stipulate in the contract the crop that will be planted, and they consider it objectionable only when the crop is named without reference to its broader species.

Mālik also said: “If a man rents land to sow a particular crop but instead plants another crop of the same kind, he is not liable for anything. He may not, however, plant a crop that is more harmful to the land; if he does, he must pay the original rent together with the difference between the two rents.”

Issue: Plantation Partnership (mughārasah)

It is not permissible for a landowner to hand his land to someone who will plant trees in it on the condition that whatever fruit-bearing trees God causes to appear will be divided equally between them while ownership of the soil remains with the owner as before; such an arrangement is invalid. Likewise, it is impermissible for them to agree that the land and the trees belong to the owner while the fruit of those trees is shared between them—this too is invalid.

What is permitted is for the owner to give the land on condition that the cultivator plant a specified type of permanent tree—such as date palms, grapevines, fig trees, olives, pomegranates, and other similar rooted trees. Whatever trees God brings forth there, once they have fully grown and borne fruit, are to be shared between them—together with their root rights in the soil—according to the terms they have set, provided they fix a clear point at which the trees are deemed established. If they stipulate that the limit is the moment the trees begin to bear fruit, that is an acceptable specification.