Hanīfah. He takes the strictest position on prohibiting this. As for Mālik and al-Shāfi‘ī, analogical reasoning leads them to Abū Hanīfah’s position, since they classify these arrangements as involving prohibited uncertainty. However, they permit those for which there is a need.

Thus Mālik, and al-Shāfi‘ī in his earlier position, permitted orchard sharecropping without restriction. Leasing trees is impermissible, since it amounts to selling fruit before it shows signs of ripeness. Yet an owner may be unable to water and tend his trees himself, and so be compelled to resort to orchard sharecropping. Crop sharecropping is different: he can lease the land for a specified rent, which dispenses with the need for crop sharecropping on it as an ancillary arrangement. Nevertheless, they permitted crop sharecropping when it forms an ancillary part of orchard sharecropping. Thus, if there is a small amount of open ground between the trees, crop sharecropping on it is permissible as an adjunct to orchard sharecropping.

Mālik’s position is that the crop grown on that open ground belongs to the worker by virtue of the contract itself. If the two parties stipulate that it is to be shared between them, that is permissible. This applies provided that it does not exceed one third. Al-Shāfi‘ī does not assign it to the worker. Rather, he says that if the trees cannot be watered without watering the open ground, crop sharecropping on it is permissible. The jurists of his school hold two views concerning open ground that is extensive and exceeds the area occupied by the trees.

This applies when the two arrangements are combined in a single contract. If, however, they are concluded separately in two contracts, there are two views: