trees, and Usayd ibn al-Hudayr was one of the leaders and men of means among the Ansar. It is therefore unlikely that bare land predominated in his orchard. Moreover, this incident must have become widely known, yet no report has reached us that anyone objected to it; it therefore constitutes a consensus. The same applies to the kharāj (land tax) Umar imposed upon al-Sawād. Its designation as kharāj indicates that it was compensation for their usufruct of the land and trees, just as people today call the rent charged for land leased to someone who plants it kharāj when a fixed sum is due for each tree. This is also the sense of His words: “Or do you ask them for payment? But your Lord’s reward is better” [al-Muminūn: 72] [al-Muminūn: 72]. Another example is the kharāj paid by a slave: it is a levy he pays to his master from his own wealth. Whoever regards it as rent must therefore regard such an arrangement as permissible, for it is established by the consensus of the Companions. Whoever regards it as a price or an independent form of consideration knows that it resembles nothing else. The Companions permitted it—despite its having no analogue—only because the need for it demanded this; and that same need exists in every land containing trees, just as it does in conquered lands.

If it is argued that orchard or field sharecropping could be used instead, the answer is that Umar could likewise have used orchard or field sharecropping. This was in fact done sometime under the Abbasid state—either during the caliphate of al-Mansūr or afterward—when they changed the Sawād lands from kharāj assessment to a share-of-produce system, which is a form of orchard and field sharecropping.

If it is argued that the rent could be assigned to the land while the usufruct of the trees was granted gratuitously or on preferential terms, the answer is that Umar could likewise have done that. The common factor between the two cases is therefore clear.

Furthermore, we know with certainty that Muslims have always possessed lands containing trees that [were leased out]. Indeed, such properties comprise most of the wealth of city dwellers. And we know that