There are a group of traditions that contradict the set, which implies permissibility of sale of a canal. For instance, there is a tradition reported by al-Kahili, in which he says: “ A man asked Abu ‘Abdillah in my presence (while I was with him) about a canal, held by a group of individuals, with a known share for each as to the use of its water. Now, a man from among them was in no need of its water. The question asked was as to whether the man could sell it in return for a quantity of wheat or barley. The Imam replied ‘He may sell it for anything he wishes.’

After highlighting the contradiction, this tradition may be reconciled (to the other set) by attributing the prohibitive traditions to dislike (kirahah), instead of prohibition. There is apparently then no longer an issue with the ‘contradiction’. But if we look deeper into the tradition, we will find this ‘reconciliation’ incomplete. If we presume a conflict between this tradition and the other set - on a particular subject matter - how can we simply reconcile a prohibition, even, if it is in the sense of just dislike (kirahah), with such a statement.

It is quite clear as regard it’s being free from all doubts. Looking into the reconciliation of the two sets of the texts, we will find that the set that prohibits - like the reliable tradition of Abu Basir mentioned - implies two things. One is the obligation to allow free access to the water so that others may utilize it after the ‘owner’ of the canal fulfils his need (for irrigation). Second, it is not permissible to sell it.

The second set, of which al-Kahili’s report is one, does not directly contradict because it does not point to the permissibility of renting the canal to another person. It only points to the permissibility of selling it and that does not necessarily mean that renting it is permissible. Do not view this in a framework that it is legally binding. The pretext is that if it was obligatory to allow access to others, then there would remain no basis for selling it or that it has any significance as an object to purchase. A person who desires to buy it could instead gain free access and usage so long as it is obligatory on the ‘owner’ to allow others free access and usage.

Therefore, the very supposition of sale and the verdict as to its permissibility is legally binding as to the permissibility of lending it free of charge so as to confirm the nature of prevailing customary practice for buying and selling, in as much as it dashes off this delusion in that the obligation of the lending does not make purchasing and selling senseless. It is quite possible that a person may not be content with enjoying free access and usage. He may rather desire to have the canal belong to him along with the right of priority over it, in the same way it belonged to the seller who no longer needs it. This right is only transferred by a buy and sell transaction.

Accordingly, the set of texts implying permissibility of a sale are not essentially inconsistent with the obligation to allow free access and usage to others. Certainly there was a conflict between the two sets of texts. The solution to this contradiction is that the set ordering to allow free usage carries two meanings in its prohibition. The first meaning is that it is a real prohibition of selling the canal with an absolute statement, and the second it is prohibition on selling the water. It is in the sense of not forcing a person who desires the water to pay for it, and instead allows him access and use for free. If the prohibition is taken by its first meaning, there is obviously a contradiction. But if the second meaning is adopted, then there is no contradiction.

Then it is desirable to be held that if the set of texts implying permissibility of sale are stronger than the appearance of the other set in the first sense if it has its appearance in respect of that and we do not hold hesitatingly between its two senses; or its appearance in the second, the appearance of permissibility will be given precedence and then will result from the combination of the two sets the permissibility of the obligatoriness of the lending of the surplus of the requirement from the canal to the other free of charge and the permissibility of its sale conclusive of the transfer of the right of exclusive (private) possession and priority to the buyer.