its former inhabitants in charge of cultivating the land and watering the trees, on condition that they receive one-half of whatever fruit and produce the land yields in return for their labour and expenses, while the other half belongs to the Muslims as the owners of the property.

That arrangement remained in force throughout the lifetime of the Prophet ﷺ and the caliphate of Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq, until ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb expelled them from Khaybar.

Lessons drawn from the ḥadith

1. The permissibility of muzāraʿah and musāqāt, with the worker taking an agreed portion of the harvest or fruit.
2. The apparent sense of the ḥadith is that the seed need not be supplied by the landowner; this is the sound view, contrary to the well-known position in our school that makes it a condition.
3. Once the worker’s share is specified, it is unnecessary to mention the owner’s share, for it is understood to be the remainder.
4. It is allowed to combine musāqāt and muzāraʿah in a single orchard: one specified share for tending the trees and another specified share for cultivating the ground.
5. It is lawful to enter into agricultural, commercial, construction, manufacturing and similar contracts with non-Muslims.

Differences among the scholars concerning musāqāt and muzāraʿah
We have noted that some jurists regard these contracts as exceptions to the basic legal principle and to analogy; consequently, they have differed over their ruling despite the textual evidence for them.

As for musāqāt, Abū Ḥanīfah held that it is never permissible, arguing that it is a lease whose payment consists of fruit that does not yet exist or is unknown. In his view this entails disposing of the crop before its quality appears, or involves uncertainty regarding the consideration—both of which are forbidden. His ground for setting aside the textual evidence is that, in his estimation, it conflicts with foundational principles.

The Ẓāhiriyyah permitted it only with date-palms, because the report explicitly mentions them.

Al-Shāfiʿī allowed it with date-palms and grapevines alone, since, in his view, these two share many rulings, among them the obligation of zakāt unique to them among all fruits.

These scholars deliberately restricted the ruling from extending to other purposeful, beneficial trees, holding that the ruling established by this report runs counter to the general principle and therefore cannot be applied beyond the precise wording of the text.