—a wide-ranging disagreement that I have discussed elsewhere. Those who hold that the share allotted to the relatives of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, lapses upon his death do not prohibit them from receiving charity. This is Abū Hanīfa’s position.

Section

It is established that “the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, set aside one-fifth of the land of Khaybar and divided the remainder equally among those who fought to conquer it.” ʿUmar, may Allah be pleased with him, retained the cultivated lands of Iraq and Egypt and the territory conquered in Syria, so that their revenues would provide stipends for the fighting men and support the Muslims’ livelihood and welfare. According to one account, he obtained the conquerors’ willing consent, compensating anyone unwilling to relinquish his share by paying its value. On this understanding, his action did not depart from what the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had done with the land of Khaybar.

Some Iraqi scholars adopted this view. They held that if the inhabitants were allowed to remain on the land to cultivate it, it became their property, whether or not they embraced Islam, while remaining subject to land tax until the Day of Resurrection. This accords with the report that ʿUmar assessed a certain amount on each jarīb (a measure of land area) planted with wheat, another amount on each jarīb planted with barley, and another on each jarīb planted with date palms. They cited the fixed annual land tax assessed on each jarīb of date palms as evidence that the land belonged to its inhabitants: had it belonged to the Muslims, this would have amounted to selling dates before they came into existence.

According to another account, he retained the land without giving any compensation to those who fought to conquer it, basing his action on his understanding of the words of Allah Most High in the verse from Sūrat al-Hashr:

“And those who come after them say, ‘Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith.’” [al-Hashr: 10]

This is the view adopted by Mālik, may Allah have mercy on him.

On this basis, scholars differed concerning this verse about fay’ and the verse about war spoils in Sūrat al-Anfāl. One view is that both remain operative, allowing a choice: the imam may either divide land conquered by force, as the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did with the land of Khaybar—thereby demonstrating that the verse in Sūrat al-Anfāl applies in its full generality—or retain it as ʿUmar did, relying on the verse from Sūrat al-Hashr. This is the view adopted by Abū ʿUbayd. Another view is that the verse