He therefore forbade its purchase (1); and if acquisition through purchase is not permitted, then it is even more fitting that acquisition by revival be disallowed. A distinction, however, may be drawn between the two cases (2): the land that is bought is already cultivated, so definite harm results, whereas reviving dead land infringes no established right. The text related from Aḥmad—and it is the position adopted by the majority of his companions (3)—states that the dhimmī does obtain ownership through revival. This is also the view of Abū Ḥanīfah, while two opinions are reported from Mālik (4).

The issue of levying the tithe on land owned by the dhimmīs

Must he (5) pay the tithe? On this point there are two reports.

Ibn Abī Mūsā said:

“If someone from the people of the dhimmah revives dead land, it belongs to him; no zakāt is due on it, and no tithe on what it yields.”

Another report from him states:

“No kharāj is taken from the dhimmīs on their land, but a tithe is levied on what it produces, and it is doubled against them.”

The first report is the clearer.

Thus, Ibn Abī Mūsā’s mention of doubling the tithe on what is owned through revival follows the same reasoning as doubling it on land acquired by purchase. Yet Ḥarb transmitted from him, regarding a dhimmī who revived dead land, that Aḥmad said:

“It is a single tithe.” (6)

Al-Qāḍī and other scholars therefore understood that what is required is the same single tithe taken from a Muslim, with no doubling (7). Accordingly, they recorded two reports concerning the obligation of the tithe in this matter, whereas Ibn Abī Mūsā transmitted the two reports regarding the obligation of a doubled tithe (8).