and that is based on his statement, “As for anything whose amount is known and whose outcome is guaranteed, there is no harm in it.”

This is the sound, straightforward way to distinguish between the permissible and the prohibited forms of share-cropping, and it is the correct method of harmonising the apparently conflicting reports that either allow it or forbid it. Allah knows best.

Scholarly disagreement

The jurists have differed over the ruling on share-cropping.

1. The three leading Imams held that it is not permissible. Their evidence is the ḥadiths of Rāfiʿ ibn Khadīj, among them:

   1. “We used to practise share-cropping in the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and the Messenger of Allah forbade us something that had been of benefit to us, yet obedience to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is more beneficial.”
   2. The ḥadith of Ḥanẓalah ibn Qays, which is the report cited in the previous section.
   3. What al-Bukhārī (2343) and Muslim (1547) narrate from Ibn ʿUmar: “We used to see nothing wrong with share-cropping until we heard Rāfiʿ ibn Khadīj say that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ prohibited it.”
   4. What is recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (2340) and Muslim (1566) from Jābir: the Prophet ﷺ said, “Whoever owns land should cultivate it himself; if he cannot, then let his brother cultivate it.”

   These ḥadiths are the proof for those who deem share-cropping impermissible and hold that it is prohibited and invalid. The Imams who prohibit it offer a further argument: they treat share-cropping as a form of leasing, and a lease requires the rent to be clearly specified. Here the consideration is unknown and non-existent at the time of contract, so the transaction is forbidden and unsound.

2. Imām Aḥmad and his followers judged it permissible and a sound, binding contract. The same view was adopted by groups of Companions, Successors, leading ḥadith scholars—early and late—and by many jurists.