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. Then, if it is possible for the lessee to benefit from the land by other than cultivation, or by cultivation during the remainder of the duration, he may do so. If that is impossible, the rent remains binding upon him; because the impossibility arose due to the passing of the cultivation season for a reason not guaranteed by the lessor, not due to a cause inherent in the substance itself. If cultivation becomes impossible due to the flooding of the land or the cutting off of its water, the lessee has the option [to rescind]; because it is due to a cause inherent in the substance. If the crop is destroyed by that, the lessor is not liable for it; because he did not destroy it through direct action or cause. If the water decreases to the extent that it does not suffice for the crop, he may rescind; because this is a defect. If that occurs after cultivation, he may also rescind, and the crop remains in the land until it is ready for harvest, and he is liable for the specified amount in proportion to his share up until the time of rescission, and the fair rental value for the remainder of the duration for land that has that same amount of water. The same applies if the water is cut off entirely, or a defect occurs in it due to flooding, whereby some of the crop is destroyed or its condition worsens.

Section: If one rents land for cultivation for a duration, and it expires while there is still a crop in it that has not reached harvest, one of two situations must occur: First, that it is due to the negligence of the lessee, such as if he plants a crop that is not customarily completed before the expiration of the duration. Its ruling is the ruling of the crop of a usurper; the owner is given the option after the duration between taking it at its [current] value or leaving it for the rent for what exceeds the duration; because he left his crop in another's land through his own transgression. If the lessee chooses to cut his crop immediately and clear the land, he may do so; because he is removing the harm and handing over the land in the manner necessitated by the contract. Al-Qadi mentioned that the lessee is obligated to remove the crop and clear the land, and if they both agree to leave it in exchange for compensation or otherwise, it is permitted. This is the doctrine of Al-Shafi'i, based on his statement regarding the usurper. And the analogy of our school...