on them. As for those among our scholars who hold that kharāj is to be levied on its farmland, the falsity of their view is established by mass-transmitted reports, even though it follows consistently from their analogical reasoning.

This reasoning is weak for several reasons:

First: Land conquered by force may be leased by consensus. Yet the soundest view concerning the houses of Mecca is that they may not be leased; rather, they must be made available without payment to those who need them. This is what the Quran, the Sunnah, the transmitted reports, and analogy indicate. As for prohibiting their sale, that is open to question. If conquest by force were the reason for the prohibition, it would not preclude leasing them.

Second: In the case of land conquered by force, the prohibition on sale applies only to its farmland. It does not apply to dwellings; rather, these belong to their owners. In Mecca, however, the prohibition on transactions for payment concerns its residential properties, whereas no such prohibition applies to residential properties on land conquered by force. This clearly demonstrates the distinction.

Third: I know of none among our scholars or others who has prohibited the sale or leasing of Mecca’s farmland. The discussion concerns only its residential properties—that is, its dwellings, not its farmland. How different the two cases are!

Fourth: Those houses had belonged to the Emigrants, who asked the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, to restore them to them, but he did not do so. Had they been like other property conquered by force,