just as grain is produced through his work on leased land. If it is said, “The grain comes from his own seed, whereas the fruit comes from the lessor’s trees,” this is a distinction with no effect in Islamic law. Do you not see that fruit-sharing contracts are analogous to crop-sharing contracts? The worker tending the trees is entitled to a share of the fruit produced by the owner’s trees, and the cultivator is entitled to a share of the crops growing on the owner’s land, even when the seed belongs to the owner. The same applies when the cultivator supplies the seed, as established by the Sunnah and the consensus of the Companions. The seed is consumed and does not return to its owner.

It is established in the authentic hadith collection that:

“The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, contracted with the people of Khaybar for half of its yield of fruit and crops, on condition that they cultivate it at their own expense.”

The land, date palms, and water belonged to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Through their work, they became entitled to a share of the fruit just as they became entitled to a share of the crops, even though they supplied the seed while the trees belonged to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. It is therefore clear that this distinction has no effect in Islamic law. If it has no effect in fruit-sharing and crop-sharing contracts, where the yield is shared, then it has even less effect in a lease. Leasing land is not subject to the same degree of disagreement as crop-sharing. Thus, if leasing land is more clearly permissible than crop-sharing, leasing trees is more clearly permissible than fruit-sharing.

The second answer:

We say that this is comparable to hiring a wet nurse, leasing a well, and similar arrangements. Discussing this brings us to the second principle governing leases. We therefore say: whoever claims that hiring a wet nurse is contrary to legal analogy does so only because he believes that