the rent was of a different kind from the produce yielded; rather, they were usurious because of the peasants. There is no need for this arrangement, since the peasants undertake the work; leasing the estate to someone else therefore amounts to dealing in usury with him. This is why Ahmad disapproved of it even when the land was bare, if there were peasants working it.

Harb al-Kirmānī cited as evidence on this question the Prophet’s arrangement—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—with the people of Khaybar: they were to receive half of its fruit or crops, on condition that they cultivate it at their own expense. In substance, this amounted to leasing the land to them for a portion of its yield, together with leasing the trees for half their fruit. By analogy, the land and trees may therefore be leased for a guaranteed payment. For if granting the fruit were tantamount to selling it, granting a portion of it would likewise be tantamount to selling it, which is impermissible.

This question rests on two principles:

The first principle is that whenever there is land or housing among the trees, the need arises to lease both together. This is permissible because of that need, even if it involves a slight degree of contractual uncertainty, particularly if the orchard is an endowment or belongs to an orphan. It is impermissible to leave its benefits unrealized, while leasing the land or housing alone is not customary, and no one would enter into a lease on those terms. If anyone did lease it, they would do so only at a rent far below its value.

Whatever is necessary for carrying out a permissible act is itself permissible. Thus, whenever something is established as permissible by a scriptural text or scholarly consensus, whatever it necessarily entails must also be deemed permissible, provided that no scriptural text or consensus prohibits those necessary concomitants. If, however, evidence indicates that those concomitants are prohibited—and whatever must be avoided in order to avoid the prohibited is itself prohibited—then the two proofs conflict. In the present case, what has been established is the permissibility of