The second ground is that this arrangement does not fall within the Prophet’s prohibition, peace and blessings be upon him, for the landowner has not sold his fruit without any payment at all. The two arrangements differ in several respects:

First, leasing the land is permissible, whereas purchasing the crop before its grain has hardened, on condition that it remain standing, is not permissible. The same distinction therefore applies to trees.

Second, the seller is responsible for watering and whatever else the fruit requires until it is fully ripe; none of this is incumbent upon the purchaser. By contrast, the orchard contractor or lessee undertakes the watering and work until the fruit and crops are produced. Purchasing fruit is purchasing the grapes and fresh dates themselves, with the seller responsible for completing the work until they ripen. This differs from the case of someone entrusted with an orchard who tends it himself.

Third, if someone hands over an orchard to another person to tend in return for half its fruit and crops, this constitutes a fruit-sharing and crop-sharing arrangement. The worker thus becomes entitled to half the fruit and crops through his labour; this is not a purchase of grain and fruit.

Fourth, if someone lends his land to another person to cultivate, or gives him his tree to benefit from its yield and then return it to him, this constitutes a loan for use, not a gift of the property itself.

Fifth, the fruit of trees forms part of an endowment’s yield, like the benefit derived from land and the milk of