—that is, by renting tithe-land for this very reason.

In another report he said: “There is no objection to a dhimmī purchasing tithe-land from a Muslim.”

If such a sale is deemed valid, Imām Aḥmad voiced two opinions regarding what the dhimmī must pay on the land’s produce. In one narration he said: “No tithe is due from him; nothing is required of him beyond the jizyah.” In the other he said: “He must pay one-fifth of whatever the land yields—twice the rate owed by a Muslim.”

Some of our colleagues relate a report that they should be discouraged from buying it, and that, if they do buy it, the tithe is doubled for them. Statements of Aḥmad support this view. Thus, since he differed over whether to allow them to own cultivated tithe-land—because that would eliminate the tithe—the religious harm that arises from their unbelief and open sinfulness in a land that had belonged to the Muslims, where Allah was worshipped and obeyed, is greater than the mere loss of the tithe.

For this reason he hesitated, asking: “Is the harm removed only by totally prohibiting their ownership?” For if the sale were permitted, either the Muslims’ right would be nullified, or zakāt would have to be taken from unbelievers—both untenable. Therefore, banning ownership is the easier course, just as we have barred them from owning a Muslim slave or a copy of the Qur’an, for that would empower the enemy of Allah over the friends of Allah and over the Word of Allah.

Likewise, according to the predominant view of the school, we prevent them from purchasing captives who have been taken in war