it with wheat, and he shall not cultivate anything else." The Qadi mentioned that the condition is void because it contradicts the requirement of the contract, for it entails fulfilling the benefit however one wishes; therefore, the condition is invalid, just as if he had stipulated that he must personally take possession of the sold item. The contract itself is valid, for there is no harm in it, nor does it affect the purpose of either contracting party, because what is equal in damage does not differ in the lessor's purpose, so it has no effect on the contract, thus resembling the condition to personally take possession of the sold item or the price. We have already mentioned, regarding one who rents a house and stipulates that he shall not house anyone else in it, an opinion on the validity of the condition and another opinion on the corruption of the contract; so the same is extrapolated here.

Section: If he rented it for planting, it includes what we have mentioned of the issues, except that he is permitted to cultivate it, because the damage of cultivation is less than the damage of planting, and it is of the same genus, as each of them damages the subsoil of the land. He does not have the right to build, because its damage differs from the damage of planting, as it damages the surface of the land. If he rented it for cultivation, he does not have the right to plant or build, because the damage of planting is greater, and the damage of building differs from its damage. If he rented it for building, he does not have the right to plant or cultivate, because the damage of both differs from its damage.

Section: Land is never without one of two categories: The first is that it has a permanent water source, either from a river that is not accustomed to drying up, or that does not dry up except for a period that does not affect the crops, or from a flowing spring, or a pond of rainwater in which it collects and then is used for irrigation, or from a well that suffices its needs, or what it drinks through its roots due to the humidity of the land and the proximity of the water beneath the earth; all of this is permanent, and the leasing of 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.