It has also been said that this term derives from Khaybar, because the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) left it in their hands in return for half the yield. Hence the expression khābarahum was used, meaning that he entered into an arrangement with them at Khaybar. This view, however, has no merit, for his arrangement at Khaybar was never prohibited. Rather, the Companions entered into such arrangements both during his lifetime and after his death. Moreover, only Rāfiʿ ibn Khadīj and Jābir narrated the hadith concerning mukhābarah, and they both explained the practice in which the people had engaged. A khabīr is a cultivator, so called because he knows the land.

A group of jurists distinguished between mukhābarah and muzāraʿah. They defined mukhābarah as an arrangement in which the seed is supplied by the worker, and muzāraʿah as one in which the seed is supplied by the owner. They said that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) prohibited mukhābarah, not muzāraʿah.

This view is also weak. We have already cited from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) the report in the Sahih stating that he “forbade muzāraʿah,” just as he “forbade mukhābarah” and “forbade leasing land.” In their original linguistic usage, these terms apply generally both to the form he prohibited and to forms he did not prohibit. They became restricted to the particular practice in which the people engaged only through customary specification in both speech and practice, and through verbal contextual evidence—namely, the definite article referring to a known practice and the question posed by the questioner. Otherwise, the authorities on the language have transmitted that mukhābarah is the same as muzāraʿah, and the etymology also indicates this.

[Section: Conditions Stipulated by Those Who Permit Muzāraʿah]

Section.

Among those who permit muzāraʿah, some stipulate that the seed must be supplied by the owner. They hold that this condition applies to muzāraʿah; if the seed is supplied by the worker, the arrangement is impermissible. This is one of the two positions reported from Ahmad. It was preferred by a group of his associates and by followers of Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī in cases where they permit muzāraʿah. Their argument is based on analogy with a profit-sharing investment partnership, and Ahmad likewise invoked this argument. Al-Kirmānī said: “The following question was put