even though the tenant’s objective is the grain. For it is the tenant who works the land until he obtains the grain, unlike the purchaser, who buys only the grain, while the seller remains responsible for tending it until it is ready. Likewise, the Prophet’s prohibition on selling grapes before they turn dark does not prohibit someone from taking trees under a lease, tending them and watering them until they bear fruit. Rather, the prohibition concerns someone who purchases only the grapes, while the seller remains responsible for tending them until they fully ripen, as happens when people purchase grapes from what are known as vineyards. For this reason, these people do not sell them until their ripeness becomes apparent, unlike the practice of leasing the trees.

Second:

Sharecropping on land is comparable to tending trees in return for a share of their fruit. Both are permissible according to the hadith jurists, such as Imam Ahmad and others, including Ibn Khuzayma and Ibn al-Mundhir. Sharecropping is also permissible according to Ibn Abī Laylā, Abū Yūsuf, Muhammad, al-Layth ibn Sa‘d and other imams. Its permissibility is established by the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and the consensus of his Companions after him.

Those who prohibited it thought that it fell under leasing and would therefore constitute a lease for an unspecified consideration, which is impermissible. Abū Hanīfa applied his analogy consistently and did not permit it under any circumstances. Al-Shāfi‘ī, however, made an exception where there was a need, as when open land is included incidentally with the trees in an agreement to tend them for a share of their fruit. Mālik did likewise, though, in accordance with his principles, account is taken of whether the amount of such land is small or large. These jurists also regarded profit-sharing investment as an exception to analogy, supposing that it fell under