Murābaʿah is one form of muzāraʿah (share-cropping) and remains within that category unless the landowner instead hires laborers for a fixed, pre-agreed wage. Very few people do this, for he may lose his capital and come away with nothing, whereas in a partnership both parties share profit and loss alike. That arrangement is closer to justice, which is why sound human nature prefers it. A fuller treatment of these questions belongs elsewhere.

The point here is this: if the ruler obliges practitioners of indispensable crafts—such as farming, weaving, or construction—to supply their services, he must set their remuneration at the prevailing market rate. Employers may not be allowed to pay less, nor may the craftsmen, once their work has become compulsory, demand more. This is the kind of price regulation that is obligatory. The same applies when society needs people to manufacture the instruments of jihad—arms, pontoon bridges, and the like. Such workers are to be hired for the going wage; employers may not oppress them, nor may the workers demand more than their due when they are needed. This is price regulation in services.

As for commodities: if the community needs weapons for jihad, arms-dealers must sell them at the fair market price. They are not permitted to hoard the weapons until the enemy gains the upper hand or until people pay whatever price the dealers choose. Were the imam to designate certain individuals for combat, that designation would become binding upon them, as the Prophet said, “When you are called to battle, then go,” reported by both Ṣaḥīḥ collections.1

It is likewise recorded there that he said, “A Muslim is obliged to listen and obey in hardship and in ease, when he is keen or reluctant, and even when others are shown preference over him.”2

If it is incumbent upon a person to strive with both his life and his wealth, how could it not be incumbent upon him to sell what is needed for jihad at the going price?