usury in any respect; whoever prohibits it does so on the grounds of contractual uncertainty.

Ahmad, however, did not disapprove of this when the land was bare. This is because, according to one of the two reports from him, a lease is permissible even when the rent is of the same kind as the land’s produce. The lessee works the land with his own labor and capital, so the resulting yield is earned through his effort. This differs from a case in which there are cultivators on the land—those who actually carry out the work. The lessee then contributes nothing, whether labor or capital. Rather, the cultivators work the land, while he pays the fixed return due under the lease and takes the yield in exchange. He is thus seeking profit from an exchange of wealth without production or trade, and that is usury.

Analogous to this is the report from [Ibn Umar] that leasing bathhouses, mills, inns, and similar properties is usury when the lessee makes no use of them: he neither conducts trade nor carries out any productive activity in them, but leases them solely to sublease them. This too has been said to be usury.

In sum, neither the date palms nor the land made the arrangement usurious when the stipulated return was of a different kind from the yield. Rather, it was usurious because of the cultivators. There is no need for this form of arrangement, since the cultivators themselves manage the property. Turning it over to another person under a fixed-return lease is therefore an usurious transaction in that person’s favor. For this reason, Ahmad disapproved of it whenever cultivators were present, even if the land itself was bare.

Harb al-Kirmānī cited as evidence for this issue the Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) arrangement with the people of Khaybar concerning its land: it was for half of whatever fruit and crops the land produced, on condition that they cultivate and maintain it at their own expense. In substance, this was a lease of the land to them in return for part of its produce, together with a lease of the trees for half their fruit. The leasing of land and trees for a guaranteed payment may therefore be analogized to it. For if assigning the fruit were tantamount to selling it, assigning part of it would likewise be tantamount to selling it, and that is impermissible. This issue rests on two principles: