his practice—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—restricting the scope of his prohibitions against sales involving uncertainty, selling fruit before it shows signs of ripeness, and hiring for an unspecified wage. Those prohibitions are general, whereas his orchard-sharecropping agreement with the Jews of Khaybar concerning their date palms is particular. The particular ruling serves to explain the general one, restrict its scope, and clarify its intended meaning.

Section

Orchard sharecropping is permissible according to Mālik, may Allah have mercy on him, all his companions, and al-Shāfiʿī. Abū Hanīfah, however, disputed its permissibility. The evidence supporting those who permit it is that “the Messenger of Allah entered into an orchard-sharecropping agreement with the Jews of Khaybar, under which they would receive half the fruit in return for their work, and he would send Abd Allāh ibn Rawāhah to estimate their yield.” Abū Bakr then allowed them to continue on that basis, as did Umar ibn al-Khattāb, until he sent his son Abd Allāh to estimate their yield. They bewitched him, and his hand became twisted. Umar subsequently expelled them from Khaybar to Syria. Uthmān continued to practise orchard sharecropping after him, as did the subsequent caliphs.

Abū Bakr and Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, allowed the Jews of Khaybar to continue under the orchard-sharecropping agreement that the Prophet, peace be upon him, had made with them, and the caliphs after them continued this practice. This clearly demonstrates that orchard sharecropping is a ruling established by the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, which remains in force and has not been rescinded.

Such is the evidence from transmitted reports. As for rational argument, the trees constitute capital that does not generate returns on its own and may not be leased; it becomes productive only through work. It is therefore permissible to tend it in return for a share of its yield, as with a profit-sharing investment partnership. Indeed, orchard sharecropping has a stronger claim to permissibility than such a partnership, since uncertainty and risk are greater in the latter: the invested capital may yield a profit, or it may yield none. Either outcome is as likely as the other; neither predominates. Allah, however, has established the usual pattern that date palms bear fruit every year, so they will ordinarily yield a crop. This is clear. In this analogy, we included the qualification “and may not be leased” to prevent leasing land for a share of its produce from being raised against our argument.