and grapevines and pomegranate trees, for him to tend in return for one third of their yield—meaning that I receive the remaining two thirds. This is what we call an agreement involving trees.

An example of agricultural sharecropping is where I have uncultivated land on which there is nothing, and I give it to someone to plant with barley, wheat, rice, or the like, in return for one half, one quarter, or one third. This is what we call agricultural sharecropping.

Thus, in the first case, the owner of the trees says: Take these date palms and trees. They agree that the stipulated share is two thirds, but when the dates are harvested, the grapes gathered, and the like, they disagree. The worker says: “The stipulated share is mine,” while the owner of the date palms says: “It was stipulated for me.” According to the school, the worker’s statement is accepted here.

But if they disagree over the amount of the stipulated share, with the worker saying, “You stipulated three quarters for me,” and the owner of the principal asset saying, “I stipulated one half for you,” then they agree that the stipulated share belongs to the worker, but differ over its amount. In this case, the statement of the landowner is accepted. The same applies in agricultural sharecropping.

There is therefore a difference between disagreement over identifying the party entitled to the stipulated share and disagreement over determining the stipulated share itself. If the disagreement concerns the party entitled to it, the worker’s statement is accepted. But if it concerns the amount of the stipulated share, while they agree on the party entitled to it, then the capital owner’s statement is accepted.

The reasoning is that the worker becomes entitled to his share through his work; therefore, his statement is accepted. This is according to the school. The second view is that the worker’s statement is accepted if his claim is plausible; but if it is far removed from what is realistic, then the landowner’s statement is accepted.