half of the profit.” Thus, they agree that the stipulated share belongs to the capital owner, but they differ over its amount: the capital owner says it is one half, while the worker says it is one third. If we take it to be one third, then two thirds belong to the worker; but if we take it to be one half, he has only one half. Therefore, the capital owner’s statement is accepted, because the profit follows the principal. Since they do not now differ over whom the stipulated share belongs to, but only over its amount, the profit follows the principal. If the worker claims that it is one half, we say: You both agreed upon one third, and you, worker, are claiming the additional amount—namely, one sixth—while the burden of proof is upon the claimant.

Thus, if they differ over the designation of the party entitled to the stipulated share, the worker’s statement is accepted. But if they differ over the amount of the stipulated share while agreeing upon the party entitled to it, the capital owner’s statement is accepted.

The same applies to sharecropping agreements involving trees, agricultural sharecropping, and muḍārabah partnerships. A person may not enter into a muḍārabah partnership with another person’s capital if doing so harms the first investor and he does not consent.

His statement, “The same applies to sharecropping agreements involving trees, agricultural sharecropping, and muḍārabah partnerships,” means that if the cultivator of trees and the agricultural worker disagree, then—as we have explained—an agreement involving trees is where a person gives his land and date palms to someone who will tend them in return for a share of the fruit. Agricultural sharecropping is where a person gives his uncultivated land, upon which there are no crops, to a farmer to cultivate, with the farmer receiving, for example, half of the crop. The difference between the two is that the former concerns trees, while the latter concerns land that is cultivated.

Thus, if they disagree over whom the stipulated share belongs to in an agreement involving trees or in agricultural sharecropping, then according to the school it belongs to the worker. According to the stronger view, however, the surrounding indications are considered and acted upon. If they differ over its amount, then the statement of the landowner is accepted in agricultural sharecropping, and that of the owner of the date palms in an agreement involving trees.

An example of this is that I give a farmer this orchard, with the date palms it contains,