Ahmad was astonished—meaning, astonished at Ḥafs ibn Ghiyāth.

Al-Khallāl said, “This, too, lends further support to Abū ʿAbd Allāh’s position.”

I say: This ʿAwn appears to belong either to the people of innovation or to those flagrantly sinful in their conduct. Abū Khālid al-Aḥmar had rebuked Ḥafs ibn Ghiyāth, the qāḍī of Kūfa, for selling the righteous man’s house to an innovator, and Ahmad likewise expressed amazement at the judge’s action.

Al-Khallāl added:

“If it is disliked to sell it to a flagrant sinner, then all the more so to a non-Muslim. True, the dhimmī is allowed to remain while the sinner is not, but what the unbeliever will do in that house is far worse.”

The qāḍī also related from Abū Bakr ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz—on the authority of Abū al-Ḥārith—his statement: “I do not consider it permissible for a man to sell his house to a disbeliever who will blaspheme against God in it. Selling it to a Muslim is preferable to me.”

Abū Bakr then said, “In his view there is no distinction between leasing and selling: if he permits the sale, he permits the lease; and if he forbids the sale, he forbids the lease.” The qāḍī and his colleagues agreed with him on this point.

Ishāq ibn Manṣūr reported that he said to Abū ʿAbd Allāh: “Al-Awzāʿī was asked about a man who hires himself to guard a Christian’s vineyard, and he regarded it as reprehensible.”

Ahmad commented, “How excellent his answer is, for the root of the matter returns to wine. Unless it is known that the grapes are being sold for something other than wine, there is no harm in it.”