and the seed is supplied by both parties in equal measure, the arrangement is valid provided that the rental value of the land matches the customary wage for ploughing and labor. It is nonetheless disliked for them to partner when one of the two contributions outweighs the other in value—even if the party who contributes more consents—although another report from Mālik permits it.
If three people enter into a cultivation partnership in which the land comes from one, the oxen from another, the labor from a third, and the seed is shared among them in equal thirds, the partnership is sound so long as the respective contributions are of equal worth, for in that case they avoid having to pay land rent out of the produce. By contrast, if one bears the seed, a second the land, and the third the labor, the arrangement is invalid, for it would amount to paying the land rent in produce.
Similarly, if they jointly lease the land from a single owner, with one supplying the seed, another the oxen, and the third the labor, and their contributions are of equal value, the partnership is valid according to Mālik’s doctrine, even though his students differed on the point.
If two men take up share-cropping on land owned by one of them and the owner waives the rent, while they equalize their further contributions of oxen, seed, and labor, the partnership is valid only in a place where comparable land normally bears no rental price. If land of that sort is ordinarily in demand for rent, the partnership is invalid unless the owner shoulders half of the rent.
When a man hands seed to another so that he may sow it in his own land on the understanding that the crop will be split equally, the entire crop belongs to the cultivator, while the landowner is entitled to the going rate of rent for his land.
If the laborer stipulates that the landowner must advance him the landowner’s share of the seed, the condition is impermissible and the partnership becomes void—unless the seed is actually handed over in advance. Should the seed not be provided until after the harvest, Ibn al-Qāsim maintains that the crop is to be divided between them, whereas other jurists differed, holding that the crop