when he conquered these regions, considered that dividing them among the war spoils’ recipients would deprive future generations of Muslims. He therefore decided to designate them as an endowment and impose a land tax upon them—that is, something like rent, collected from them each year. They thus became an endowment, and an endowment may not be sold. This is the view adopted by the author.

As for the dwellings in these lands, they may be sold, because the dwellings belong to their occupants, who erected the buildings until they were complete. They are therefore entitled to the value of the buildings they constructed, and the contract concerning them is valid. The land itself, however, may not be sold.

His statement, “Rather, they are to be leased”: Praise be to Allah, the matter has not been closed off. We say: Do not sell it, but lease it, and the rent belongs to you, because rent is in return for usufruct, not for the property itself. This is why leasing it is permitted whereas selling it is not. This view is very weak (1).

The correct view is that selling them is lawful, permissible, and valid, whether they are dwellings or land. The purchaser takes the place of the seller in paying the land tax imposed upon the land. This was the case in the past; as for today, there is neither land tax nor endowment. Nevertheless, the legal ruling must be properly understood.

As for the practical reality, people buy and sell land, dwellings, and orchards without any objection; indeed, this is virtually a consensus. Hence, this view is considered very weak. The correct view is that it is permissible to sell dwellings and land.

Moreover, this endowment is not a private endowment, such that we might say that private endowments may not be sold unless their benefits cease. Rather, it is a public endowment for all Muslims,