A landlord is absolutely not allowed to lease his land for farming, whether He possessed both its neck and benefit, or He possessed its benefit only, whether the land was ’Ushri land or Kharaji land and whether its rent was money or something else. He is also not allowed to lease the land for a part of its food production or for something else other than the food, or for any other thing which it produces at all, because this is considered leasing, and leasing land for farming is absolutely not allowed. It was narrated by al-Bukhari that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: “Whoever has land let Him plant upon it or grant it to his brother. If He declined let Him hold his land.” Muslim also narrated, “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) forbade a rent or a share be taken for the land.” The Sunan of An-Nisai states: “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) forbade leasing the land.We said, ‘O Prophet (pbuh) of Allah, can we then lease it for some of the grain.” He  said, ‘No.’ We said, ‘We used to lease it for the straw.’ He (pbuh) said, ‘No.’We said, ‘We used to lease it in return of that on the irrigating Rabee’a.’ He (pbuh) said, ‘No, plant it or grant it to your brother.’” What is meant by Rabee’a is the small stream, that is to lease it in exchange for planting the part which is alongside the water. It was soundly narrated that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) forbade a rent or a share to be taken for the land, or to be leased for a third or a fourth of its harvest. Abu Dawud has narrated from Rafi’a ibn Khadeej that the Prophet (pbuh) also said, “Whoever has land, He has to plant upon it or let his brother plant upon it, and He cannot lease it for its third or fourth or a specified food.” Bukhari narrated from Nafi’, who said, “’Abdullah ibn ’Umar was told from Rafi’a ibn Khadeej, who had said that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) forbade the leasing of land. So ’Abdullah ibn ’Umar went to Rafi’a and I went with Him to ask Rafi’a who said: The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) had forbidden the leasing of land.” Nafi’a also mentioned that ’Abdullah ibn ’Umar had given up the leasing of the land.

These Ahadith explicitly show that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) forbade leasing of land. Although forbidding means the order to leave only, there is an indication (Qareena) that this order is decisive; since they said to the Prophet (pbuh), “We lease for part of the grains.” He (pbuh) said, “No.” Then they said to him, “We used to lease it for the straw.” He (pbuh) said, “No.” Then they said, “We used to lease it for the Rabee’a.” He (pbuh) said, “No.” Then He confirmed this by saying, “Plant it or grant it to your brother.” His insistence in forbidding is clear here which denotes the confirmation. Moreover, confirmation in the Arabic language is either literal, by repeating the word or by meaning. In this Hadith, the word was repeated which means confirmation.

With regard to leasing the land of Khaybar in return of its half, this is not part of this subject, because the land of Khaybar was planted with trees and not smooth (i.e empty of trees). The evidence for this was narrated by Ibn Ishaq in his Seerah of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) from ’Abdullah ibn Abu Bakr, “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) used to send ’Abdullah ibn Ruwahah to the people of Khaybar to estimate the fruits between Muslims and Jews, so He estimated their part. After ’Abdullah ibn Ruwahah was martyred at Mu’tah, Jabir ibn Sakhr ibn Umayyah ibn Khansa’a, brother of Bani Salama, used to estimate the fruits of Khaybar.” Estimation is to determine the value of the fruits on the trees before it is collected. It is clear that the land of Khaybar was planted with trees and not smooth land. The plants which it contained were of a lesser size than the area of the trees, so the planted part follows the trees part in its identity.

The land of Khaybar was therefore not subject to a matter of leasing; it was rather sharecropping (Musaqat), which is allowed. Furthermore, after the prohibition by the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), the Sahabah abstained from leasing land, including ’Abdullah ibn ’Umar, which indicated that they understood the prohibition of leasing the land.

However, the prohibition of leasing the land is only if it is for farming. If its lease is for other than farming, it is allowed. A person is allowed to lease the land as a day pasture or a resting place (for cattle) or a warehouse for his foods, or to use it for anything other than farming. This is because the prohibition of the leasing of land is focused on its lease for farming, as is understood from the sound Ahadith. These rules of land and what is connected with it, explain the manner by which the Shar’a restricted the Muslim when He works to increase his ownership through farming.

Every landlord is obliged to use his land. The owner, who is in need of help for using the land, is helped by the Bait ul-Mal. If He neglects the use of the land for three continuous years it is taken from Him and given to another person. ’Umar ibn Al-Khattab said: “The one who fences (something) has no right in it after three years.” Yahya ibn Adam reported from Amru ibn Shu’aib, who said: “The Prophet (pbuh) granted land to some people from Mazina or Johaina and they neglected it. Other people came and cultivated it. ’Umar said: ‘If the land was granted by me or by Abu Bakr, I would have returned it back (to those people). But since it was granted by the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) I would not.’ And He said: ‘Whoever neglected a land for three years without using it and another person came and used it, it becomes his.”’ What is meant by the words of ’Umar is that the land was not used for more than three years. If it was a grant from Abu Bakr, then less than three years had passed and if it was from ‘Umar, less than three years had passed as well. As a grant from the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), however more than three years had passed, so it could not be returned back to those who were given the grant.

Abu Ubayd reported in the book of Al-Amwal from Bilal ibn al-Harith al-Muzni that the Prophet (pbuh) had granted Him all of al-Aqeeq. He said that during the time of ’Umar, He (’Umar) said to Bilal, “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did not grant you the place to fence it against the people but to use it. So take of it as much as you can afford and return the rest of it.” Therefore it is Ijma’a of the Sahabah that whoever neglected his land for three years, would have the land taken away from Him and given to another person.

In this way the landlord is allowed to plant upon his land by use of his tools, seeds, animals and labour; and He has the right to employ labourers to work on it. If He cannot use it then the State may help him. If the landlord does not do this He has to give it to another person, to plant upon it, as a grant without recompense. If He does not do this and He keeps hold of it He is given a period of three years. If He neglects it for three years, the State will take it from Him and grant it to someone else. It is narrated by Yahya ibn Adam in the book of Al-Kharaj that Yunus narrated from Muhammad ibn Ishaq from ’Abdullah ibn Abu Bakr, who said: “Bilal ibn al-Harith ibn al-Muzni came to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) and asked that He grant Him a certain land; the Prophet (pbuh) granted Him a large piece of land. When ’Umar took the authority He said to Bilal, ‘O Bilal you asked the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) to grant you large land so He granted it to you; and the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) was not used to holding back anything He was asked to give and you can’t manage this land.’ Bilal said: ‘Yes.’ ’Umar said: ‘So look at the part which you can manage and hold it, and the part which you are not able to use give it to us so as to divide it amongst Muslims.’ Bilal said: ‘I swear by Allah I will not do that to a land the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) gave to me.’ ’Umar said: ‘By Allah you must do it.’ So ’Umar took from Him the part He could not use and divided it amongst the Muslims.” It is quite clear that the person who owns land but cannot plant upon it and who neglects it for three years, will have it taken from Him by the State and given to another person, as ’Umar ibn Al-Khattab had done with Bilal al-Muzni with regard to the land of the mines of al-Qabliyah.

In conclusion, land is owned by fencing, by granting from the Khalifah, by cultivation, by inheritance and by trading. The texts, which came concerning taking the land from the one who neglected it for three years, have mentioned the one who fenced the land, and the one who was granted the land by the Khalifah. They did not mention other types of landlords, such as the inheritor, the one who cultivates the land and the buyer. So, does ignoring any land for three years owned by a person allow the Khalifah to take it from Him and give it to another? Alternatively, is this specific to the one who fenced a dead land, and the one who was granted the land by the Khalifah? To answer this question we notice that fencing of the land is like buying it or inheriting it or any other means of ownership from the angle of disposal of the land, and possession of it. If the one who fenced the land sold it He would own its price because it is a right in exchange of property, so it is allowed to be recompensed for it. In addition, if the one who fenced the land died, the ownership of the land is transferred to his inheritors like the rest of the properties which they dispose of, and they are divided amongst them according to the Shari’ah rules. This is also similar to the one to whom the Khalifah grants a piece of land. Therefore, the one who fences a land and the one who is granted a land, do not have any specific merit that distinguishes them from the other landlords, which would make taking the land from them, if it was neglected for three years, specific to them to the exclusion of the rest of the landlords, who own the land through other means of ownership. Nor do they have that merit that makes the fencing and the granting of land as a constraint for taking the land if it was neglected for three years. With regards to the argument that the texts specifically mentioned them alone, this does not indicate constraint, because this is not a description, which means that taking the land from the one who neglects it, is only because He owned it by fencing or granting. It is rather a text that stated one single member of the Mutlaq (unrestricted), where land is taken from one type of owner if He neglects it. The text is general and mentioning ownership by fencing and granting is just a mention of one member of the Mutlaq (unrestricted) not a restriction that excludes other than them. However, if the text came regarding an incident, it has to be examined. If it included reasoning, then it becomes a general text in the reasoned matter. The text in question indicates reasoning, which is taking the land after three years because of neglecting its farming. The neglect of the land for three years is the reason (Illah) for taking it. The reason for taking the land from the one who fenced it is thus because He neglected it for three years, not because He is an owner by fencing, or because He is an owner by fencing who neglected the land. Fencing of the land does not indicate it is the reason for taking it, neither by itself (fencing) nor by combining it with neglecting. Rather neglecting alone is the matter which indicates the reason (Illah) for taking it. Thus neglecting the land is a reason (Illah) which revolves with the reasoned rule, in existence and absence. Wherever neglecting of the land by its owner for three years occurred, it would be taken from Him whether He owned it by fencing or by granting or by inheritance or by any other means. If the owner by fencing did not neglect his land for three years it would not be taken from him.

In addition, fencing of the land as mentioned by ’Umar (ra.) in the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh): “Anyone who fences a land (Muhtajir) has no....” is an indirect expression of its ownership; as it is usual that the owner of the land fences the land by encircling its borders with stones, so as to be known as his property, and be differentiated from the property of others. It is not a condition that He puts stones around it so as to be called a fencer. Rather, to put plants or trees on the borders of the land or to dig a ditch, or carry out any work which indicates that He possesses it, all this is called (Ihtijar), and the one who does that to a land is called a fencer (Muhtajir). The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) says in another Hadith that is narrated by Abu Dawud: “Whoever encircled a land by a fence...” The Hadith implies that walling (fencing) of the land is an indirect expression of its ownership, according to the linguistic meaning of the word “fenced.” Linguistically, the word Ihtajara refers to something one puts in his lap or embraces. Ihtijara (walled) with respect to a land, means one embraced it, meaning ownership of it. Therefore the meaning of the Hadith will be that whoever embraced a land (owned it), has no right after three years, whether He put stones on its borders, or He encircled it by a fence, or He did anything that indicates his ownership of it.

This is the argument with regard to the text. However, with regard to what ’Umar followed, and the rest of the companions kept silent on, ’Umar ordered that the land which the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) granted to Mazina which others cultivated, be given to those who cultivated it, and He prevented Mazina from taking it. He also said: “Whoever neglected a land for three years without cultivating it, and some other person cultivated it, it would be his.” This speech of ’Umar is general, as He said: “Whoever neglected a land…” He also said to Bilal ibn al-Harith al- Muzni “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did not grant you land to fence it against the people, rather He granted it you to use it, so take the part which you can manage, and return the rest of it.” He actually took from Him that which He was unable to use. Limiting this decision to granted land alone without a clear evidence of specification is not allowed, rather it should stay general. The fact that the incident occurred with the person who was granted the land is just an expression about an incident, and is not limited to that incident.

Therefore, every landlord who neglects the land for three years has his land taken from Him and given to another, whatever his means of ownership of the land was.What matters is the neglecting of the land and not the means of its ownership. It is not true to say that this means taking the property of people without right. This is because Shar’a gave land ownership a meaning different to that of the ownership of moveable properties or the ownership of buildings: it made land ownership for cultivating it. If it was neglected for the period determined by the Shar’a, then the landlord would have ignored the meaning of its ownership. Shar’a has made the ownership of the land for farming whether by cultivation, granting, inheritance, buying or other means. It also made the stripping of the ownership of it, by negligence. This is all for the purpose of continual farming and use of the land.

The dead land is that land upon which there are no signs of ownership such as fencing, planting, habitation or the like. Cultivation of land means making it suitable for farming at once. Every piece of dead land once cultivated by a person becomes his ownership. Thus the Shari’ah gives it to the one who cultivates it. This is according to what Bukhari related from ‘Aisha (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: “Whosoever cultivated a land that is not owned by anybody, then He deserved it more.” Abu Dawud narrated that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: “Whosoever fenced a (dead) land it becomes his” and Bukhari narrated from Umar (ra) that He (pbuh) said: “Anyone who cultivated a dead land it becomes his.” Muslims and the Dhimmi are equal in this matter, because the Hadith is general in its words.

Cultivation is a different matter to the State granting of land. The difference between them is that the cultivation is related to the dead land upon which there is no apparent ownership. There are no signs of fencing, planting, building or the like. Cultivation of such land means to populate it with anything that indicates inhabitation. The granting of land however, is giving of the land that is inhabited and is suitable for farming immediately. This is the land that shows signs of previous ownership. Fencing the land is similar to its cultivation. This is due to the saying of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), “Whosoever fenced a land with a wall then it becomes his” and his (pbuh) saying, “Whosoever fenced anything with a wall, it becomes his thereby.” Also his (pbuh) saying, “Whosoever reached a thing first that no other Muslim reached before, He deserves it more.”

Thus by fencing, the fencer gains the right of disposal of the land as the Hadith stated. The fencer also has the right to prevent anyone who wanted to from cultivating that which He has fenced. If another person overpowered Him and managed to inhabit the land that He had fenced, He would not own that land and it would be returned back to the original fencer. Fencing is also like cultivation with regard to the disposal of the land and possession of it. If the person who fenced a land later sold it He owns its price, because the land is a right that can be recompensed with property, so it can be exchanged. If this person died, the ownership of this fenced land is transferred to his inheritors like any other of his properties and they gain the right of disposal over it and it is divided amongst them according to the divine rules like other inherited properties. However, fencing a land does not mean just putting stones around it, it is rather putting anything around it which indicates holding a hand over it, which indicates ownership. Fencing could be by placing stones around the land, putting dry branches, clearing it, burning the thistles, cutting the spikes and grass, or placing other such items around it to prevent people entering it. It could also be by preparing the canals even if one did not irrigate it, or any other similar thing.

From the Hadith, it is clear that fencing like cultivation must only be with regard to the dead land, and it would not be for other than that. The saying of Umar (ra) “a fencer has no right after three years” referring to the fencer has no right in the dead land. The non-dead land cannot be possessed by fencing nor by revival, it is rather possessed by granting from the Imam. This is because revival and fencing came connected with the dead land. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: “Whoever revived a dead land...” The word ‘dead’ is an adjective, so it has a concept that is usable as a restriction on the word land. (This means that the land that is other than dead land cannot be owned by walling or revival). Al-Baihaqi also narrated from Amir ibn Shuaib “that Umar made fencing for three years.” If He left it (the land) for three years and another person cultivated it then He becomes more deserving of it. This means that the non-dead land is not owned by fencing or cultivation.

This differentiation between the dead and used land indicates that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) allowed the people to own the dead land by habitation and fencing. So it became of the Mubah things. Therefore, it does not need permission from the Imam for habitation or fencing, because the Mubah things do not need permission from the Imam.

However, the lands which are not dead are not owned unless the Imam granted them because they are not of the mubah things. They are rather the lands on which the Imam put his hand and which are called the lands of the State. The matter which proves this case is that Bilal al-Muzni asked the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) to grant Him a land, and He did not own it except after the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) granted it to him. If the dead land could be owned by habitation or fencing Bilal would have encircled it by any marks which denote his ownership, and He would have owned it without asking the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) to grant it to him.

Whoever cultivates a dead land of the ’Ushri land, He owned its neck and its benefit, whether He is Muslim or non-Muslim. For such land, the Muslim landlord is obliged to pay the Zakat (’Ushr) of the plants and fruits which are entitled for Zakat once the amount of the harvest reaches the Nisab. As for the non-Muslim landlord of such land, He is not obliged to pay either Zakat or Kharaj, because He is not one of those who are subject to pay Zakat and because there is no Kharaj on ’Ushri land.

Whoever cultivates a dead land in Kharaji area where no Kharaj has been put over it before, He owns its neck and its benefit if He is Muslim. If He is non-Muslim He owns its benefit only. The Muslim landlord of such land is obliged to pay the ‘Ushr with no Kharaj on him. While the non-Muslim landlord has to pay the Kharaj, similar to that put on its kuffar inhabitants at the time of its conquest.

Whoever cultivates a dead land in Kharaji area where Kharaj has been levied before it became dead, He owns its benefit only without owning its neck, whether the landlord is Muslim or non-Muslim. Such a landlord is obliged to pay the Kharaj because it is a conquered land. Therefore, the Kharaj remains on it at all times, whether owned by a Muslim or non- Muslim.

This is the case if the land was cultivated for farming. If, however, the land is cultivated or fenced for the purpose of housing, industry, stores or sheds, then no ’Ushr or Kharaj is due, whether it was originally ’Ushri or Kharaji land. This is the situation because when the Sahabah opened (i.e conquered) Iraq and Egypt they built Kufa, Basra and Al-Fustat and they lived there at the time of Umar ibn Al-Khattab. Other people (Muslims and non-Muslim) joined them in these cities. Yet Kharaj was not levied on them, nor did they pay Zakat, because Zakat is not due on homes and buildings.

Land has a neck (the land itself) and a benefit. Its neck is its origin, and its benefit is its use in farming and other uses. Islam allows the ownership of the neck of the land as it allows the ownership of its benefit, and has put rules for each of them. With regard to the ownership of the neck of the land this has to be examined. If the country which includes this land has been opened by conquest, then the neck of the land will be owned by the State, and the land would be Kharaji land, except if it was in the Arab Peninsula.

If the country was opened peacefully, then this is also to be examined. If the peace treaty stated that the land belongs to the Muslims, and the State settled the people in their land in return for a Kharaj they pay to the State, then this Kharaj remains permanent. The land of such a country remains Kharaji land until the day of Judgement even if its owners embraced Islam or its ownership was transferred to Muslims through sale or in any other way.

However, if the peace treaty stated that the land belongs to them and it remained in their hold and they settled upon it, in return for a certain Kharaj imposed upon them, then this Kharaj is considered like Jizya. Such Kharaj is abolished once they embrace Islam or if they sold the land to a Muslim. In contrast, if they sold the land to a disbeliever the Kharaj remains without being abolished, because the disbeliever is subject to Kharaj and Jizya.

If the people of the country have embraced Islam in their land, like Indonesia, or the land which is part of the Arab Peninsula, then the neck of the land is owned by its inhabitants, and the land is considered ’Ushri land.

The reason for this treatment is that land is a form of property taken as booty in war. It is Halal (allowed) and it is the property of the Bait ul- Mal. Hafs ibn Ghiath narrated from Abu Dh’ib from Zuhri who said: “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) accepted the Jizya from the fireworshippers (Majus) of Bahrain. It was accepted from any one of its people who embraced Islam, and his life and his property would be protected, except his land which is considered as booty for the Muslims, because He did not accept Islam initially when He was under no threat.” The difference between the land and the other booties is that other booties can be disposed of by dividing them amongst the Muslims, but the neck of the land is kept under the disposal of the Bait ul-Mal from the legal point of view although, practically, it remains in the hands of its inhabitants who can benefit from it. Keeping the neck of the land with the Bait ul-Mal and enabling the people to benefit from it means that it is a public booty for all Muslims, whether they exist at the time of conquest or they come later on.

As for the Arab Peninsula, all of its land is ‘ushri land, because the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) opened Makkah by force and He left it to its people and did not put Kharaj on it. Moreover, since the Kharaj on the land is similar to the Jizya on the person, it does not apply to the land of the Arab Peninsula as the Jizya does not apply on the necks of its inhabitants. This is the case because the condition for imposing the Kharaj on the land is that its inhabitants are left to what they believe in and what they worship, as was the case of the land of Iraq. While the polytheists of the Arab peninsula had no choice except to embrace Islam or to fight. Allah (swt) said:

“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the polytheists wherever you find them, take them (captive), besiege them and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repented and established the prayer and paid the zakat then leave their way free.” [At-Tauba: 5] Allah (swt) also said:

“You will be called against a folk of mighty powers, to fight them or they surrender (declare Islam).” [Al-Fath: 16]

As long as no Jizya was taken from the Arab idolaters, then no Kharaj is to be taken from their land.

In all the countries opened to Islam by conquest or opened by peace treaty on condition that the land belongs to the Muslims, the neck of the land is a property of the State. It is then, considered Kharaji land whether it is still under the authority of the Islamic Ummah like Egypt, Iraq, India and Turkey, or it came under the authority of the disbelievers like Spain, Ukraine, Albania, Yugoslavia and others. Every country whose inhabitants declared Islam by themselves without conquest, like Indonesia and all the Arab peninsula, their land is owned by the inhabitants and considered ‘Ushri land.

With regard to the benefit of the land, it is considered a personal property, whether it was Kharaji land, ‘Ushri land, whether it was given to the people by the State, they exchanged it between themselves, they reclaimed it or they secluded it. This benefit gives the person who disposes of the land rights similar to those given to the owners of the neck of the land. So this person has the right to sell it, grant it or leave it behind so as to be inherited from him. This is the case because the State has the right to grant lands to individuals, whether the land is ’ushri or Kharaji. Granting the Kharaji land is appropriating the benefit of the land, while keeping its neck to the Bait ul-Mal. In the case of the ‘ushri land granting is appropriating the neck of the land and its benefit.

The difference between ’Ushr and Kharaj is that ’Ushr is taken from the harvest of the land. This means that the State takes from the land’s farmers one tenth of the real production of the land if it is irrigated naturally by rain water, and it takes half of the tenth of the real production if the land was irrigated artificially by a waterwheel or other similar means. Muslim has narrated from Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: “One tenth is put on what is irrigated by the rivers and rain and half of the tenth is put on what is irrigated by the waterwheel.” This tenth is considered a Zakat and is put in the Bait ul- Mal, and it is not paid except to one of the eight categories mentioned in the Qur’anic verse:

“The alms are only for the poor, and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled and to free the slaves, and the debtors, and for the way of Allah (Jihad) and for the wayfarers; a duty imposed by Allah.” [At-Tauba: 60]

Al-Hakim, Al-Baihaqi and At-Tabarani reported through the Hadith of Abu Musa al-Ash’ari and Mu’adh that when the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) sent them to Yemen to teach people the deen, He (pbuh) said: “Don’t take zakat or charity except from these four things: Barley, wheat, raisins and dates.”

However Kharaj is that which the State takes from the landlord; a certain quantity which it estimates and defines according to the usual estimated production of the land, rather than its actual production. Kharaj is estimated on the land by as much as can be afforded from it, without bringing injustice, neither to the landlord nor to the Bait ul-Mal. It is collected every year from the landlord whether it was planted upon or not and whether it was fertile or barren. Abu Yusuf narrated in Al-Kharaj from Amru bin Maymun and Haritha bin Mudhrab: “Umar bin Al- Khattab sent ’Uthman ibn Hanif to the land of Iraq and He ordered Him to survey it. On each Jareeb (a patch of arable land) whether it was cultivated or overflowed with water, but could be usually used, He put one Dirham and one Qafeez” (about 16kg). Abu Yusuf also reported in the same book Al-Kharaj narrating from Al-Hajjaj bin Arta’a who narrated from Ibn ’Awf who said that “Umar bin Al-Khattab surveyed the land beyond the mountain of Halwan (in Iraq), and on every Jareeb, whether it was cultivated or overflowed with water irrigated by a bucket or something else, and whether it was planted or neglected, He levied a Dirham and one Qafeez.” Kharaj is placed in the Bait ul-Mal in a section other than that of zakat. It is spent on all the aspects which the State decides, in the same way as the other properties of Bait ul-Mal.

Concerning the land which was opened by force and upon which Kharaj was imposed, its Kharaj continues forever. If its inhabitants embraced Islam or they sold it to a Muslim, its Kharaj is not abolished, because its character as being opened by force remains for all time. Accordingly, the new (Muslim) landlords have to pay the ’Ushr and the Kharaj. This is the case because the Kharaj is a right due on the land, while the ’Ushr is a right due on the production of land owned by a Muslim, a matter established by the verses and the Ahadith. There is no contradiction between the two rights, as each one of them is established by its own evidence. With regard to what the Ahnaf chose in not combining the ’Ushr and the Kharaj on the same land, referring to a Hadith from the Messenger of Allah (pbuh): “Ushr and Kharaj do not add together upon a land owned by a Muslim”; this saying is not a Hadith, and the collectors of Ahadith (Huffadh) did not prove that the Prophet (pbuh) said it.

As for the collection of the Kharaj and ’Ushr, it is started with collecting of the Kharaj. If that which is left after paying the Kharaj, of plants and fruits amounts to the Nisab, then the Zakat is taken from it. However, if that which is left after paying the Kharaj is less than the Nisab, then there is no Zakat upon it (i.e. no ’Ushr).