As for the second category, there is no doubt that, according to our fundamental position, it is not permissible to lease to him or to sell to him when it is overwhelmingly presumed that he will engage in that forbidden act—just as it would be impermissible with a Muslim, and even more so here.

With respect to the first category, Ibn Abī Mūsā said: “It is disliked but not prohibited,” for we have already granted him recognition of that practice; helping him to live in this dwelling is like helping him to reside in the lands of Islam. Were such assistance intrinsically forbidden, it would not be lawful for us to accept the jizya from them. It is merely disliked because it is assistance that brings no discernible benefit—he could have sold the property to a Muslim instead—whereas the collection of jizya is permitted on account of the public interest it secures.

Al-Qāḍī, however, held it impermissible, arguing that it aids him in acquiring a means to sin, with no countervailing benefit to offset that harm; therefore it is not allowed. This contrasts with their residence in Muslim territory, which yields the very advantages cited when discussing the benefits of accepting their jizya.

[The purchase of ʿushr-land by a dhimmī from a Muslim]

A related case is when a dhimmī purchases land subject to the tithe (ʿushr) from a Muslim. Two reports are transmitted from Imām Aḥmad. In one of them he forbade the transaction, saying: “The dhimmī is not liable for zakāt; thus the tithe would be nullified, and this harms the Muslims.” He added, “Likewise, they are not to be enabled …”