Ibn Majah (10) narrated from Ibn 'Umar, who said: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: "There is no Ruqba; whoever is granted a thing in this manner, it is his in his life and in his death." It is also reported from Zayd ibn Thabit that the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, assigned 'Umra to the heir (11). Malik has reported the hadith of 'Umra in his Al-Muwatta' (12), and it is authentic, narrated by Jabir, Ibn 'Umar, Ibn 'Abbas (13), Mu'awiya, Zayd ibn Thabit, and Abu Hurayra (14). The statement of Al-Qasim is not accepted when it contradicts the scholars among the Companions and the Successors whom we have named; how then could it be accepted when it contradicts the statement (15) of the Master of the Messengers? It is not valid to claim the consensus (ijma') of the people of Medina, due to the large number of those among them who held this view, and Tariq (16) adjudicated it in Medina by the order of 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan. As for the statement of Ibn al-A'rabi that, among the Arabs, it is a transfer of usufruct, it does no harm if the Sacred Law (Shar') transferred it to a transfer of the essence (raqaba), just as it transformed prayer from the linguistic meaning of supplication to specific ritual actions, and transformed the rulings of Zihar and Ila' from their state as divorce into specific legal categories. Regarding their argument that ownership cannot be time-bound, we say: That is why the Sacred Law abolished the time-binding of it and established it as an absolute transfer of ownership.