and the early Muslims disputed whether it remained lawful. Marriage for the purpose of tahlīl, however, was never permitted, nor did the early Muslims dispute its prohibition. Whoever denounces the Shia for permitting temporary marriage while himself permitting tahlīl marriage gives them an opening to attack the Sunnah, just as Christians have used such permission for tahlīl marriage to attack Islam. They have even said:

“Their prophet told these people: ‘If one of you divorces his wife, she will not be lawful for him until she commits fornication.’”

This is because tahlīl marriage is fornication, as the Companions themselves called it.

The second view on the original question is that, if the use of the land is the principal object and the trees are incidental, the land may be leased with the trees included incidentally. This is Mālik’s position, and he sets the incidental portion at one-third. Someone holding this view permits the sale of fruit before its soundness becomes apparent when it is included incidentally within another transaction. Similarly, in a purchase made after pollination, the purchaser may stipulate that the fruit be included, as is established from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in the two Sahīh collections. Here, the purchaser has bought the fruit before its soundness becomes apparent, but only as an adjunct to the principal property. This is permissible by scholarly consensus. Thus, he draws an analogy between what is included incidentally in a lease and what is included incidentally in a sale.

The third view is that the land and trees may be leased together, even if the trees predominate. This is the view of Ibn ‘Aqīl, and it is what is reported from the Commander of