his explicit rulings; for they found throughout his statements numerous clear declarations permitting land to be leased in return for a share of its yield. They also understood his apparent position to be that, in sharecropping, the seed may not be supplied by the landowner, by analogy with mudāraba. They therefore distinguished sharecropping and mudāraba from leasing.

Others, including Abū al-Khattāb, said: “His statement, as transmitted by a number of his followers, ‘It is permissible to lease land in return for part of its yield,’ refers to sharecropping, with the labour supplied by the cultivator.”

Abū al-Khattāb and his followers said: “According to this report, if the cultivator supplies the seed, he is leasing the land in return for part of its yield. If the landowner supplies it, he is hiring the cultivator in return for the share stipulated for him.”

He said: “Accordingly, the seed owner is entitled to what he receives by virtue of supplying the seed, while whatever is received as remuneration is received by virtue of the stipulation.”

Their explanation—that his explicit ruling on leasing for a share of the yield refers to sharecropping in which the cultivator supplies the seed—is correct. Sound legal reasoning admits only this interpretation, or the conclusion that his explicit permission for the aforementioned lease entails, with even greater force, the permissibility of sharecropping. Permitting this transaction without qualification is the correct position; neither the transmitted evidence nor legal reasoning supports any other conclusion. This is the apparent purport of Ahmad’s widely transmitted statements, and the position adopted by a group of his followers. The first position—the view of those who require the landowner to supply the seed, and the view of