Islamic Fiqh > Endowments (waqf) and property > Reviving dead land (ihya') > The grant of developed lands ('amira)
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 6:57 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
The Shafi'is distinguish two forms of grant over a developed land: the grant with transfer of ownership and the grant of exploitation. In the first, the imam grants a property he has had developed by hired laborers and stewards, or that he bought, or that his agent holds on his account: the grantee becomes owner through acceptance and taking possession, whether the grant is perpetual or for the grantee's lifetime ('umra), in which case it is called ma'ash (maintenance allowance).
The properties left by past sultans through death or killing are not the property of the ruling imam: they belong to their heirs if these are identified, otherwise they follow the regime of lost property. It is not permitted to grant in full ownership the lands of the fay' (booty obtained without fighting), nor the lands the imams reserved for the bayt al-mal from the conquests, whether by right of the fifth (khums) or through the victors' own choice, nor the kharaj lands (land tax) acquired by treaty. The grant of the lands of a Muslim who died leaving no heir is discussed in two views, the apparent sense of which is prohibition; granting the whole as a lifetime allowance remains permitted.
The second form consists in granting the yield (ghalla) of kharaj lands. Al-Adhrai said: "I do not think there is any disagreement over the permissibility of the grant of exploitation when it is made, in its proper place, to a capable man, in a measure suited to his situation and without any speculation." That is, the grantee acquires the usufruct through taking possession, with an exclusive right as against the owner. If the grant is made to those entitled to the alms (sadaqat), it is void; the same applies to those in charge of public interests, although something may be given them from the kharaj funds, but under two conditions: that it be from assessed money that became due by reason of the territory's opening, such as the license for the call to prayer, the office of prayer leader and the like; and that this money be already available and due, so that the transfer (hawala) with it is valid. These two conditions remove the transaction from the regime of the grant.
If the grant is made to judges and to the secretaries of the diwans, a single year is permitted. Is an extension beyond that valid? Two views: the sounder is prohibition if it is the jizya, permission if it is a wage. Granting a developed land to a soldier, as a grant of exploitation, is permitted: the benefits of the land are his so long as the imam does not withdraw them. Al-Khatib al-Shirbini comments: the author's position, in his fatawa, that he may rent it out is explained by the fact that the soldier owns the right of usufruct of the land.
Certain later scholars said: what the soldier takes from the cultivator, from the yield and the like, is lawful along the path that is his; what is customarily taken as fees and exactions is unlawful (Mughni al-Muhtaj, 3/437-438). Imam al-Damiri, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "The grants known in our age, given by the emirs and soldiers over developed lands so as to draw their fruits by exploitation, find no mention anywhere in the jurists' words. To call them iqta' contradicts their doctrine: the grant bears only upon dead lands. The same applies to the stipends the imam gives to the jurists and others."
Among the lessons of examining this question: if someone encroaches upon the one entitled to such a land and sows it, does he owe him the equivalent wage (ujrat al-mithl), because he owns its usufruct by grant, or not, because he resembles the one who reserves a plot in advance, the land remaining under the shared right of the Muslims? The question requires examination, but the qadi Iyad expressly established the grantee's exclusive right, and the author's fatawa upholding the validity of renting the land supports it (al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 5/423).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "I do not know any Muslim scholar, among the followers of the four schools or others, who said that leasing an iqta' is not permitted; and the Muslims have never ceased renting granted lands from the era of the Companions down to our own time. Some of our contemporaries, however, have innovated this opinion: they say the grantee does not own the usufruct and would be like the borrower who rents out the borrowed property. This analogy is mistaken for two reasons. The first: the borrower's benefit was not a right of his, the lender having granted it to him gratuitously; whereas the lands of the Muslims, their benefit is a right of the Muslims, and the holder of authority is a distributor who allots their rights among them, not a benefactor like the lender. The grantee of an iqta' obtains the usufruct by a right of entitlement, as the beneficiary of a waqf obtains the benefits of the waqf, and more still. Since the beneficiary of a waqf may lease the waqf, even though he may die and the lease be dissolved by his death according to the sounder of the scholars' two opinions, it is stronger still to permit the grantee of an iqta' to lease it, even if the lease were dissolved by his death or otherwise."
Ibn Taymiyya continues: "The second reason: if the lender permits the lease, the lease becomes valid, like the leasing of a grant; and the holder of authority does permit the grantees to lease, having granted to them so that they benefit from it, through sharecropping (mugharasa) or through leasing. Whoever forbids benefiting from it by lease or sharecropping corrupts the religion and the worldly life of the Muslims: dwellings, such as shops and houses, benefit the grantee only through leasing; farms and orchards benefit through leasing, sharecropping and watering shares (musaqat) in the general case" (Majmu' al-Fatawa, 28/85-86). He says elsewhere: "No transmission from any scholar whose fatwas the people follow, neither among the successors of the four imams nor others, supports the one who says that the leasing of a grant is not valid. How then could it be permissible for anyone, mujtahid or muqallid, to utter an opinion that none has preceded him in?" (Jami' al-Masa'il of Ibn Taymiyya, 6/403; see also: al-Furu', 4/333; al-Insaf, 6/39-40; Matalib Uli al-Nuha, 3/620).
Al-Suyuti, may Allah have mercy on him, said: the scholars differed over the leasing of the grant; the well-known and established doctrine of al-Shafi'i is its validity, and the majority of scholars are on this position. Al-Nawawi explains: because the soldier holds a right to the usufruct. Note that our shaykh, the imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "We never ceased hearing the scholars of Islam, all together, in the lands of Egypt and the territories of Syria, declaring the lease of the grant valid, until Shaykh Taj al-Din al-Fazari and his son appeared and said what they said. That is the known position of the madhhab of Ahmad, while the madhhab of Abu Hanifa is its invalidity" (Jawahir al-Uqud, 1/217).
Ibn Nujaym, may Allah have mercy on him, said: as for the grantee's leasing of what the imam has granted him, the eminent Qasim ibn Qutlubgha issued a fatwa on its validity, specifying: "no proof exists of the imam's right to expel him during the term, any more than a proof exists allowing the lessor to die during it, or of his owning a usufruct without monetary counterpart: he therefore resembles the lessee, for he acquired the benefit of the grant in return for his readiness for what was prepared for him, and not the borrower as we have said. If the lessor dies, or if the imam withdraws the land from the grantee, the lease is dissolved, for the ownership has passed to one other than the lessor." The same applies to transfers of ownership in the analogous cases from which the leasing of the grant is excluded (al-Ashbah wa-l-Naza'ir, p. 353).
Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked the following question, phrased thus: Shaykh Muhyi al-Din al-Nawawi said, in the seventh chapter of his fatawa: if the sultan grants a land to a soldier, may he lease it or not? Answer: yes, it is permitted; for he holds the right to its usufruct; that it is exposed to being reclaimed by the sultan through death or otherwise is no obstacle, just as the wife may lease the land that constitutes her dower (sadaq) before consummation of the marriage, although it is exposed to being reclaimed by rescission or otherwise.
Al-Burhan al-Fazari said: "My father used to issue fatwas on the invalidity of leasing the grant; its basis is that the lease of the grant is not valid by the mere grant; and I agree with him." The shaykh Taqi al-Din al-Hisni says in al-Murshid: "The grantee may lease the land the imam granted him, even without the latter's permission, according to the chosen view. Whoever holds the power of disposition over a property, by ownership or otherwise, may lease it, lend it and dispose of it as he wishes." Al-Uthmani al-Safadi says: the well-known doctrine of al-Shafi'i and of the majority is validity. Al-Nawawi explains: because the soldier owns the usufruct. Al-Subki says: we never ceased hearing the scholars of Islam in Egypt and Syria declare the lease of the grant valid.
He was objected to, and he answered: "The discussion of this question requires a preamble. Taqi al-Din al-Subki said: the grants known in our age, which the sultan gives to the soldiers over developed lands that they exploit and from which they draw the fruits and benefits so long as he does not withdraw them or they do not die: I found no mention of them in the jurists' words. To call them grants contradicts their doctrine: the grant bears only upon dead lands. Permitting them requires a foundation to rest upon and the drawing out of a legal path, until one may say that the grantee, by the mere grant, owns the usufruct and the fruits, that he stands in the imam's place in exploiting and leasing it, then appropriates what it yields; this would require giving the imam the power to take it before he appropriates it, and that it be the property of the holder of the asset: all of this is problematic. The jurist must reflect upon it; and the question is not specific to these grants: the stipends the sultan grants the poor and others raise the same debate. Among the lessons of this examination: if someone encroaches upon such a land and sows it, shall we say he owes its holder his wage, because he owns its usufruct by grant, or is the grant only a right of precedence like that of the one who reserves a plot, the land remaining shared among the people and the cultivator being one of them?"
The qadi Iyad said: "The grant is the authorization given by the imam, from the bayt al-mal, of something to whom he deems fit for it. It is used mostly for the grant of land: either he transfers its ownership to him so that he develops it, or he assigns him its yield for a term: such is the meaning of the grant of our age, though our companions did not mention it." Al-Adhrai said: "I do not think there is any disagreement among the Muslims over the permissibility of the grant mentioned, when it is made in its proper place to a capable man, in a measure suited to his situation and without speculation. Among those who mentioned it, Abu Ali al-Fariqi said: after this I came upon an old work of one of our companions, entitled the Book of the Knowledge of the Legal Rulings of the Lands of Islam and the Imam's Disposition; he mentions in it that the imam may grant the soldier, from the lands of the bayt al-mal, what he needs according to his need, without excess. What the soldier takes for farming is not kharaj but the rent of the land; it is lawful for them to take the yield and the rest, if done by mutual agreement and consent; any excess is categorically unlawful. Likewise, what the grantees take from the peasants and the sharecroppers, in sheep, beasts of burden, honey or poultry, is injustice and oppression."
From al-Subki's words ("these grants known in our age: I found no mention of them in the jurists' words"), it is deduced that what al-Mawardi mentions in al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya concerning the grant of exploitation, which he divides into two species (the tithe and the kharaj), is not the grant known in our age: the latter is only the grant of the usufruct of a land, that is, of a land of the bayt al-mal. Al-Mawardi said: "As for the grant of the tithe, it is not permitted, for the tithe is a zakat owed to categories whose entitlement arises at the moment it is paid to them; at the moment it becomes due they may not be entitled to it; and it becomes due under conditions that may fail to be realized. As for the kharaj, the ruling on its grant varies with the state of the one who grants, in three cases. First case: if he belongs to those entitled to the alms, he may not grant the kharaj money, for the kharaj is fay' and those entitled to the alms have no right to it, just as those entitled to the fay' have no right to the alms; Abu Hanifa, however, permitted it. Second case: if they are those entitled to the fay' without an assigned stipend, their grant is not valid absolutely, although they may take from the kharaj money: they belong to the surplus of those entitled to the fay', not to its obligation, as they are given from the yields of the public interests. Third case: if they are the recipients of the fay' stipends and the obligations of the diwan, that is, the army: they are the people most entitled to the permissibility of the grant, for they hold assessed stipends channeled to them by way of entitlement, as compensation for devoting themselves to protecting the settlement and defending the sanctuary." He elaborated at length on the subject, and what he mentions of categories and conditions applies to the grants of our age.
The imam's grant is therefore of three categories. First: he fixes known years; the grant is valid if the amount of the grantee's allowance is known to the grantor, otherwise it is invalid, and if the amount of the kharaj is known to the grantee and the grantor, otherwise it is invalid as well. Second: he grants for the duration of his life, then to his heirs after his death: this is void, for such a grant moves from the rights of the bayt al-mal to properties transmissible by inheritance; then what he takes, with authorization, under a corrupt contract among those entitled to the kharaj, he takes and it is counted within his allowance; the excess is reclaimed from him, otherwise he returns what remains; the sultan makes him see the invalidity of taking until he desists and they cease opposing; if they persist after that, no excuse is admitted from them. Third: he grants for the duration of his life: two opinions on its validity; one holds it valid if it is said that the coming of his era does not entail the lapse of his allowance: this is the sounder view, the substance of al-Mawardi's words.
This established, we return to our question. Al-Nawawi's words in his fatawa indicate the validity of the grant made in our age, for the validity of its lease follows from its validity. Al-Adhrai's words have passed already, and what he reports of validity, in agreement with what al-Nawawi gave as fatwa, is the soundest view and the one in force. Al-Taqi, son of the qadi Shahba, used to issue fatwas in the same sense. No difference is made between a long or a short term; but as soon as the grant ends, the lease is dissolved (al-Fatawa al-Fiqhiyya al-Kubra, 3/189-191).
Imam Ibn Abd al-Barr, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "The grant is permitted to the imam over dead lands that no one has acquired: he makes it to whomever he sees among the people able, by their means or by their work, to benefit the Muslims; it is like the fay': he places it where he sees the most general benefit for the Muslims, and this must be within what the man and his workers can bear. The scholars agree, with no disagreement, that the imam may not grant what has already become property through revival or through any other valid mode of acquisition, nor the pastures the people cannot do without for their camels and their livestock, for such places follow the regime of a determined ownership. Note that when the Messenger of Allah granted Dahnah to a man, a woman said to him: O Messenger of Allah, it is where the camels of Banu Tamim are tethered, and the women of Banu Tamim lie beyond it; the Messenger of Allah therefore withdrew the grant" (hadith with a weak chain, reported by Abu Dawud (3070); al-Istidhkar, 3/146-147).
Ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "They agree that whoever owns a developed land that is not a mine, the imam may neither seize it from him nor grant it to another" (Maratib al-Ijma', p. 95). Al-Mawardi and Abu Ya'la, may Allah have mercy on them both, say: "The grant of an already-owned property is not valid, its being owned being established" (al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya, p. 220; al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya of Abu Ya'la, p. 231).
The grant of attachment (irfaq) is for the imam or his deputy to grant someone a spot among the places of the markets or alongside the wide roads, for him to sit there selling and buying (al-Hawi li-l-Fatawa, 1/126; al-Qawa'id al-Fiqhiyya, 1/223). It is also called the grant of enjoyment or of use. The majority of jurists, Shafi'is, Hanbalis and others, permit the imam to grant such places: the places of the market, the wide roads and the courtyards of the mosques; when the imam grants something of it, the beneficiary becomes more entitled than anyone.
The Shafi'is say: granting the places of the markets, the wide roads and the streets between buildings is permitted, provided these places belong to no one and do not harm passers-by; the beneficiary then becomes more entitled than anyone. If he rises and moves his gear, then returns and finds someone else in his place, the first, the one favored by the imam, remains more entitled: such is the difference between attaching oneself to these places without a grant and with a grant. Neither the ruler nor anyone else may take compensation for it, whether one sits with the ruler's permission or without it. If someone outpaces the others to a place the ruler has not granted, attaching himself to it is permitted; if he departs with his gear, others may attach themselves to it.
Al-Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "The places of the markets, which are the Muslims' common roads: whoever sits in a spot of them to sell is more entitled to it so far as it serves him; as soon as he rises he may no longer bar others from it. The same applies to those Bedouins who settle on the land with their tents of hair and the like, then strike camp: this is not a development that would make them owners of the place where they camped; the same if they pitch tents, for tents dry out and end up like the structures of hair; this, like the seats of the market, does not constitute a revival of dead land" (al-Umm, 4/43; see also: al-Bayan, 7/496; Tahrir al-Ahkam fi tadbir ahl al-islam, 1/116).
Al-Mawardi, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "Attaching oneself to the places of the markets, the courtyards of the streets, the outskirts of the great cities and the stages of travel, by sitting there to sell and setting down the burdens there, is a lawful thing that the Messenger of Allah confirmed for the people in Mecca and Medina, and that the rightly guided caliphs after him permitted in all the cities conquered and brought into cultivation, for the people's need of it is pressing and their necessity compelling: it therefore follows the regime of sharing and attachment. The lawfulness of attachment being established, it is of three kinds: that specific to the deserts and the wastes, that specific to the courtyards of houses and properties, and that specific to the courtyards of the streets and roads."
First kind: attachment to the deserts and wastes, such as the halting places of travelers who stop along their journey to rest. The imam's oversight does not apply there, because of his distance; they may camp where they harm no passer-by and deny water to no one who asks; they are entitled to water and pasture without prevention or reserve (hima). The same applies to the people of the desert: when they migrate in search of water and pasture, they stay where they are and are not driven off, without being able to bar others from migrating to it or grazing it, unless the place becomes too narrow: those who preceded them are then more entitled than those who come after. Yusuf ibn Mahak reported from his father, from Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, the following hadith.
I said: O Messenger of Allah, shall we not build you at Mina a shelter that would shade you from the sun? He said: no; Mina is the camping place of whoever reaches it first. Reported by Abu Dawud (2019) and al-Tirmidhi (881), who said: a good and authentic hadith; also by Ibn Majah (3007), Ibn Khuzayma in his Sahih (2891) and al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak (1714), who said: authentic according to Muslim's condition, though they did not publish it
If the camping place becomes too narrow for all who reach it, they settle in it according to the order of their march, succeeding one another at settling as they succeeded one another on the road; whoever cannot reach it camps where he has arrived. If the water becomes insufficient: if sharing it could suffice them all, they would be bound to share it, and one of them would be barred from keeping more than his need; if the water does not suffice for sharing, the first-comer is more entitled, within the measure of what suffices him. If the one who was outpaced overpowers him, he cannot take that water back from him, for the first had acquired it by way of lease after it had been free to all; if they arrive at the same time, none having preceded the other, and the water falls short of their sufficiency, lots are drawn. The one the lot designates has the right to hold his beast's rein until the humans have quenched their thirst; the one excluded by the lot may not water his beasts before the humans; when the humans have all drunk, the lot is resumed among the beasts, without driving forward the beast already designated, for these are two kinds subject to different rulings. Does the lot resume over the beasts themselves or over their owners? Two views.
Second kind: attachment to the courtyards of houses and properties, such as the sellers' and traders' places in the courtyards of houses. The matter is examined: if it harms the owners, they are prevented except with their permission; if not, one looks further: if it is a matter of sitting on the threshold of the house, it is permitted only with the owner's authorization, and he is more entitled to grant it than the imam. If it is a matter of the courtyard and precincts of the house, which cause no harm to the house or its owner, two opinions: it is permitted them to sit there without the owner's authorization, for the precincts of the house are a common place of attachment like the road, and the owner may neither bar the one who has sat nor give another precedence over him; or they may sit there only with the owner's authorization, for he is more entitled over the precincts of his house. Though more entitled to grant it, the owner may not take a rent for it, just as he may not take a price for exclusive use: possession results from it without its being an ownership. If the owner of the house is the patron (mawla) of the one who sits, the latter's guardian may not authorize the sitting, having no entitlement in the ownership, no exchange and no benefit from it; whether the owner of the house is Muslim or a dhimmi. The owner, if he has seated someone, may dismiss him when he wishes and give precedence to whomever he wishes.
As for the courtyard of the mosque: if sitting there harms the people of the mosque, they are prevented; if not, is the imam's permission required for it? Two views. If one holds that the owner's permission is not required for the courtyard of a property, the imam's permission is likewise not required for the courtyard of the mosque; and the imam's permission is an exercise of judgment toward what is most beneficial, alike for the neighbors of the mosque and for those far away.
Third kind: attachment to the courtyards of the streets and roads: the traders sit there with their goods to sell and buy; this is lawful, on the evidence given earlier, and the imam may exercise oversight there. Our jurists differ over this oversight in two views. The first: the imam's oversight is limited to stopping them from encroaching and harming, without his being able to expel a single one or give precedence to anyone. The second: his oversight is an exercise of judgment toward what he sees as most beneficial: seating whom he will, barring whom he will, giving precedence to whom he will, as he does for the funds of the bayt al-mal. When the traders take their places in the markets and roads, their sitting must avoid harming a passer-by or straitening one who asks; the imam may not take from them the rent of their places. If a man sits with his gear in a spot and another comes to dislodge him in order to sit in his place, this is not permitted so long as the first sits there with his gear; if he rises leaving his gear on the spot, he remains upon his right and bars others from it. When they leave their places with their gear at nightfall and return to them the next day, whoever preceded the others to a spot is more entitled to it; no one may claim to return to the place where he was and by which he was known.
Malik said: "When one of them is known by his place and sits in it a long time, he is more entitled to it than anyone." This is authentic from him, because of the benefit it contains in ending the contest and preventing dispute, and by the Prophet's words: "Mina is the camping place of whoever comes first"; for if he were given absolute precedence, the place would become as it were his property and he would bar others from it. If two men dispute a place and cannot both sit, under the imam's oversight: lots are drawn, the one designated by the lot being the more entitled, if one holds that the imam's oversight is limited to preventing harm and settling the contest; or the imam strives to seat whichever of the two he sees fit, if one holds that his oversight is an exercise of judgment and of the common interest.
If the imam grants a man a place in the market to sell his goods there, two views: he is more entitled to the spot so long as no one has outpaced him, whoever outpaces him becoming more entitled than he, if one holds the imam's oversight limited to preventing harm; or he is more entitled than the earlier-comer to that place, if one holds his oversight an exercise of judgment toward what is most beneficial. If a man grows accustomed to a place in the courtyard of a road until it is long recognized as his, our companions hold two views: he is maintained in his place so long as no one has outpaced him; or he is dislodged and prevented, lest it become a path toward possessing and claiming ownership. If a man wishes to build upon a place in the courtyard of the market, he is prevented, for erecting buildings is a demand attaching to owned properties.
When the jurists form a circle in the mosques and the great mosques, the people are prevented from sharing their place and passing through, by the Prophet's words: "There is no reserve (hima) except in three: the bottom of a well, the distance of a horse's course, and the circle of a people." If a jurist is known for sitting with his companions in a spot of the mosque, he may not bar the access of one who outpaces him; the one who comes first is more entitled. Malik said: those of the jurists and reciters who are known at that place have become more entitled to it and may bar whoever outpaces them; this is not sound, by the word of Allah.
"Alike is the one who resides therein and the one who passes."
Surah Al-Hajj, 25
And Allah knows best the truth (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 7/493-496).
Ibn Qudama, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "A section on the grants (qata'i'), which are of two kinds. The first is the grant of attachment: the grant of the places of the market, the wide roads and the courtyards of the mosques, concerning which we said the first-comer may sit. The imam may grant them to whoever will sit there, for he exercises judgment in this: sitting is permitted only where it does no harm to passers-by, and the imam may therefore seat there the one he does not consider harmful by his sitting. The grantee does not thereby become owner: he becomes more entitled than anyone to sit there, like the first-comer without a grant, with one exception: if the first-comer moves his gear, others may sit, for his entitlement rested on his precedence and his presence; once he departs, that right lapses with the disappearance of its cause. This one, on the contrary, holds his right from the imam's grant: his right does not lapse by moving his gear, and others' sitting does him no harm. His ruling, for shading himself without building, for the prohibition of building, and for being prevented if he prolongs his stay, is that of the first-comer, as we have set out" (al-Mughni, 5/336).
Ibn Qudama also said, before that: "All that is of the streets, the roads and the courtyards between the buildings, no one may develop, whether wide or narrow, whether it constricts the people or not; for the Muslims share in it and a common interest attaches to it: it resembles their mosques. It is permitted to attach oneself to it by sitting, in the wide parts, for selling and buying, on condition of harming no one and not straitening the passers-by: the inhabitants of all the cities, in all ages, agreed to allow it without disapproval, for it is a lawful attachment without harm, never barred, like passing through. Ahmad said of the first-comer to the market shops in the morning: it is his until night; so it was in the market of Medina in the past. The Prophet said: Mina is the camping place of whoever comes first (reported by Abu Dawud (2019), al-Tirmidhi (881), who said: a good and authentic hadith; Ibn Majah (3007), Ibn Khuzayma (2891), al-Hakim (1714), who said: authentic according to Muslim's condition, not published by them). He may shade himself with what causes no harm: a mat, a chest, a covering and the like, for need calls to it without harm. Building is not permitted him, neither platform nor otherwise: it would straiten the people, trip up the passers-by at night and the blind by night and day, and remain permanently: one might draw from it a claim of ownership. The first-comer is more entitled so long as he is there; if he rises leaving his gear, others may not remove it, for his hand prevails; if he moves his gear, others may sit, for his hand is gone; if he sits and stays long, he is prevented, for he would become like an owner, monopolizing a benefit in which others share his claim equally. It may be that he is not removed, for he outpaced the others to a place no Muslim had outpaced to; if two men contest precedence there, it may be that lots are drawn between them, and it may be that the imam prefers the one he sees fit. If the one seated straitens the passage, sitting is not lawful for him, nor is it lawful for the imam to keep him there against payment or otherwise. Ahmad said: it does not befit us to buy from those who sell on the road. The qadi comments: this is understood of a narrow road, or of one who harms the passers-by, as said above. He also said: I do not like the milling on the ships (those vessels on which grain is ground by flowing water) when they stand in the people's waterway; what is disliked in it is that it straitens the course of the vessels passing on the water. And he said: ships may well sink; I consider it better for a man to avoid buying what they grind" (al-Mughni, 5/335-336).