for it. Yet this does not mean that the seed alone must be treated as capital. During the period of work, the worker and his oxen necessarily require food and fodder, which are likewise consumed, whereas the landowner is not required to make any comparable outlay. For this reason, scholars agree that the seed is not restored to its owner as capital is in a profit-sharing partnership; had they treated it as capital, it would have been restored.

It has thus become clear that this transaction comprises three things: durable assets—the land, the worker’s body, the oxen, and the iron implements; benefits that are expended; and material constituents that are likewise consumed—namely, the seed, some constituents of the soil, and some constituents of the worker and his oxen. These consumed constituents are exactly like the benefits that are expended. The two parties may therefore decide between themselves which of them will provide these constituents, and may share on whatever terms they wish, provided that their arrangement does not lead to any form of excessive uncertainty, usury, or wrongful appropriation of wealth prohibited by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. This is why Ahmad permitted all other forms of partnership resembling orchard- and crop-sharing, such as an owner handing over his animal, ship, or another asset to someone who works with it, with the earnings divided between them.

[Chapter: The Error of Those Who Rely on Wording They Suppose to Be General or Unrestricted, or on Some Form of Analogy Based on an Operative Rationale or on Resemblance]

Chapter.

This discussion, in which we indicated the rationale behind the prohibition of sales involving excessive uncertainty and similar transactions, brings ease to all these areas. For you will find that many who address these matters either cling to wording that has reached them, supposing it to be general or unrestricted, or else to some form of analogy based on an operative rationale or on resemblance. May Allah be pleased with Ahmad, who said: “Anyone who speaks about jurisprudence should avoid these two bases: nonspecific wording and analogy.” He also said: “People most often err through interpretation and analogy.” This sort of reliance then leads to conclusions that simply cannot be followed.

Examples of this category include selling debts—whether debts arising from a salam (advance-purchase) contract or other debts—and various forms of