and its owner wishes to lease it to someone who will irrigate and cultivate it, or live there as well. Where the property includes both land and planted trees, the jurists hold three opinions:

The first is that this is impermissible under all circumstances. This is the position of the Kufan jurists and al-Shāfiʿī, and it is the well-known position in Ahmad’s school according to most of his followers.

The second opinion is that it is permissible if the trees are few and the tree-free land constitutes two-thirds or more of the property. The same applies when someone rents a house containing a few date palms, grapevines, or the like. This is Mālik’s position, and both opinions have been reported from Ahmad.

Al-Kirmānī said:

“Ahmad was asked about a man renting land containing some date palms. He replied, ‘I fear that he may have rented trees that have not yet borne fruit.’ He seemed to disapprove of it. I think he meant when the trees were what the tenant intended to obtain. I understood no more than this from Ahmad.”

As noted earlier, two positions are reported from him concerning the sale of a commodity subject to the rules of usury in exchange for something of the same kind, when it is accompanied by something of a different kind and that other item is the principal object of the transaction—for example, a sheep with wool or milk sold in exchange for wool or milk. Most of his legal principles support permissibility, in agreement with Mālik’s position. For he says:

“If someone purchases a slave who possesses property, and his intended object is the slave, the transaction is permissible, even if the property is of unknown quantity or of the same kind as the price.”

This is also because he says:

“If someone purchases land or trees with fruit or crops that have not yet ripened, the transaction is permissible if his intended object is