so that one portion might be destroyed while the other remained safe, or the reverse.

The Prophet ﷺ therefore prohibited this arrangement because it involves gharar (undue uncertainty), ignorance of the terms, and risk. It opens the door to maysir (gambling), which is categorically forbidden; thus the compensation must be known, and profit and loss must be shared on equal terms.

If the cultivator’s entitlement is a fixed share of the harvest, the contract is a partnership whose foundation is fairness and parity in both gain and liability.

If the entitlement is a separate payment, the contract is a lease, and the rent must be precisely defined. Such a lease is permissible whether the rent is paid in gold or silver, in produce that grows from the land (1), or in something of the same or a different kind. The reason is that the contract concerns the usufruct of the land, and the prophetic statement is general: “If the consideration is something definite and guaranteed, there is no harm.”

Points derived from the hadith:

1. Leasing land for agriculture is permissible; the scholars are unanimously agreed on this in principle.
2. The rent must be specified; an indeterminate rent renders the contract invalid.
3. The hadith shows that the rent may be paid in gold, silver, or anything else—even if it is of the same type as what the land produces, or the very produce itself.
4. It is forbidden to insert invalid stipulations, such as reserving a particular side of the field or the produce along the waterways for the owner. Such conditions turn the contract into a defective share-cropping or lease, because they entail gharar, ignorance, and injustice to one of the parties. The arrangement must rest on fairness and mutual consideration: either a known rent is fixed for the land, or the parties share the profits and losses equally.
5. From this it is clear that every form of uncertainty, ignorance, and speculative contest is prohibited and void; they are kinds of gambling that wrong one of the two parties. The Sacred Law was revealed to establish justice, equity, and equality among people, to remove enmity and hatred, and to foster affection and goodwill.

Scholarly disagreement:
The majority of scholars hold that leasing for payment in gold, silver, or in merchandise other than foodstuffs is permissible.

They differed regarding payment in food. If the food is specified and does not come from the very crop, the majority—including the Shafiʿis, Hanafis, and Hanbalis—permit it, whether the food is of the same type as the crop or not. They base this on the general hadith and on the fact that it does not lead to usury, so it is permissible, like currency.

Imam Mālik, however, prohibited it, citing the hadith, “Do not lease it for food.”

If the payment consists of a portion of the actual crop, the three imams deem it impermissible. What is narrated from Imam Aḥmad allowing it should be understood as his referring to share-cropping, although he used the term “lease.”