The fifth is that it belongs to whoever contributes two of four things, in this order: seed, land, labour, and cattle.
The sixth is Ibn Habīb’s view: if the invalid arrangement does not involve renting land in return for part of its produce, the crop is divided among them as stipulated, with compensatory adjustments for their respective contributions. If it does involve renting land in return for part of its produce, the crop belongs to the supplier of the seed.
Section
A sale or hire may not be combined with a partnership when it is extraneous to it. There is disagreement, however, when it forms an integral part of the partnership. Sahnūn permitted this, while differing positions are reported from Mālik. Ibn al-Qāsim’s rulings in al-Mudawwana are inconsistent: he permitted two men to form a partnership by contributing two items of different kinds, provided their values were equal, or by one contributing goods and the other dinars or dirhams. Yet he did not permit one man to contribute an animal and the other a building or a mill, forming a partnership to work jointly using them, even if their rental values were equal. He did, however, permit one to hire half of his partner’s animal so that they could work jointly using it. This is contradictory, since sale and hire alike form integral parts of the partnership. Sahnūn permitted all these arrangements, consistently with his principle that any sale, hire, or currency exchange forming an integral part of a partnership is permissible.
Section
A partnership contract involving property is a form of sale. When two men enter into a partnership with goods, dinars, or dirhams, each has sold his partner half of what he himself contributed. This is a sale without an immediate exchange of possession, since each retains possession of what he has sold by virtue of the partnership. Do you not see that they did not permit a man to exchange half his dinar with another man unless the purchaser took separate possession of that half, because its seller would otherwise retain possession of it by virtue of their joint ownership? For the scholars unanimously permitted a partnership in which both partners contribute dinars, or both contribute dirhams, without treating the absence of an immediate exchange of possession as an impediment. This is a consensus that does not accord with analogy.
Scholars have differed, holding two opinions, as to whether a consensus that does not accord with analogy may itself serve as a basis for analogical reasoning. In this matter, Ibn al-Qāsim held that it may. He therefore permitted a partnership formed with foodstuffs, provided they were identical in