half of it and endowed it for the Muslims, with the same right to draw water from it as any other Muslim. When the Jew saw this, he sold him the other half; ʿUthmān bought it and endowed the entire well for the Muslims.”

The jurists have cited this hadith as evidence for several rulings, including the validity of endowing an undivided share. They have also discussed whether a right of pre-emption applies in such cases. Most jurists hold that it does, including Abū Hanīfa and Ahmad, according to one of the two reports from him. This is also one of the two positions in Mālik’s school and was the view preferred by Ibn Surayj among al-Shāfiʿī’s followers. However, the well-known position reported from al-Shāfiʿī is that no right of pre-emption applies. This is also the other report from Ahmad, preferred by many of his followers. The stronger view is that the right of pre-emption does apply in such cases. The point here is that they agreed that such property may lawfully be sold; the permissibility of giving it as a gift is even clearer than that of selling it.

He was asked about two men who held a land grant in a certain locality and disputed whether vegetation that grows naturally by Allah’s will could be sold.

One maintained that it was like wild vegetation and could not lawfully be sold because it was not his property.

The other replied: “Rather, it may be sold, for the ruler granted it to me, so it is my property. I may sell everything within my share and my allotted portion.” Are