The reply is:

This provides further confirmation, for this question may be approached on two grounds. The first is to concede that the basic principle entails prohibition, but that need makes it permissible, as in comparable cases.

The second is to reject this premise and say: “We do not concede that the basic principle entails prohibition. Rather, the evidence does not cover a case such as this, either in its wording or in its underlying meaning.”

As for its wording, this person has not sold fruit before its ripeness becomes apparent. Had he sold it, he would have borne the costs of delivery, just as he would also bear those costs if he sold it after its ripeness became apparent.

The Muslims have agreed upon what the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb—may Allah be pleased with him—did in imposing kharāj (land tax) on the Sawād and other lands conquered by force. This holds whether the position taken is that this is obligatory on land conquered by force, or that the land should be made communal property, as Mālik held—which is also one reported view of Ahmad—or that it must be divided among those who took part in the conquest, as al-Shāfi‘ī held—which is also one reported view of the Imam—or that the ruler may choose between these two alternatives, as held by Abū Hanīfah, al-Thawrī, Abū ‘Ubayd, and others. This last position is also the apparent position of Imam Ahmad’s school.

Al-Shāfi‘ī maintains that ‘Umar obtained the willing consent of those who took part in the conquest before making the land communal property and imposing kharāj upon it. Thus, the Muslims have agreed in general that imposing kharāj on land conquered by force is permissible, provided that it entails no injustice to those who took part in the conquest.