Firstly: selling the fruits before they become ripe [2225] The ripening of fruits: it is that they become fragrant and suitable for consumption. Ripening varies based on the different types; some ripen by changing their taste, while others change their color, like fruits. Al-'Adawi said: "His statement 'by turning red or turning yellow' is established by the appearance of sweetness in green fruits. As for ripening in the likes of grapes, figs, and peaches, it is by the appearance of sweetness. As for bananas, it's indicated by its readiness for maturity. As for the type that blossoms, its ripening is indicated by their opening such as roses and jasmine. ِAs for legumes, turnips, carrots, radishes, and onions, (it's indicated) by their taste and when it’s known to be suitable for cutting. As for the ripening of watermelons, also known as "ِ`Abdellaoui," and cantaloupe, it is said to be by its yellowing, or it is said to be by their readiness for it. As for the green ones, it is by their coloring; their ripeness is indicated by the darkening of their pulp with black and red. In the case of sugar cane, it is by the appearance of sweetness. As for walnuts and almonds, it is (known by) its dryness. As for safflower and clover, when they reach a state of growth without being ruined. As for cucumbers and its different types, it is known by its hardening."  (Hashiyat al-'Adawi) on "Kifayat al-Talib al-Rabbani." (2/168) (Tuhfat Al-Muhtaj) by Ibn Hajar Al-Haytimi (4/466) (Al-Iqna') by Al-Hajawi (2/130,129).
It is impermissible to sell fruits before they fully ripen [2226] The wisdom behind the prohibition of selling fruit before its ripening is the fear of the fruit spoiling or suffering damage before it is taken.  (Tuhfat Al-Muhtaj) by Ibn Hajar Al-Haytimi (4/461),(Kashaf al-Qina') by Al-Buhuti(3/280). , with the condition of preserving them [2227] For example, if a person buys fruit from another person's date-palm tree before it shows signs of ripening, and the buyer stipulates to the seller that the fruit must remain on the tree until it shows signs of ripening by turning red or yellow. , and it is also permissible with the condition of picking them [2228] For example, if someone buys unripe fruit from another person's palm tree with the condition that the fruit should be cut from the tree immediately after the purchase. if they are beneficial [2229] Selling fruit before its ripening with the condition of cutting it is permissible if there is benefit in what is cut, such as almonds, dates, and apricots. However, for items with no benefit in what is cut, such as walnuts and pears, it is not valid to sell them with the condition of cutting. (Al-Mabsut) by Al-Sarakhsi(12/168).  (Sharh al-Zurqani on Mukhtasar Khalil) (5/334). (Rawdat al-Talibin) by An-Nawawi (3/655). (Kashaf al-Qina') by Al-Buhuti (3/281).   . This is agreed upon by the four schools of thought: Hanafi [2230] (Al-Mabsut) by Al-Sarakhsi(12/168), (Al-Bahr al-Ra'iq) by Ibn Nujaym(5/335,324) - (Sharh Mukhtasar al-Tahawi) by Al-Jassas (3/50). (Al-Durr al-Mukhtar wa Hashiyat Ibn Abidin (4/555). , Maliki [2231]  The Maliki school permits selling unripe fruit with the condition of cutting in three scenarios: that there is a benefit in it, that either the buyer or seller should have a need for it, and that the majority of the people in the locality do not oppose the cutting. (Sharh al-Zurqani on Mukhtasar Khalil and the Hashiyah of Al-Banani) (5/334,335). (Al-Sharh al-Kabir for Al-Dardir and the hashiyah of Al-Dusuqi)(3/176). (Minah al-Jalil by 'Ulaysh (5/289). , Shafi'i [2232] (Fath al-Aziz) by Al-Rafi`i (9/85,89),(Rawdat al-Talibin) by An-Nawawi (3/655), (Mughni al-Muhtaj) by Al-Sharbini (8/88,89) , and Hanbali [2233] (Al-Insaaf) by AL-Mardaawi (5/51), Kashaf al-Qina') by Al-Buhuti (3/281). , and there is consensus on this matter [2234] Ibn al-Arabi said: "Selling fruits under the condition of keeping is void by consensus, based on the rule of risk and ignorance" (Al-Masalik fi Sharh Al-Muwatta) (6/73). Ibn Qudamah said: If someone purchases unripe fruit with a condition of cutting, it is permissible. Selling fruit before its ripening is not valid unless it falls into one of three categories. The first is when someone buys it with a condition of preservation and selling it without this condition is considered invalid by consensus. The second category is when someone sells it with a condition of cutting immediately, and this is considered valid unanimously ("Al-Mughni") (4/63). Al-Nawawi said:  If he buys with the condition of preservation, it is invalid by consensus (Sharh Sahih Muslim) (10/181), and again he stated:  It is not permissible to sell unripened fruit in general, neither is it permissible with the condition of preservation. However, it is permissible to sell with the condition of immediate cutting" Rawdat al-Talibin" (3/553). Ibn Taymiyyah said: "Selling unripe fruit with the condition of preservation is not permissible according to the consensus of the scholars. "Majmu' al-Fatawa" (29/477). Ibn Hajar said: “There is a difference of opinion on this with various views. Some said that the sale is invalid, and this is the opinion of Ibn Abi Layla and Al-Thawri. Some scholars who transmitted there being a consensus on the sale being invalid misunderstood. Others said that it is permissible even with the condition of preservation, and this is the opinion of Yazid bin Abi Habib. The scholars who transmitted there being consensus here also misunderstood. It was also said if the condition of cutting is stipulated, it does not invalidate (the sale), otherwise, it does, and this is the view of Ash-Shafi'i, Ahmad, the majority, and a narration from Malik."  (Fathul Bari) (4/393), (Al-Mahalli) by Ibn Hazm (7/338) .

The Evidences:

Firstly: From the Sunnah:
Anas b. Malik (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah's Messenger (?) forbade the sale of fruits until they appear ripe. They (the companions) said: What is meant by "appear ripe”? He said that they redden. He then said that when Allah hinders the growth of fruits, (then) what for the wealth of your brother would become permissible for you? [2235] Narrated by Bukhari (2208), and Muslim (1555)

Point of Extrapolation from the Hadith
The prohibition of selling fruit until it ripens is primarily due to the fear of the fruit spoiling and suffering damage before it is taken. This prohibition is valid when considering fruits that are cut, and its sale is valid as soon as its ripening becomes apparent. [2236] See: "Al-Mughni" by Ibn Qudamah (4/63)  

Secondly, because if one stipulates the condition of preserving the fruit, it may spoil before reaching maturity, and the seller would have wrongfully consumed the wealth of his brother, as indicated in the hadiths. However, if the condition is cutting, this harm is avoided [2237] See: "Sharh Sahih Muslim" by Al-Nawawi (10/181). .

Thirdly: Selling with the condition of preservation burdens the buyer, as he cannot fulfill this condition without using the tree and the land, both of which belong to the seller [2238] See: "Bada'i' al-Sana'i'" by Al-Kasani (5/173). .

Secondly:  The sale of the fruits from a single tree when the ripening of some of its fruit becomes apparent.
It is permissible to sell all the fruits of a single tree when the ripening of some of its fruit becomes apparent.

The Evidences:

Firstly: By consensus: the consensus on this is conveyed by Ibn Qudamah [2239] Ibn Qudamah said: "There is no difference in the school that the ripening of part of the palm tree or (any type of) tree is good for all of it, meaning that it is permissible to sell all of it. And I don’t know any disagreement about it." (Al-Mughni) (4/67). , Ibn Taymiyyah [2240] Ibn Taymiyah said: "It is permissible by agreement (of the scholars) if part of a palm tree or (any) tree appears to ripen; that all its fruit can be sold, even if part of it has not yet become ripe." (Majmu' al-Fatawa) (29/37). , Ibn al-Qayyim [2241] Ibn Qayyim said: "There are three types of non-existent items, the second is non-existent but subordinate to the existent, even if it is more than it. This is of two types: one that is agreed upon, and the second disagreed upon. The agreed upon type is the sale of fruits after the goodness of a single fruit from them, people are generally in agreement regarding the permissibility of selling that type that became good from one of them, even if the rest of the parts of the fruits were non-existent at the time of the contract." (Zad al-Ma`ad) (5/717). , and Ibn Muflih [2242] Burhan al-Din Ibn Muflih said: ("The ripeness of part of the tree fruit is fine (to be sold) for all of it" without any disagreement (from the scholars).) ((Al-Mubdi')) (4/64). . Secondly, because the ripening of some of the fruit of the tree indicates to the ripeness of all of it, and the evidence for this is the harm that would result otherwise [2243] See: (Al-Mughni) by Ibn Qudamah (4/67). .

Thirdly: The sale of all the fruits of an orchard when the ripening of the fruit for one kind of its trees become apparent.
 It is permissible to sell all the fruits of an orchard when the ripening of the fruit for one kind of its trees become apparent [2244] The ripening of the fruit from a tree, or part of it, does not indicate the ripeness for the types.  Like in an orchard, there are various types of dates, like sugary dates, barhi dates, and others. If one of the barhi dates appears to ripen then its good (ripe and mature) for it and for the rest of dates (of its type), which is the barhi. As for the sugary dates then the ripeness of the barhi dates doesn’t make them ripe, because the type is different. See: ((Sharh al-Mumti')) by Ibn Uthaymeen (9/40).   This is the opinion of the majority: the Maliki [2245] The Maliki scholars have added the condition that neither the palm tree nor tree is an early ripening tree, an early ripening tree is the one where its ripeness precedes the rest of the trees by a long duration, and there does not occur any continuity in the appearance of ripeness between it and the rest of the trees. "Mukhtasar Khalil" (p. 160), "Sharh al-Zarqani 'ala Mukhtasar Khalil" (5/336), "Minh al-Jalil" by 'Ulaysh (5/291). , Shafi'i [2246] See: "Rawdah al-Talibin" by al-Nawawi (3/557), "Tuhfat al-Muhtaj" by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (4/467). , and Hanbali [2247] See: "Al-Mubdi'" by Burhan al-Din Ibn Muflih (4/64), "Kashaf al-Qina'" by Al-Buhuti (3/287). schools.

This is due to the following reasons:
Firstly, the ripening became apparent in the orchard itself, therefore it is permissible to sell its entire produce, as if it were a single tree [2248] See: "Al-Mughni" by Ibn Qudamah (4/67).   .

Secondly, considering the ripeness in all cases is tough, and it leads to partnership and differences in ownership, therefore it is necessary to follow what has not shown its ripeness (of its kind) until it becomes apparent [2249] See: "Al-Mughni" by Ibn Qudamah (4/67). .
Thirdly, because making distinctions in this matter would cause significant harm [2250] See: "Majmu' Al-Fatawa" by Ibn Taymiyya (29/ 482). .

Fourthly: Selling the fruits that appear gradually
The fruits that appear gradually, such as watermelon, aubergine, and cucumbers are permissible to be sold in a single transaction if the ripeness of the first portion is evident, even if the subsequent parts are not yet apparent. This is the opinion of the Maliki school [2251] "Al-Kafi fi Fiqh Ahl al-Madina" by Ibn Abdul Barr (2/685), "Al-Taj wal-Ikleel" by Al-Mawaq (4/501), "Minah Al-Jalil" by 'Ulaysh (5/295), also see: "Al-Ma'una 'ala Madhab 'Alim al-Madina" (p. 1009), "Al-Ishraf 'ala Nukat Masael Al-Khilaf" by Al-Qadi Abdul Wahab (2/544). , some within the Hanafi school [2252] Al-Bahr Al-Raiq" by Ibn Nu'jaym (5/324, 325), "Al-Durr Al-Mukhtar by Al-Haskafi and Hashiya Ibn Abidin" (4/555). , some within the Hanbali school [2253] "Al-Insaf" by Al-Mardawi (5/55), also see: "Majmu' Al-Fatawa" by Ibn Taymiyya(29/ 489), "I'lam al-Muwaqi'in" by Ibn Al-Qayyim (2/10). , and it was the preferred opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah [2254] Ibn Taymiyya said: "And what resembles this is the sale of the place where cucumbers, watermelon, squash and others grow; among the companions of Al-Shafi’i and Ahmad and others, there are those who say: it is not permissible to sell them except piece by piece. And many scholars among the companions of Malik and Ahmad and others said: it is permissible to sell them in the usual manner, and this is correct; for their sale is not possible (most circumstances) except in this manner, and selling them piece by piece is either not feasible or difficult; for one piece does not distinguish from another piece; because much of it cannot be picked and can be delayed; so selling the area where cucumbers (and its like) grow after its apparent (maturity) is like selling the fruit of the garden after their apparent maturity even if part of what is sold has not yet been created and has not yet been seen." "Majmu' Al-Fatawa" (29/ 489). and Ibn al-Qayyim [2255] Ibn Al-Qayyim said: "The sale of the place where cucumbers, watermelon and eggplants grow; whoever forbids their sale except piece by piece said: because it is nonexistent; it is like the sale of fruit before it appears, and whoever permits it - like the people of Madina and some of Ahmad's companions - their opinion is more correct; as it is impossible to sell them except in this manner, and the sold piece does not distinguish from the others, and there is no benefit in selling them that way." "I'lam al-Muwaqi'in" (2/10). .

This is due to the following reasons:
Firstly: Necessity calls for selling it with what is in it even though there is some deception involved. If we were to prohibit it, it would lead to one of two things: either the available portions are sold individually, and this occurs whether they have appeared or not. This would, however, lead to the mixing of what has appeared with what has not appeared, as their emergence is consecutive. Therefore, the first cannot be taken without the second having emerged. Distinguishing between the two fruits would become difficult, or it should not be sold until all of it has appeared, leading to its spoilage and loss. The need for it, coupled with the limited loss in it, justifies its sale [2256] "Al-Ishraf 'ala Nukat Masael Al-Khilaf" by Al-Qadi Abdul Wahab (2/545), "Majmu' Al-Fatawa" by Ibn Taymiyya (29/ 489). .
Secondly: It is permissible to sell what has not yet shown its ripeness based on what has already ripened. Similarly, it is permissible to sell what has not yet appeared based on what has appeared [2257] "Al-Ishraf 'ala Nukat Masael Al-Khilaf" by Al-Qadi Abdul Wahab (2/545), also see "Al-Mughni" by Ibn Qudamah (4/70), "I'lam al-Muwaqi'in" by Ibn Al-Qayyim (2/10). .

Fifthly: Selling the fruit of a tree that is two, three or more years old [2258] Also known as the bay` al- sineen or the sale of Mu'awamah (years ahead). See: "Ma'alim Al-Sunnan" by Al-Khattabi (3/97), "Sharh Sahih Muslim" by Al-Nawawi (10/193).   .
It is prohibited to sell the fruit of a tree that’s two, three or more years old [2259] The difference of opinion between Umar and Ibn al-Zubayr regarding this issue has been relayed. Ibn Abd al-Barr responded to what was reported from them by saying: It is stated the Salaf and the Khalf (earlier and later generations of scholars) disagreed on the narrations mentioned at the beginning of this section and their practical application. It was narrated that Umar bin al-Khattab and Abdullah bin Zubayr used to sell their fruits before their ripeness appeared, and they also sold their fruits for a year, two years, and multiple years (ahead). This was reported by Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah from 'Amr ibn Dinar, from Muhammad ibn Ali, who heard him say: 'I was given authority over the charity of the messenger of Allah.' So, I went to Mahmud ibn Labid and asked him. He said, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab had guardianship over two orphans, and he used to sell their wealth for years (ahead).' Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah reported from Hisham ibn 'Urwah, from his father, from Umar ibn al-Khattab: 'I sold the property of Usayd ibn Hudayr for three years.' As for what has been reported from Umar and Ibn Az-Zubair, and we do not know of any scholars who followed them in that regard. Since the Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited the sale of fruits before their ripening and after their creation, so what do you think about the sale of what has not yet been created from them? The Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited the sale of ِAl-Sunbul and the sale of years (in advance). It is possible that the sale of Umar and Ibn Az-Zubair for the fruits for years, if true, is based on selling each year separately. In that case, it would be in accordance with the opinion of the scholars of Kufa, and we will mention that later, by Allah’s permission. The narration from Umar and Ibn Zubair is not known to any scholars that we are aware of. If their sale of the fruits for years is authentic, it could be interpreted as each year being a separate transaction, consistent with the view of some Kufi scholars, which we will discuss later, by Allah’s permission. It is also possible that they took the prohibition of the Prophet (peace be upon him) to be regarding the sale of fruits before their ripening. This is based on what Zaid bin Thabit mentioned in the hadith of Abu Al-Zinad. We will discuss this further in this chapter by Allah’s permission. Sufyan bin 'Uyaina narrated from Humaid bin Qais, from Sulaiman bin 'Atiyyaq, from Jabir bin 'Abdullah that the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade the sale of fruits for years (in advance). It’s also narrated that Hammad bin Zaid narrated from Ayyub, from Abu Al-Zubair and Sa`eed bin Maina, from Jabir, that the Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited Al-Mu`awamah and Ayub said: one of them (the narrators also added) the sale of fruits (for years). "Al-Istidhkar" by Ibn Abd al-Barr (6/306) .

The Evidences:

Firstly: from the Sunnah
1- Jabir bin Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported Allah's Messenger (?) forbade Muhaqala, Muzabana, Mu`awmah and Mukhabara. Muhaqala is when the crops in the field are bought for grains according to a customary measure. Muzabana is when the date-palm should be sold for dry dates for a measure, and al-Mukhabara is (a share) that ranges from one-third to one-fourth (in produce) or something similar.
 One of the narrators [2260] That is, one of the narrators, either Abu al-Zubair or Saeed ibn Minaa, explained "al-Mua`wama" as the sale of the years. This is from the statement of Ayyub, from whom both narrators reported. mentioned that Mu`awmah is selling years in advance, and Thunya (an exception the amount of which is not accurately known). The Prophet peace be upon him gave license for Al`araya which is a  palm-tree assigned by its owner to another who is in need, for him to eat its fruit for a year) [2261] Narrated by Muslim (1536). .
2- Jabir bin Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) said: Allah's Messenger (?) forbade the selling of produce years in advance and in the narration of Ibn Abi Shaybah: “the selling of the fruits years in advance” [2262] Narrated by Muslim (1536). .

Secondly: Through Consensus
There was a consensus reported on that: By Ibn al-Mundhir [2263] Ibn al-Mundhir said: (The scholars unanimously agreed that a man selling the fruits of his [date-palm] for years in advance is not permissible). ((Al-Awsat)) (10/60). , Ibn Rushd [2264] 5. Ibn Rushd said: (As for the first category (which is selling fruits before they are created): all scholars agree on its prohibition, because it falls under the prohibition of selling what has not yet been created and the prohibition of selling years and Ma'awama). ((Bidayat al-Mujtahid)) (3/168). , and al-Nawawi [2265] Al-Nawawi said: (The prohibition of  a Mu'awama sale- which is selling for years in advance - means: selling the fruit of the tree for two - three years or more, and it is called Ma'awama and the sale in advance. This is invalid by consensus, as mentioned by Ibn al-Mundhir and others. ((Explanation of Sahih Muslim)) (10/193). .

Thirdly: This falls under the category of deception in sales, which are prohibited, as they involve items not yet created. Thus, it is unknown whether they will exist or not and, if they do exist, what their amount will be: large, small, or moderate? [2266] See: ((Al-Awsat)) by Ibn Al-Mundhir (10/60).
Fourthly: Problems may arise, such as pests, if palm trees bear fruit, which can prevent anything beneficial from reaching the buyer. [2267] See: ((Al-Awsat)) by Ibn Al-Mundhir (10/61).
Fifthly: It refers to a sale where delivery is impossible, and the item does not belong to the contracting party. [2268] See: ((Sharh Sahih Muslim)) by Al-Nawawi (10/193).

Sixthly: “Wad’ Al-Ja'ihah” – The Rules Regarding Calamitous Events [2269] The concept of "Al-Ja'ihah" refers to any affliction beyond human control, such as wind, hail, locusts, and drought. This is outlined in Ibn Qudamah's "Al-Mughni" (Vol. 4, p. 81). The principle of "Wa?’ Al-Jawa'ih" means that if fruits are damaged or partially damaged before harvesting, the liability falls on the seller. This is discussed in "Sharh Al-Zarkashi" (Vol. 3, p. 525),

1- Liability for the Perishable Fruits in the Event of a Calamity, Excluding the Root

If the sold fruits perish due to a calamity prior to harvesting, without affecting the source plant, the seller is held liable. This is the stance of the Maliki [2270] "Minhaj Al-Jalil" by Al-Alish (Vol. 5, p. 303), "Hashiyat Al-Sawi" on "Al-Sharh Al-Saghir" (Vol. 3, p. 241), and Hanbali [2271] "Sharh Muntaha Al-Iradat" by Al-Buhuti (Vol. 2, p. 86), and see: "Sharh Al-Zarkashi" (Vol. 3, p. 519), "Kashf Al-Mukhadarat" (Vol. 1, p. 406), schools of thought, as well as an earlier view within the Shafi'i [2272] "Rawdat Al-Talibeen" by Al-Nawawi (Vol. 3, p. 562), and "Nihayat Al-Muhtaj" by Al-Ramli (Vol. 4, p. 153). school. It is also a perspective shared by some of the early scholars (Salaf) [2273] Ibn Qudamah stated: "What is destroyed by a calamity of the fruits is under the seller's guarantee. This view is held by most scholars of Medina, including Yahya bin Sa'id Al-Ansari, Malik, Abu Ubaid, and several Hadith scholars. Al-Shafi'i also expressed this in his earlier works." (Al-Mughni by ibn Quddamah, Vol. 4, p. 80). , and is the selected opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah [2274] Ibn Taymiyyah commented: "Thus, the view of the Medina scholars and the jurists of Hadith is that if fruits are destroyed post-sale due to a calamity, the seller is liable. Although there's no explicit Sunnah from the Prophet ? stating that goods damaged before possession defaults to the seller and nullifies the contract, except this Hadith on calamities. Even if there were no Sunnah, the correct consideration aligns with it, as indicated by the Prophet's ? saying: 'Why does one of you take his brother’s property unjustly?' The buyer only manages to harvest the fruit when it matures and ripens, not at the time of the contract." (Majmu' Al-Fatawa, Vol. 29, p. 49). , Al-San'ani [2275] Al-San'ani, in his commentary on Jabir's Hadith: (if you sold fruit to your brothrt), stated: "The Hadith indicates that if the fruits on trees sold by the owner are struck by a calamity, the loss is borne by the seller and the buyer is not obligated to compensate for it." (Subul Al-Salam, Vol. 3, p. 48). , Al-Shawkani [2276] Al-Shawkani, commenting on Jabir's Hadith, noted: "This provides evidence for the principle of calamity compensation. It means that if the fruit is damaged, the paid price becomes without compensation. How can the seller consume it without compensation?" (Nayl Al-Awtar, Vol. 5, p. 206). , and Ibn Uthaymeen [2277] Ibn Uthaymeen explained: "His statement, 'If it is destroyed by a heavenly affliction,' refers back to the fruit. If the fruit, after being sold and becoming suitable for consumption, is destroyed by a severe heat that spoils it, hail that drops it, or locusts that consume it, then the 'heavenly affliction' is broader than what its literal meaning suggests. It encompasses anything the buyer cannot be held accountable for, whether it's a natural disaster beyond human control, or a human-caused event that cannot be indemnified. His statement, 'It reverts to the seller,' means the buyer reclaims the entire price paid to the seller. The evidence for this is the Prophet's ? saying: 'If you sell fruits to your brother and they are struck by a calamity, it is not lawful for you to take anything from him. Would you take your brother's property unjustly?'" (Al-Sharh Al-Mumti', Vol. 9, p. 38). .

The Evidences:
Firstly: from the Sunnah:
Jabir bin Abdullah (May Allah be pleased with them) narrated that the Prophet ? commanded the removal of calamities (Al-Jawa'ih) [2278] Reported by Muslim (1554). .
On the authority of Abu Zubair, who heard Jabir bin Abdullah, may Allah be pleased with them, say: The Messenger of Allah ? said: "If you sell fruits to your brother and they are struck by a calamity, it is not lawful for you to take anything from him. Would you take your brother's property unjustly?" [2279] Reported by Muslim (1554).
Point of Extrapolation:
The Hadith indicates that if fruits on the trees are sold and then afflicted by a calamity, the loss is to be borne by the seller [2280] Refer to: "Nayl Al-Awtar" by Al-Shawkani (5/206), "Subul Al-Salam" by Al-San'ani (2/66). .
Firstly, The fruits on the trees are akin to leased property, which is under the lessor's responsibility. Similarly, if fruits are damaged while still on the trees, the loss falls on the seller [2281] Refer to: "Sharh Al-Zarkashi" (3/520), "Majmu' Al-Fatawa" by Ibn Taymiyyah (29/50). .

Secondly: Disagreement between Contracting Parties in Case of a Calamity that Destroys the Sold Fruit, but Not the Source [2282] When the seller and the buyer disagree about the loss caused by the calamity, with the seller claiming no loss and the buyer asserting there was, or if they disagree about the extent of the loss. .
In cases of dispute between the contracting parties regarding a calamity that destroys the sold fruits without affecting the source, the seller’s statement is given precedence. This is stipulated by the Shafi'i [2283] Refer to: "Al-Umm" by Al-Shafi'i (3/58), "Rawdat Al-Talibeen" by Al-Nawawi (3/563), and "Al-Muhadhab in the Fiqh of Imam Al-Shafi'i" by Al-Shirazi (2/71), "Takmilat Majmu' Sharh Al-Muhadhab" by Al-Muti’I (13/90). and Hanbali [2284] "Al-Iqna'" by Al-Hajawi (2/131), "Kashaf Al-Qina'" by Al-Buhuti (3/286). schools.
This is because the seller denies the buyer's claim, and the default assumption is that the destruction did not occur [2285] Refer to: "Kashaf Al-Qina'" by Al-Buhuti (3/286), "Al-Muhadhab in the Fiqh of Imam Al-Shafi'i" by Al-Shirazi (2/71). .