his own resources, he would receive half, whereas if they supplied the seed, they would receive such-and-such a share.” These reports cited by al-Bukhārī have been transmitted by several compilers of early reports.

If, then, all the Emigrants, the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and the leading Companions and Successors practised sharecropping without anyone objecting, there could be no stronger consensus than this. Indeed, if there is any consensus in the world, this is it—especially since all those who gave the Pledge of Divine Pleasure practised sharecropping during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and afterwards, until ‘Umar expelled the Jews to Taymā’.

Those who held sharecropping and fruit-sharing contracts to be invalid have sought to explain this away through untenable interpretations. For example, some claimed that the Jews were slaves belonging to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the Muslims, thus likening this to the payment arrangement between a slave and his master.

Yet it is known through mass-transmitted reports that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) made a treaty with them and did not enslave them. They remained free until ‘Umar expelled them, and he neither sold them nor allowed any Muslim to enslave any of them.

Another claim was: “This was a transaction with unbelievers, so it does not necessarily follow that it is permissible with Muslims.” This, too, is untenable. Khaybar had become part of the territory of Islam, and the Muslims have unanimously agreed that invalid transactions prohibited between Muslims are likewise prohibited, within the territory of Islam, between Muslims and those under covenant. Moreover, we have already mentioned that