the two reports from him—entrusting livestock to someone who tends them in return for a share of their milk and offspring, and giving silkworms and leaves to someone who feeds and tends them in return for a share of the silk.

As for those who distinguish between sharecropping and leasing on the grounds that leasing is a binding contract whereas sharecropping is not, the response is: this distinction cannot be maintained. If someone enters into a sharecropping agreement for a specified year, it is binding, just as it is binding when concluded using the wording of a lease. Conversely, a lease may not be binding, as when someone says, “I lease you this house for two dirhams per month.” Such a lease is valid according to the apparent position of Ahmad and others, yet whenever a new month begins, he may terminate it. A contract offering a reward for accomplishing a task is akin to a contract of hire, yet it is not binding. Thus, an open-ended contract with no specified term is not binding, whereas a fixed-term contract may be binding.

Section

As for leasing land in return for foodstuffs of the same kind as those produced on it—for example, leasing land to someone who grows wheat or barley on it in return for a specified quantity of wheat or barley—this too is permissible according to the stronger of the two reports from Ahmad. This is also the position of Abū Hanīfa and al-Shāfi‘ī. According to the other report, he prohibits it, in agreement with Mālik’s position.