In Aḥmad’s reply to Abū al-Ḥārith—“Selling it to a Muslim is more pleasing to me”—the wording suggests a merely discouraging censure, not an outright ban. Yet his strong reaction in the report of al-Marwaḏī, where he said, “It must not be sold to unbelievers,” and spoke with emphasis, points to categorical prohibition.

With regard to leasing, the ḥanbalī scholars equate it with selling and hold that what Aḥmad transmitted from Ibn ʿAwn is not Aḥmad’s own view; his admiration for Ibn ʿAwn’s action, they say, was only because of the latter’s praiseworthy aim and righteous intention.

One may contend, however, that the plain sense of the report is that Aḥmad actually allowed it, for his approval of the act indicates its permissibility in his estimation. Moreover, the fact that he confined his answer to citing one man’s deed suggests that, on one reading, this was indeed his own position.

The difference between leasing and selling is that the harm of assisting the unbeliever in leasing is offset by another benefit: it spares the Muslim the pressure of rent collection and imposes it instead on the unbelievers. This is analogous to leaving them in place on payment of jizyah: although it involves acknowledging a non-Muslim, the benefit it contains makes it permissible—just as concluding truces with unbelievers is permissible in principle.

In the case of selling, however, that compensating benefit is absent. Thus, according to Ibn Abī Mūsā and others, the sale is merely disliked (makrūh) rather than unlawful, whereas any dislike attached to leasing is removed.