This applies when he combines the two in a single contract. If he separates them into two contracts, there are two views.

The first is that it is never permissible, because crop-sharing was permitted only as an ancillary arrangement and therefore may not be made the subject of a separate contract.

The second is that it is permissible if he first concludes the orchard-sharecropping agreement and then the crop-sharing agreement, because the need for it then arises. If, however, he concludes the crop-sharing agreement first, there is only one view: that it is impermissible. This applies when the stipulated share is the same in both agreements, such as one-third or one-quarter. If he stipulates unequal shares in the two agreements, there are two views.

It is reported that a group of the early generations—including Tāwūs and al-Hasan—and some later scholars prohibited leasing land for a specified rent, even if it consisted of dirhams or dinars.

Harb related from al-Awzāʿī that he was asked, “Is it permissible to lease land?” He replied, “There is disagreement over this. A group of scholars see no objection to leasing it for dinars or dirhams, while others among them disapproved of it.” This is because it is akin to a sale involving uncertainty: the tenant undertakes to pay the rent on the basis of the crop he expects to obtain, yet the crop may fail to grow. It is therefore comparable to leasing a tree in order to obtain its fruit. Tāwūs himself, however, engaged in crop-sharing.

Crop-sharing is less susceptible to uncertainty than leasing, because both parties to a crop-sharing arrangement either profit together or suffer loss together. The labor of one party and the use of his oxen may be lost, just as the use of the other party’s land may be lost. This is closer to justice than allowing one party to receive something guaranteed while the other remains exposed to risk. After all, the object sought through the contract is the crop itself, not merely the ability to plow, sow, and irrigate the land.

Despite this analogical reasoning, the justification of both groups lies in the reports that reached them from the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—prohibiting mukhābara (crop-sharing) and the leasing of land, such as the hadith of Rāfiʿ ibn Khadīj and the hadith of Jābir. Nāfiʿ reported: “Ibn ʿUmar used to lease out his farmland under