on sinful acts until he falls into debt—he is instructed to repent and is permitted whatever relieves his necessity. Thus, he is permitted to eat carrion, and his debt may be paid from zakat. If he does not repent, then he is wronging himself and resorting to stratagems. His situation 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 of their disobedience.”

And His words:

“For the wrongdoing of those who were Jews, We forbade them good things which had been lawful to them, and for their hindering…”

to the end of the verse. This is an important principle to which we may draw attention, Allah willing.

This view, transmitted from the early generations and adopted by Ibn Aqīl, follows by analogy from Ahmad’s principles and some of al-Shāfi‘ī’s principles. It is the correct view, Allah Most High willing, for several reasons, in addition to the scriptural and rational evidence showing that this is not forbidden. The force of this evidence, however, is fully established only after answering the arguments advanced by those who hold the first view.

The first reason:

What we have already mentioned of Umar’s action in the case of Usayd ibn al-Hudayr: he leased out the land together with its trees in return for the sum owed to the creditors. This is precisely the issue under discussion. This cannot be explained by supposing that the date palms and other trees were few, for it is well known that trees occupied most of the gardens of the people of Medina. Usayd ibn al-Hudayr was among the leaders and wealthy men of the Ansār, so it is unlikely that most of his garden consisted of land without trees. Moreover, this incident must have become widely known, yet no objection to it has reached us; it therefore constitutes a consensus. The same applies to the land tax he imposed on