a borrower. They overlooked the fact that holders of land grants are entitled to the benefits, rather than merely being allowed to enjoy them, just as successive generations of beneficiaries have rights under an endowment—even though a lease may terminate upon the beneficiary’s death, according to those who hold this view. The ruler is a distributor, not a benefactor, and his apportionment of rights of use is like his apportionment of property. They also overlooked the fact that the ruler who made the grant authorized its recipient to derive income from it and lease it out. Even if someone lending property authorizes the borrower to lease it out, the lease is valid by agreement. How much more so, then, in the case of a land grant! Allah knows best.

He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

A man leases an undivided half share in an orchard that has not been partitioned. Its walls had fallen into disrepair, so the lessee and the owner of the other half agreed to rebuild them. They divided the walls between themselves so that each would rebuild his assigned portion. The lessee rebuilt his portion, but the other man refused, until most of the fruit was stolen. He also refused to irrigate, until most of the fruit was ruined.

He replied:

Praise be to Allah. Yes, if he failed to carry out what they had agreed upon, and some of the fruit was lost because of that neglect, he must compensate his partner for whatever was lost from his share. If, however, he refuses from the outset to join in rebuilding and irrigation, he is compelled to do so according to the more correct of the scholars’ two opinions. According to the other opinion, he is not compelled, but the other party may undertake the rebuilding and irrigation.