rather, prohibiting it would be more onerous than the shackles and burdens imposed upon the Children of Israel, which Allah lifted from us through Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). Whoever examines the Sharia in all its sources and applications will find it founded upon the words of Allah Most High: “Whoever is compelled by necessity—neither desiring it nor exceeding the limit—incurs no sin” [al-Baqara: 173] [al-Baqara: 173], and His words: “But whoever is compelled by extreme hunger, without inclining toward sin, then Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful” [al-Māida: 3] [al-Māida: 3]. Whatever people need to sustain their livelihoods is therefore not prohibited to them, provided their need for it was not caused by an act of disobedience—whether neglecting an obligation or committing a prohibited act—for they are in the same position as one compelled by necessity who neither desires nor transgresses.

Even if the necessity was caused by an act of disobedience—as with someone traveling on a sinful journey who is compelled to eat carrion, or someone who spends his wealth on sinful pursuits until he becomes burdened with debts—he is commanded to repent but is permitted whatever will relieve his necessity. Thus, he may eat carrion, and his debt may be paid from zakat. If he does not repent, however, he is one who wrongs himself and resorts to subterfuge. His condition resembles that of those concerning whom Allah said: “When their fish came to them openly on their Sabbath day, but did not come to them on days when they did not observe the Sabbath. Thus We tested them because they persistently disobeyed” [al-Arāf: 163] [al-Arāf:], and He said: “For wrongdoing on the part of the Jews, We forbade them good things that had been lawful to them” [al-Nisā: 160] [al-Nisā: 160]. This is a momentous principle to which, Allah willing, we may draw further attention.

This opinion, transmitted from the early generations and chosen by Ibn Aqīl, is what follows by analogy from Ahmad’s principles and from some of al-Shāfiī’s principles. It is the correct view, Allah Most High willing, for several reasons, in addition to the proofs showing on both scriptural and rational grounds that it is not prohibited. The force of those proofs, however, becomes complete only after answering the arguments cited by the proponents of the first view.

The first argument is Umar’s action, which we mentioned in the account of Usayd ibn al-Hudayr: he leased out the land and the trees growing on it in return for the sum owed to the creditors. This is precisely the issue before us. It cannot be construed as a case in which there were only a few date palms and other trees, for it is well known that what predominated in the orchards of the people of Medina was—