the first is that it is never permissible, because it is permitted only as an ancillary arrangement and therefore cannot be made the subject of a separate contract. The second is that it is permissible if orchard sharecropping is contracted first, followed by crop sharecropping, since the latter is then needed. If crop sharecropping is contracted first, however, it is impermissible, with no disagreement within the school. This applies when the stipulated share is the same in both arrangements, such as one third or one quarter. If different shares are stipulated, there are two views.

A prohibition on leasing land for a specified rent, even in dirhams or dinars, has been reported from a number of the early scholars—including Tāwūs and al-Hasan—and some later scholars. Harb reported that al-Awzā‘ī was asked, “Is it permissible to rent land?” He replied, “There is disagreement over this. A number of scholars see nothing wrong with renting it for dinars and dirhams, while others disapprove of it.”

This is because it is akin to a sale involving prohibited uncertainty: the tenant undertakes to pay the rent on the strength of the crops he expects to obtain, yet the crops may not grow. It is thus comparable to renting trees for their fruit. Tāwūs himself practiced crop sharecropping. Moreover, crop sharecropping involves less uncertainty than leasing, because the two parties either both profit or both bear a loss: the labor of one party and his cattle, and the use of the other party’s land, yield no return. This is closer to justice than for one party to receive a guaranteed return while the other remains exposed to risk, since the purpose of the contract is to obtain crops, not merely the ability to plow, sow, and irrigate the land.