It is completely prohibited to rent land for agriculture, irrespective of whether the land was Kharajiyyah or ‘Ushriyyah. Likewise, temporary share-cropping is also prohibited. Musaaqa (renting trees for a portion of their yields) is permitted without restriction.

There are several evidences for the article, and all of them mention the prohibition of renting land; it is narrated from Rafi’ Bin Khadij who said:

 فَذَكَرَ أَنَّ بعَْضَ عُمُومَتِهِ أَتَاهُ فَقَالَ: نهََى ،كُنَّا نَُُابِرُ عَلَى عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ « أَنْفَعُ لَنَا وَأَنْفَعُ. قَالَ: قُلْ نَا: عَنْ أَمْرٍ كَانَ لَنَا نَافِعاً، وَطَوَاعِيَةُ رَسُولِ اللهِ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ مَنْ كَانَتْ لَهُ أَرْضٌ فَلْيَزْرَعْهَا أَوْ لِيُزْرِعْهَا أَخَاهُ، وَلا :وَمَا ذَاكَ؟ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ » يُكَارِيهَا بِثلُُثٍ وَلا بِرُبُعٍ وَلا بِطَعَامٍ مُسَمًّى

“We used to employ people to till land for a share of its produce. He then maintained that, one of his uncles came to him and said: The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) (saw) forbade us from a work beneficial to us. But obedience to Allah (swt) and His Messenger (pbuh) (saw) is more beneficial to us. We asked : What is that? He said: The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) (saw) said: If anyone has land, he should cultivate it, or lend it to his brother for cultivation. He should not rent it for a third or a quarter (of the produce) or for specified among of produce.” (reported by Abu Dawud). It is narrated from Ibn Umar who said:

مَا كُنَّا نرََى بِالْمُزَارَعَةِ بَأْساً حَتََّّ سََِعْنَا رَافِعَ بْنَ خَدِيجٍ يقَُولُ: نهََى رَسُولُ اللهِ « » عَنْهَا

“We didn’t use to see any problem with share-cropping until we heard Raafi’ Bin Khadij say that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) forbade it” (reported by Ibn Qudamah in Al-Mughni and also by Muslim and Al-Shafi’i with slight differences). Jabir said: » عَنْ الْمُخَابرََة نهََى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ «

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) forbade Al-Mukhabarah” (reported by Muslim), and the Mukharabah is share-cropping. Al- Bukhari narrated on the authority of Jabir: “We used to engage in share-cropping, giving a third and a quarter and a half, and so the Prophet said:

 » مَنْ كَانَتْ لَهُ أَرْضٌ فَلْيَزْرَعْهَا أَوْ لِيَمْنَحْهَا، فَإِنْ لََْ يفَْعَلْ ف لْيُمْسِكْ أَرْضَه «

“Whoever has land, then he should cultivate it or grant it to someone else, and if he does not do that, then it is taken from him””. Abu Dawud narrated from Zayd b. Thabit who said:

 عَنْ الْمُخَابرََةِ، قُلْتُ : وَمَا الْمُخَابرََةُ؟ قَالَ: أَنْ تَأْخُذَ الأَرْضَ نهََى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ « ،» بِنِصْفٍ أَوْ ثلُُثٍ أَوْ رُبْعٍ

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) forbade Al-Mukhabarah. I asked – and what is Al-Mukhabarah. He said to work on the land for a half, or a third, or a quarter”, and the narration of Rafi’:

» نهََى عَنْ كِرَاءِ الْمَزَارِعِ أَنَّ النَّبَِِّ «

“The Prophet forbade the leasing of farms” (agreed upon). And Zahir b. Rafi’ narrated:

 قَالَ: مَا تَصْنَعُونَ بَِِحَاقِلِكُمْ؟ قُلْتُ: نؤَُاجِرُهَا عَلَى ال ربُعِ، دَعَانِِ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ « » أَوْ عَلَى الأَوْسُقِ مِنْ التَّمْرِ وَالشَّعِيرِ، قَالَ: لا تَفْعَلُوا، ازْرَعُوهَا أَوْ أَمْسِكُوهَا “

The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) called me and said: “What are you doing with your land?” I said: “We rent it out for a quarter or for amounts of dates and barley”. He said: “Do not do that, either cultivate it or hold onto it” (agreed upon). It is narrated from Abu Sa‘id who said:

 » عَنْ الْمُحَاقَلَةِ نهََى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ «

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) prohibited Al-Muhaqala” (reported by Al-Nasa’i and Muslim), and Al-Muhaqalah is the renting of land for wheat. In Sahih Al-Bukhari it is mentioned that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said:

 » مَنْ كَانَتْ لَهُ أَرْضٌ فَلْيَزْرَعْهَا أَوْ لِيَمْنَحْهَا، فَإِنْ أَبََ فَلْيُمْسِكْ أَرْضَه «

“Whoever has land should cultivate it, or grant it to someone else, and if he refuses then his land is taken from him”, and in Sahih Muslim from Jabir:

 » أَنْ يؤُْخَذَ لِلأَرْضِ أَجْرٌ أَوْ حَ ظ نهََى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ «

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) forbade the land to be used for a rent or share of the crop”. In Sunan Al-Nasa’i it is narrated:

عَنْ كِرَاءِ الأَرْضِ، قُلْنَا: يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ، إِذًا نُكْرِيهَا بِشَيْءٍ مِنْ نهََى رَسُولُ اللهِ « الحَْبِّ، قَالَ: لا، قَالَ: وَكُنَّا نُكْرِيهَا بِالتِّبِْْ، فَقَالَ: لا، وَكُنَّا نُكْرِيهَ ا عَلَى الرَّبِيعِ، قَالَ: لا، ازْرَعْهَا » أَوْ امْنَحْهَا أَخَاكَ “

The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) prohibited the leasing of land. We said: "O Messenger of Allah (pbuh), in which case we will lease it in exchange for some of the grain". He said: "no." We said: "We will lease it in exchange for figs. He said:no. We said: "we used to lease it upon rabee’. He said: "no, cultivate it or give it to your brother”. And Rabee’ is the small river, in other words, the river valley, meaning we used to lease for the part cultivated upon the Rabee’ or in other words, next to the water. It is also narrated that ‘Abd Allah (swt) b. Umar met and asked Rafi’ Bin Khadij who said:

 نَ هَى عَنْ كِرَاءِ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ « : سَعت عَمَّيَّ وكانا قد شهدا بدراً يحدثان أخرجه مسلم وذكر الحديث وفيه أن ابن عمر ترك كراء الأرض. » الأَرْضِ

“I heard from my two uncles, who were amongst those who particpated in Badr, that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) prohibited the leasing of land” reported by Muslim, and he mentioned the narration which mentions that Ibn Umar stopped leasing land. These narrations explicitly mention that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) prohibited the renting of land. And though a prohibition merely indicates a request to desist, the indication here indicates that the request is decisive. As for the issue of the prohibition of share-cropping, Abu Dawud mentioned a narration on the authority of Jabir who said:

 مَنْ لَمْ يَذَرْ الْمُخَابَ رَةَ، فَ لْيَأْذَنْ بِحَرْبٍ مِنْ اللهِ « : يقول سَعت رسول الله » وَرَسُولِهِ

“I heard the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) say: “Whoever does not leave Al-Mukhabara (share-cropping) then he should take notice of war from Allah (swt) and His Messenger (pbuh).” (authenticated by Ibn Hibban and Al-Hakim, and Al-Mundhiri did not comment upon it). As for the general leasing of land, when the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) prohibited them from leasing the land, the companions said to him : we will lease it in exchange for some of the grain, and he said: no, so they said we will lease it in exchange for figs, and he said: no. And they then said: we used to lease it upon the river valley, and he said: no. Then he emphasised that by saying: "cultivate it or give it to your brother". This is clearly insistence upon the prohibition, which is a confirmation for it. And the decisiveness is apparent from the narration, since the Messenger (pbuh) prohibited them from leasing the land in any way. The companions wanted to make certain circumstances as exceptions from this general prohibition, and so they presented the first circumstance to the Messenger (pbuh) in order for him to permit it for them by saying: “in which case, we will lease it for some of the grain”, and the Messenger (pbuh) answered them by rejecting their request by saying no. Then, they presented him with a second situation different from the first in order to get his permission for it, so they said: “we will lease it in exchange for figs”, to which the Messenger (pbuh) replied no, rejecting that request as well. Then they presented a third situation other than the first two to the Messenger (pbuh) in order to get his permission, saying: “We used to lease it upon the river valley”, and so he replied to them for a third time rejecting what they had requested by saying no. He did not stop at that, but rather he limited the way that the land could be used to one of two options, saying:

 » ازْرَعْهَا أَوْ امْنَحْهَا أَخَاكَ «

“Cultivate it or give it to your brother”. This repetition of the rejection alongside the differing circumstances alone is enough to indicate that the prohibition was a decisive one. Additionally, this restriction is also sufficient on its own to indicate decisiveness, since his words:

 » ازْرَعْهَا أَوْ امْ نَحْهَا أَخَاكَ «

“Cultivate it or give it to your brother” are for the sake of restriction, and the word: “or” is to give a choice between two issues, do this or this, which means do not do anything other than these options. Based upon this, this narration, due to the repetition and the manner of that repetition, and the restriction mentioned, clearly indicates decisiveness and so it is an indication that the prohibition related in the narrations prohibiting renting the land generally is a decisive prohibition. Something else that supports the fact that the prohibition is for Tahrim (prohibition), is what has been narrated in Abu Dawud from Rafi’ (and authenticated by Al-Hakim) who said:

وَهُوَ يَسْقِيهَا، فَسَأَلَهُ: لِمَنْ الزَّرْعُ وَلِمَنْ الأَرْضُ؟ أَنَّهُ زَرَعَ أَرْضًا فَمَرَّ بِهِ النَّ بِ « فَقَالَ: زَرْعِي بِبَذْرِي وَعَمَلِي، لِِ الشَّطْرُ وَلِبَنِِ فُلاَنٍ الشَّطْرُ، فَقَالَ: أَرْبيَْتُمَا، فَرُدَّ الأَرْضَ عَ لَى » أَهْلِهَا وَخُذْ نفََقَتَكَ

“He had cultivated a land. The Prophet (peace be upon him) passed him when he was watering it. So he asked him: To whom does the crop belong, and to whom does the land belong? He replied: The crop is mine for my seed and labour. The half (of the crop) is mine and the half for so-and-so. He said: You conducted usurious transaction. Return the land to its owner and take your wages and cost.”. The Prophet described this transaction as being usury, and usury is Haram according to definite text. Additionally, the Messenger (pbuh) requested Rafi’ to return the land to its owner, with whatever was there in terms of agriculture, and to take his expenses from them; in other words, he requested him to void the transaction. This indicates that the prohibition is a decisive one and so it is Haram. Therefore, these three narrations - the narration of Jabir which mentions the threat for partaking in Mukhabarah, in other words, share-cropping, and the narration of Al-Nasa’i with the repetition and restriction, and the narration of Raafi’ which describes the renting of land as being usury and voiding the transaction - are a definite indication that the prohibition is decisive, which indicates the Tahrim of renting land generally. Due to what is mentioned explicitly in these narrations, and what is understood from them, there is not the slightest doubt that it is forbidden to rent land generally. Yet some of the scholars are found to have permitted the renting of land. So we will also explain the evidences that some of the scholars used to permit the renting of land, not simply to criticise those evidences but in order to show their invalidity. Those who permit the renting of land say that the land is an object that benefit can be derived from while it remains, and so it is permitted to rent it for a price or something similar, such as for a crop rotation, and the rule regarding goods is the same as the rule regarding prices. The invalidity of this opinion is extremely apparent, since even though land is an object which benefits could be taken from while the land remains such as through crop rotation, but the text came to explicitly state that renting land is Haram, so even if the definition of renting applies to it, the text came and forbade it, and for that reason it is Haram. So though the evidence for renting is general and encompasses any type of renting, however there is an evidence which came forbidding the renting of land which restricts it to renting anything other than land, and so the renting of land was made as an exception and it was forbidden. That is why it is Haram. Similar to this are the words of Allah (swt):

“O mankind, eat from whatever is on earth [that is] lawful and good.” (TMQ 2:168) which is general and includes everything, and the words of Allah (swt):

“Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine.’’ (TMQ 5:3) and then it is restricted by other evidences, which are made as exceptions from the generality of these things. Accordingly, the evidence they use for the permissibility of renting land has been refuted.

Those who permit the renting of land say that the evidence for this is what has been narrated about Hanthala b. Qays from Rafi’ b. Khadij who said:

بَِِا ينَْبُتُ عَلَى حَدَّثَنِِ عَمَّايَ أَنهَُّمْ كَانُوا يُكْرُونَ الأَرْضَ عَلَى عَهْدِ النَّبِِِّ « عَنْ ذَلِكَ، فَقُلْتُ لِرَافِعٍ: فَكَيْفَ الأَرْبِعَاءِ أَوْ شَيْءٍ يَسْتَثْنِيهِ صَاحِبُ الأَرْضِ، فَنَهَى النَّ بِ » هِيَ بِالدِّينَارِ وَالدِّرْهَمِ؟ فَقَالَ رَافِعٌ: لَيْسَ بَِِا بَأْسٌ بِالدِّينَارِ وَالدِّرْهَمِ

“My two uncles told me that they (i.e. the companions of the Prophet) used to rent the land in the lifetime of the Prophet for the yield on the banks of water streams (rivers) or for a portion of the yield stipulated by the owner of the land. The Prophet forbade it." I said to Rafi`, "What about renting the land for Dinars and Dirhams?" He replied, "There is no harm in renting for Dinars- Dirhams.” (reported by Al-Bukhari).

It is clear from the narration in Al-Bukhari that the sentence: “There is no harm in renting for Dinars- Dirhams” is not from the words of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) but rather it is from the words of Rafi’. This is confirmed by what has been related in the narration in Muslim from Hanthala Bin Qays Al- Ansari himself, who said:

سَأَلْتُ رَافِعَ بْنَ خَدِيجٍ عَنْ كِرَاءِ الأَرْضِ بِالذَّهَبِ وَالْوَرِقِ، فَقَالَ: لا بَأْسَ بِهِ، إِنَََّّا « عَلَى الْمَاذِيَانَاتِ وَأَقْبَالِ الجَْدَاوِلِ وَأَشْيَاءَ مِنْ الزَّرْعِ، كَانَ النَّاسُ يؤَُاجِرُونَ عَلَى عَهْدِ النَّبِِِّ فَيَهْلِكُ هَذَا وَيَسْلَمُ هَذَا، وَيَسْلَمُ هَذَا وَيهَْلِكُ هَذَا، فَلَمْ يَكُنْ لِلنَّاسِ كِرَاءٌ إِلا هَذَا، فَلِذَلِكَ زُجِرَ » عَنْهُ، فَأَمَّا شَيْءٌ مَعْ لُومٌ مَضْمُونٌ فَلا بَأْسَ بِهِ

“I asked Rafi' b. Khadij about the renting of land for gold and silver, whereupon he said: There is no harm in it for the people let out land situated near canals and at the ends of the streamlets or portion of fields. (But it so happened) that at times this was destroyed and that was saved. whereas (on other occasions) this portion was saved and the other was destroyed and thus no rent was payable to the people (who let out lands) but for this one (which was saved). It was due to this that he (the Holy Prophet) prohibited it. But if there is something definite and reliable (e. g. money). there is no harm in it”, which explains explicitly that the speaker of those words was Rafi’ and not the Prophet , and so it is an opinion of Rafi’ related by him in the narration, and the words of Rafi’ are not a Shari’ah evidence, and his opinion is not a Shari’ah evidence. This is especially the case when there is text which directly contradicts it. So Rafi’ understood from the prohibition of the Messenger (pbuh) to rent land, and the land at that time used to be rented for what was produced from it, that the renting of land with gold and silver was no problem. What supports this being the specific understanding of Rafi’ is what was mentioned in the report in Al-Bukhari from Hanthala Bin Qays Al- Ansari that he heard Rafi’ b. Khadij say:

 كُنَّا أَكْثَرَ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ مُزْدَرَعًا، كُنَّا نُكْرِي الأَرْضَ بِالنَّاحِيَةِ مِنْهَا مُسَمًّى لِسَيِّدِ « الأَرْضِ، قَالَ: فَمِمَّا يُصَابُ ذَلِكَ وتَسْلَمُ الأَرْضُ، وَمَِِّا يُصَابُ الأَرْضُ وَيَسْلَمُ ذَلِكَ، فَنُهِينَا، » وَأَمَّا الذَّهَبُ وَالْوَرِقُ فَلَمْ يَكُنْ يوَْمَئِذٍ

“We worked on farms more than the people of Madinah. We used to rent the land at the yield of specific delimited portion of it to be given to the landlord. Sometimes the vegetation of that portion was affected by blights etc., while the rest remained safe and vice versa, so the Prophet forbade this practice. As for gold or silver, they were not used at that time (for renting the land)” (reported by Al-Bukhari). So he said:

 » وَأَمَّا الذَّهَبُ وَالْوَرِقُ فَلَمْ يَكُنْ يوَْمَئِذٍ «

“As for gold and silver, they were not used at that time”, and what was in the report of Muslim, Abu Dawud and Al-Nasa’i from Rafi’ in the same narration:

» فَأَمَّا شَيْءٌ مَعْلُومٌ مَضْمُونٌ فَلا بَأْسَ بِهِ «

“As for something that was definite and reliable, then there is no Haram in it.”, and so all of this is the understanding of Rafi’, and his understanding is not considered to be a Shari’ah evidence, and at the same time there is evidence which contradicts his view.

And those who permit the renting of land also argue that the evidences related to the prohibition of renting land are only regarding the type of renting which took place at that time, which was that a man would rent the land for a portion of what he harvested from it, in that the one renting would cultivate a part of the land in the river valley for the owner as rent, or give a fixed amount of food, or a portion of the yields from the land. These were the types of renting which were reported in the narrations prohibiting them, and so these are the forbidden types of renting land while anything else is permitted, and for this reason it is permitted to rent land for gold and silver.

The answer to that is that the evidences which prohibit renting of land were not limited to what they used to conduct their transactions with, but rather came in a general form:

 مَنْ كَانَتْ لَهُ أَرْضٌ فَلْيَزْرَعْهَا أَوْ فَلْيُزْرِعْهَا أَخَاهُ، وَلا يُكَارِيهَا بِثلُُثٍ وَلا بِرُبُعٍ وَلا « » بِطَعَامٍ مُسَمًّى

“If anyone has land, he should cultivate it, or lend it to his brother for cultivation. He should not rent it for a third or a quarter (of the produce) or for specified among of produce.” (reported by Abu Dawud);

 » عَنْ الْمُخَابرََة نهََى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ «

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) forbade Al-Mukharaba” (reported by Muslim from Jabir);

 » مَنْ كَانَتْ لَهُ أَرْضٌ فَلْيَ زرَعْهَا أَوْ لِيَمْنَحْهَا، فَإِنْ لََْ يفَْعَلْ فَلْيُمْسِكْ أَرْضَه «

“Whoever has land should cultivate it himself or give it to his (Muslim) brother gratis.” (reported by Al-Bukhari from Jabir);

» أَنْ يؤُْخَذَ لِلأَرْضِ أَجْرٌ أَوْ حَ ظ نهََى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ «

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) has forbidden taking of rent or share of land.” (reported by Muslim from Jabir). The prohibition in these narrations are all general, to the point that when they asked about the types of farming, the answer of the Messenger (pbuh) was not specific, but rather he added a general rule – it is mentioned in Sunan Al-Nasa’i that the Messenger (pbuh) prohibited renting of land, and so they said: “in which case, we will lease it for some of the grain”, and the Messenger (pbuh) answered them by rejecting their request by saying no. Then, they presented him with a second situation different from the first in order to get his permission for it, so they said: “we will lease it in exchange for figs”, to which the Messenger (pbuh) replied no, rejecting that request as well. Then they presented a third situation other than the first two to the Messenger (pbuh) in order to get his permission, saying: “We used to lease it upon the river valley”, and so he replied to them for a third time rejecting what they had requested by saying no. He did not stop at that, but rather he limited the way that the land could be used to one of two options, saying: “Cultivate it or give it to your brother”. It is reported from Zuhayr Bin Rafi’ who said:

 قَالَ: مَا تَصْنَعُونَ بَِِحَاقِلِكُمْ؟ قُلْتُ: نؤَُاجِرُهَا عَلَى ال ربُعِ، دَعَانِِ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ « » أو عَلَى الأَوْسُقِ مِنْ التَّمْرِ وَالشَّعِيرِ، قَالَ: لا تَفْعَلُوا، ازْرَعُوهَا أَوْ أَمْسِكُوهَا

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) sent for me and asked: What do you do with your cultivable lands? I said: Allah (swt)'s Messenger (pbuh), we rent those irrigated by canals for dry dates or barley. He said: Don't do that. Cultivate them or let them be cultivated (by others) or retain them yourself.’” (agreed upon). From the two previous narrations it is clear that after the Messenger (pbuh) prohibited them from what they used to do, he ended his words with a general text: “Cultivate it or give it to your brother”: “Cultivate it yourselves, or keep it uncultivated”, and therefore the narrations remain general and not restricted to how they used to transact, so something unrestricted is not restricted; in other words, they are not restricted to how they used to rent land when the prohibition was made, rather the prohibition remains general for all renting of land, completely, similar to the prohibition of interest which occurred when the people used to carry out usurious transactions with a high rate of interest, and all interest was prohibited not just the type of transactions they used to do. Accordingly, renting the land by anything is prohibited, whether by gold, silver or anything else. Therefore, the deduction of those who restrict the narration to the types of land rental which people used to do at the time the prohibition came has been proven false.

Those who permit the renting of land also say that the evidence for this permission is what has been extracted by Abu Dawud and Al-Nasa’i, with the wording of Al-Nasa’i:

 عَنْ الْمُحَاقَ لَةِ وَالْمُزَابَ نَةِ، وَقَالَ: إِنَّمَا يَ زْرَعُ ثَلاثَةٌ: رَجُلٌ لَهُ نَ هَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ « أَرْضٌ فَ هُوَ يَ زْرَعُهَا، أَوْ رَجُلٌ مُنِحَ أَرْضًا فَ هُوَ يَ زْرَعُ مَا مُنِحَ، أَوْ رَجُلٌ اسْتَكْرَى أَرْضًا بِذَهَبٍ » أَوْ فِضَّةٍ

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) forbade Al-Muhaqalah (renting of land for wheat) and Al-Muzabanah, and said: 'Only three may cultivate: A man who has land which he cultivates; a man who was given some land and cultivates what he was given; and a man who takes land on lease for gold or silver.”.

Further, what Al-Hafidh in Al-Fateh mistakenly attributed to Abu Dawud, while it is from Al-Nasa’i, he said: Ubayd Allah (swt) bin Sa’ad bin Ibrahim told us, my uncle told me, he said my father told us from Muhammad ibn Ikrimah from Muhammad ibn Abdur Rahman ibn Labiyyah from Sa’ad b. Abi Waqqas (ra) who said:

 مَزَارِعَهُمْ بِمَا يَكُونُ كَانَ أَصْحَابُ الْمَزَارِعِ يُكْرُونَ فِي زَمَانِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ « فَاخْتَصَمُوا فِي بَ عْضِ ذَلِكَ، فَ نَ هَاهُمْ عَلَى السَّاقِي مِنْ الزَّرْعِ، فَجَاءُوا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ » أَنْ يُكْرُوا بِذَلِكَ وَقَالَ: أَكْرُوا بِالذَّهَبِ وَالْفِضَّةِ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ

“At the time of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), landowners used to lease their arable land in return for whatever grew on the banks of the streams for irrigation. They came to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) and referred a dispute concerning such matters to him, and the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) forbade them to lease land on such terms, and said: 'Lease it for gold or silver.'”, and Al-Nasa’i added: “this narration was reported from Sulaiman from Raafi’ who said from one of his uncles”.

They also use the narration from Abu Dawud who said: Uthman ibn Abi Shayba told us Yazeed ibn Haroon told us Ibrahi ibn Sa’ad informed us from Muhammad bin Ikrimah bin Abdur Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham from Muhammad bin Abdur Rahman bin Abi Labeeba from Sa'id ibn Musayyib from Sa’ad, he said:

كُنَّا نُكْرِي الأَرْضَ بِمَا عَلَى السَّوَاقِي مِنْ الزَّرْعِ وَمَا سَعِدَ بِالْمَاءِ مِنْ هَا، فَ نَ هَانَا « » عَنْ ذَلِكَ وَأَمَرَنَا أَنْ نُكْرِيَ هَا بِذَهَبٍ أَوْ فِضَّةٍ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ

“We used to lease land for what grew by the streamlets and for what was watered from them. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) forbade us to do that, and commanded us to lease if for gold or silver.”.

They said that these three narrations indicate the permission of renting land with gold and silver.

The reply to this is that these narrations are not suitable to be used as evidence for the permission of renting land by gold and silver.

With respect to the first narration, Al-Nasa’i explained clearly that the words of the narration which is (Marfu’) to the Messenger (pbuh) are the prohibition of Al-Muhaaqalah and Al- Muzaabanah, and the remainder is extra/combined (Mudraj) from the words of Sa'id Bin Al-Musayyib. In Sunan Al-Nasa’i it mentions the following at the end of the narration: (Israel differentiated it from Tariq, and so he did Irsal (Mursal) of the first part (in other words, made it from the words of the Prophet without mentioning the narrator), and made the second part from the words of Sa‘id).

The second and third narrations are not suitable for use as evidence, this is because both chains come through Muhammad Bin ‘Abd Al-Rahman Bin Libi, and it is sometimes said Ibn Abi Libi, who was not deemed as trustworthy except by Ibn Hibban. Ibn Hajr said in Al-Taqrib: “weak, does a lot of Irsal (not mentioning the name of the narrators in between)”, and Al-Dhahabi said in Mizan Al-‘I‘tidal: “Yahya said: his narration are not to be considered, and Al-Daraqutni said he is weak, and another said he is not strong” and in Al-Tathyeel ‘Ala ’l-Tahtheeb book: “Ibn abi Hatim said: Hamad from a man (in other words, Ibn Umar), who said: I asked Malik about Muhammad b. ‘Abd Al-Rahman who narrated from Sa'id Ibn Musayyib, and he said: he is not trustworthy”.

As for those who deemed the report as Hasan such as Al- Albani, their conclusion is not accurate, since they relied upon additional witnesses to make this result. This cannot occur if the text contradicts that which is authentic, and it mentions at the end of both narrations that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) ordered them to rent with gold and silver, and yet it was reported in Al-Bukhari from Rafi’,“As for gold and silver they were not used at that time”, or, in other words, they were not used in transactions for renting land, even though renting land took place and gold and silver was available and they used to transact with it in issues other than renting land, and if the Messenger (pbuh) had ordered them to rent with gold and silver then it would have taken place at that time, and he would have reported that. But he didn’t report that, and over and above that he reported that in fact gold or silver was not used for renting land at that time.

Accordingly the making Hasan of the report through additional witnesses (other narrations) is not correct since the end of the two narrations mentions: “and ordered us to rent it with gold and silver”, and so this part of the two narrations remain weak and cannot be used as evidence.

Those who permit the renting of land also claim that the evidence for permitting land rental, is that the people used to do so, as well as the Ijma’ of the companions. As for the peoples’ transactions, it is narrated that Ibn Umar used to rent his land at the time of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) , Abu Bakr (ra), ‘Uthman (ra) and part of the time in the governorship of Mu’awiyah, and Ibn Al- Arabi Al-Maliki narrated an Ijma’ of the companions upon the permission of renting land, which indicates that renting land is permitted.

The response to this is: the fact that people transact a certain way is not a Shari’ah evidence for its permission, but rather the evidence must be a Shari’ah text either from the Book or the Sunnah. In addition to that, the narration regarding Ibn Umar renting his land is not suitable for an evidence since once he heard the narration (prohibiting the renting of land) he stopped doing it. This has been confirmed by two narrations from him that he stopped renting land due to it being prohibited; in the narration from Rafi’ from Ammayah it is mentioned that: “Ibn Umar stopped renting land”, and in the narration from Ibn Umar himself he said: “We didn’t use to see any problem in share-cropping until we heard Rafi’ Bin Khadij say the narration”, and the understanding from this is that he then saw a problem in sharecropping, and share-cropping is renting of land. Based upon this, the evidence regarding peoples’ transactions is rejected, and the use of Ibn Umar’s actions as proof is likewise rejected. As for the Ijma’ of the companions, which is claimed to be an Ijma’ upon the permission of renting land, it is rather Ijma’ upon Al-Musaqah (renting trees for a portion of their yields) based upon the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) leasing the land of Khaybar to the Jews, and it is not an Ijma’ upon renting land. This is because Ibn Al-‘Arabi was the one who narrated this Ijma’, and mentioned it in the explanation of the narration of Umar (ra) that the Prophet did business with the people of Khaybar, and so the companions had an Ijma’ on the permission of this renting. Therefore, this is the Ijma’ that he is relating, which is an Ijma’ upon Al-Musaqah and not upon the renting of land, and so it cannot be used as evidence. Accordingly, it is not suitable to be used as an evidence to indicate the permission of renting land.

And those who permit renting of land claim that there is an Ijma’ of the companions upon the permission of renting land by gold and silver as an evidence, and the author of Al-Fateh wrote: “And Ibn Munthir claimed that the Messenger (pbuh)’s companions agreed upon the renting of land by gold and silver”, and so this Ijma’ is an evidence for the permission of renting by gold and silver.

The answer to this is that the narrations related to the prohibition of renting land invalidate this Ijma’ since the prohibition was general, as the Prophet said:

 » مَنْ كَانَتْ لَهُ أَرْضٌ فَلْيَزْرَعْهَا، أَوْ لِيُحْرِثْهَا أَخَاهُ، وَإِلاَّ فَلْيَدَعْهَا «

“Whoever has land should cultivate it, or let his brother cultivate it, and if not, then give it up” (reported by Muslim from Jabir), and in the narration from Muslim from Abu Hurayrah who said that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said:

 » مَنْ كَانَتْ لَهُ أَرْضٌ فَلْيَزْرَعْهَا، أَوْ لِيَمْنَحْهَا أَخَاهُ، فَإِنْ أَبََ فَلْيُمْسِكْ أَرْضَه «

“Whoever has some land, then he should cultivate it, or let his brother cultivate it, and if he refuses, then his land is taken (from him)”. His words: “and if not, then give it up”, and: “if he refuses, then his land is taken (from him)”, is evidence for the absence of permission for renting by gold and silver. In the same manner, the narrations limit the rule to two options at the exclusion of any others as has been previously explained: the words of the Prophet :

» ازْرَعْهَا أَوْ امْنَحْهَا أَخَاكَ «

“cultivate it or give it to your brother”, gave him two options to choose between, and there is no third option apart from them, and the consensus mentioned permits a third option (gold and silver), which is contradictory. This requires Tarjeeh (weighing up the evidences), and the narrations mentioned have a stronger chain than that of the consensus, and this is apart from the fact that consensus is only upon something that all have either agreed its permission or prohibition; as for something which has not occurred yet, then it cannot have an Ijma’ upon it, and renting land by gold and silver was not something that the people used to do, as narrated in Bukhari from Rafi’: “As for gold and silver, they were not used at that time”, and from Hanthala b. Qays:

 سَأَلْتُ رَافِعَ بْنَ خَدِيجٍ عَنْ كِرَاءِ الأَرْضِ بِالذَّهَبِ وَالْوَرِقِ فَقَالَ: لا بَأْسَ بِهِ، إِنََّّاَ « عَلَى الْمَاذِيَانَاتِ وَأَقْبَالِ الجَْدَاوِلِ وَأَشْ يَاءَ مِنْ الزَّرْعِ، كَانَ النَّاسُ يؤَُاجِرُونَ عَلَى عَهْدِ النَّبِِِّ فَيَهْلِكُ هَذَا وَيَسْلَمُ هَذَا، وَيَسْلَمُ هَذَا وَيهَْلِكُ هَذَا، فَلَمْ يَكُنْ لِلنَّاسِ كِرَاءٌ إِلاَّ هَذَا؛ فَلِذَلِكَ زُجِرَ » عَنْهُ، فَأَمَّا شَيْءٌ مَعْلُومٌ مَضْمُونٌ فَلا بَأْسَ بِهِ

“I asked Rafi' b. Khadij about the renting of land for gold and silver, whereupon he said: There is no harm in it for the people let out land situated near canals and at the ends of the streamlets or portion of fields. (But it so happened) that at times this was destroyed and that was saved. whereas (on other occasions) this portion was saved and the other was destroyed and thus no rent was payable to the people (who let out lands) but for this one (which was saved). It was due to this that he (the Holy Prophet) prohibited it. But if there is something definite and reliable (e. g. money). there is no harm in it.” These two narrations indicate that renting land by gold and silver did not take place at that time, which negates the presence of an Ijma’ upon something that took place. The Ijma’ of the companions is simply a method to uncover an evidence (Kashif ‘An Dalil), and not an opinion of theirs that they agreed upon after debating and agreeing upon it. Therefore, their Ijma’ that the rule for this action is such and such means that they heard the Messenger (pbuh) say that rule, or he was seen to do it, or he remained silent upon it (having known of it being done), and so the companions narrate the rule without relating the evidence. This cannot occur except with something that occurred in reality, since the Shari’ah was legislated upon actions that were done and occurrences that took place, and not upon academic hypotheses, and therefore it is imperative that the Ijma’ of the companions is upon something that was present. And as long as the presence of people renting land by gold and silver has been negated by authentic narrations, then this is a negation of the presence of any Ijma’ of the companions upon it. In the same manner when Umar (ra) said to a crowd of companions from the pulpit:

» مَنْ أَحْيَا أَرْضاً مَيْتَةً فَهِيَ لَهُ وَلَيْسَ لِمُحْتَجِرٍ حَ ق بعَْدَ ثَلاثِ سِنِيَ «

“whoever revives a dead land, it belongs to him, and the one who fenced it off , then has no right in it after three years (if not cultivated).” (mentioned by Abu Yusuf in Al-Kharaj from Salim b. ‘Abd Allah (swt)). And so he prohibited the one who fenced the land from any rights after three years, since his word: “right” is an indefinite noun in the context of a negation which is therefore general and encompasses a negation of all rights. So, if he was allowed to rent it by gold and silver, it wouldn’t have been taken from him after three years, and Umar (ra) said this and acted upon it in front of the sight and hearing of the companions and none of them refuted him and so it is a consensus. And those who permit the renting of land say that the evidence for its permissibility is the narration from Ibn ‘Abbas who said:

زَارَعَةِ، وَلَكِنَّهُ قَالَ: أَنْ يََْنَحَ أَحَدَكُمْ أَخَاهُ خَيْرٌ لَهُ مِ « ُ إِنَّ اللهَ لََْ ينَْهَ عَنِ الم نْ أَنْ يَأْخُذَ » شَيْئاً مَعْلُوم اً

“Allah (swt) did not forbid that, but said: One had better give the land to one's brother gratis rather than charge a certain amount for it.” (agreed upon). Ibn Maja mentioned the narration: "from Ibn Abbas, that he heard people increased renting land, and said: "Glory to Allah (swt), the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) only said:

 » أَلا مَنَحَهَا أَحَدُكُمْ أَخَاهُ، وَلََْ ينَْهَ عَنْ كِرَائِهَا «

“One should grant it to his brother” and did not prohibit renting it”", and in another report from Ibn ‘Abbas: “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did not prohibit share-cropping but he commanded people to be kind with each other by his words:

» مَنْ كَانَتْ لَهُ أَرْضٌ فَلْيَزْرَعْهَا، أَوْ لِيَمْنَحْهَا أَخَاهُ، فَإِنْ أَبََ فَلْيُمْسِكْ أَرْضَه «

“Whoever has some land, then he should cultivate it, or let his brother cultivate it, and if he refuses then his land is taken (from him)”" (reported and authenticated by Al-Tirmidhi from Ibn ‘Abbas), and in the same manner what is reported from Thabit:

 » نهََى عَنْ الْمُزَارَعَةِ، وَأَمَرَ بِالْمُؤَاجَرَةِ، وَقَالَ: لا بَأْسَ بَِِا أَنَّ رَسُ ولَ اللَّهِ «

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) prohibited share-cropping and ordered renting and said no Haram in it.” (as reported by Muslim). And so these narrations indicate the permission of renting. The answer to this is that the narration of Ibn Abbas in all of its reports is information of his understanding of the words of the Messenger (pbuh) , and not a report from the Messenger (pbuh) . They are an explanation that he understood that the prohibition of renting land by the Messenger (pbuh) was not for Tahrim, and so he said: “did not prohibit it”. And it is explicitly mentioned by him in the second report, since it is clarified he understood it from the words of the Messenger (pbuh) , as he explained his understanding by mentioning the narration which he had understood from when he said: “did not prohibit share-cropping but he commanded people to be kind with each other by his (saw) words…”. As long as it is the understanding of Ibn ‘Abbas and not a narration from the Prophet then it is not considered to be a proof, and cannot be used as evidence. As for the narration of Thabit who said: “and commanded renting”, this contradicts the other narration: “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) prohibited the leasing of land” and the other narration: “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) prohibited any rent to be taken for land, or any share of it (crops)” (reported by Muslim from Jabir), since his words: “and commanded renting” is general, encompassing all types of renting, and his words: “the leasing of land” and: “any rent to be taken” are also general; in other words, the order to rent is general and the prohibition is general, and this cannot be reconciled, since they are both general. It is not the case that one of the two is general and the other specific, or general from one angle and specific from another, and the other is general from another angle and specific from an angle other than the narration and so on such that reconciliation between the evidences could have been possible. Rather the generality of the order and prohibition are equal, so Tarjeeh is necessary and then the prohibition is given precedence and the narration ordering renting is rejected because if two texts contradict, then the precedence is given to the prohibition ahead of the order due to his words:

 » دَعْ مَا يَرِيبُكَ إِلَى مَا لا يَرِيبُكَ «

“Give up what is doubtful to you for that which is not doubtful.” (reported by Al-Tirmidhi who said it is Hasan Sahih), and accordingly the use of these narrations as evidence has been negated.

Those who claim that renting land is permitted also state that the evidence for its permission is what has been reported by Abu Dawud that Zayd Bin Thabit said:

يَ غْفِرُ اللَّهُ لِرَافِعِ بْنِ خَدِيجٍ، أَنَا وَاللَّهِ أَعْل مُ بِالْحَدِيثِ مِنْهُ، إِنَّمَا أَتَاهُ رَجُلانِ قَالَ « إِنْ كَانَ هَذَا شَأْنَكُمْ « :مُسَدَّدٌ مِنْ الأَنْصَارِ ثُمَّ اتَّ فَقَا قَدْ اقْ تَتَلا فَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ » فَلا تُكْرُوا الْمَزَارِعَ

“May Allah (swt) forgive Raafi Bin Khadij, I have more knowledge of Ahadith than he does. Two men who had quarreled came to the Prophet (SAW) and he said: 'If this is your situation, do not lease farms,' and what Rafi' bin Khadij heard was 'Do not lease farms”.

In other words, Zayd b. Thabit said he knew more about that (meaning renting land) than Rafi’, and that when the Prophet heard two men had fought so he said:

» إِنْ كَانَ هَذَا شَأْنَكُمْ فَلا تُكْرُوا الْمَزَارِعَ «

“'If this is your situation, do not lease farms,' and what Rafi' bin khadij heard was 'Do not lease farms.” And Al-Bukhari reported fromAmrf Bin Dinar who said: “I said to Tawus, if you left behind Al-Mukhabara (share-cropping) since they claim that the Prophet prohibited it. He said: More knowledgeable than them (intending Ibn ‘Abbas) told me that the Prophet did not prohibit it and rather he said:

» أَنْ يََْنَحَ أَحَدُكُمْ أَخَاهُ خَيْرٌ لَهُ مِنْ أَنْ يَأْخُذَ عَلَيْهَا خَرَاجاً مَعْلُوم اً «

“That one of you grant it to his brother is better( for him) than to take a fixed Kharaj upon it””, and Al-Kharaj linguistically means leasing of the land. So these two narrations indicate the permission of renting.

The reply to this is that the narration of Zayd does not indicate the permission of renting land, but rather it indicates its prohibition, and as for the understanding derived from the condition in his words: “If this is your situation”, this is voided by the narrations which comprehensively prohibit renting for farming, and also it is voided since it falls under the usual situation – meaning that renting in the manner that they used to would normally lead to disputes and differences since some land is more fertile than other. This is similar to the voiding of the condition in His (swt) words:

“And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity.” (TMQ 24:33), so this condition is voided as it falls under the usual situation – most of the time their maids hated prostitution, and so this understanding, or this understanding derived from the condition, is voided since it was merely a description of what was the case in usual circumstances (that a woman would hate to be forced into prostitution), and it also voided the texts which prohibited fornication generally and were not limited.

As for the second narration from ‘Amru b. Dinar, likewise it does not mean: “permission to grant and permission to take rent, but granting is better”; rather it prohibits taking the rent. This is because the sentence: “to grant his brother is better for him than to take a fixed Kharaj upon it” is an informative sentence which conveys a request, in other words, it is as though he said: “Grant your brother and don’t take Kharaj from him”, and so it contains a request to grant, in other words, give, without recompense, and prohibiting taking Kharaj or in other words, rent. It requires an indication to explain the type of prohibition: “request to leave”, and the indications are in other narrations which convey that it is a decisive request since they prohibit the taking of rent comprehensively such as his words :

 مَنْ كَانَتْ لَهُ أَرْضٌ فَلْيَزْرَعْهَا أَوْ لِيُزْرِعْهَا أَخَاهُ، وَلا يُكَارِيهَا بِثلُُثٍ وَلا بِرُبُعٍ وَلا « » بِطَعَامٍ مُسَمًّى

“Whoever has land, let him cultivate it (himself) or give it to his brother to cultivate, and not lease it in return for one-third or one-quarter of the yield nor a specified amount of food (produce).'” (reported by Abu Dawud). And:

 » مَنْ كَانَتْ لَهُ أَرْضٌ فَلْيَزْرَعْهَا أَوْ لِيَمْنَحْهَا، فَإِنْ لََْ يفَْعَلْ فَلْيُمْسِكْ أَرْضَه «

“Whoever has land should cultivate it himself or give it to his (Muslim) brother gratis; otherwise he should keep it uncultivated.” And from Rafi’:

 » نهََى عَنْ كِرَاءِ الْمَزَارِعِ أَنَّ النَّبَِِّ «

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) prohibited renting of farms” (agreed upon). And:

» أَنْ يؤُْخَذَ لِلأَرْضِ أَجْرٌ أَوْ حَ ظ نهََى رَسُولُ ال لَّهِ «

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) forbade the land to be used for a rent or share of the crop” (reported by Muslim from Jabir). And it is reported that ‘Abd Allah (swt) b. Umar met Rafi’ b. Khadij and asked him and so he replied: I heard my uncles, and they were from those who saw Badr, say:

 » نهََى عَنْ كِرَاءِ الأَرْضِ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ «

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) prohibited renting land” (by Muslim). Those who claim that renting land is permitted say that the proof for its permissibility is what is reported by Ibn Umar:

» عَامَلَ أَهْلَ خَيْبَرَ بِشَطْرِ مَا يََْرُجُ مِنْهَا مِنْ ثَََرٍ أَوْ زَرْعٍ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ «

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) contracted the people of Khaybar over half of what was produced of fruit or crops”, and Abu Ja’far said:

 أَهْلَ خَيْبَرَ بِالشَّطْرِ، ثُمَّ أَبُو بَكْرٍ، ثُمَّ عُمَرُ وَعُثْمَانَ وَعَلِ ي، عَامَلَ رَسُولُ اللهِ « » ثُمَّ أَهْلُوهُمْ، إِلَى اليَوْمِ يعُْطُونَ الث لُثَ وَال ربُعَ

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) contracted the people of Khaybar over half, and then Abu Bakr (did the same), and then Umar, and then Uthman and Ali and then until today they give a third and a quarter” (mentioned by Ibn Qudamah in Al-Mughni and he said it is Sahih Mashhur). And Al-Bukhari reported from Ibn Umar:

عَامَلَ خَيْبَرَ بِشَطْرِ مَا يََْرُجُ مِنْهَا مِنْ ثَََرٍ أَوْ زَرْعٍ، فَكَانَ يعُْطِي أَنَّ النَّبَِِّ « أَزْوَاجَهُ مِائَةَ وَسْقٍ ثَََانُونَ وَسْقَ تََْرٍ وَعِشْرُونَ وَسْقَ شَعِيرٍ، فَقَسَمَ عُمَرُ خَيْبَرَ، فَخَيَّرَ أَزْوَاجَ النَّبِِِّ أَنْ يقُْطِ مِنْهُنَّ مَنْ عَ لََنَُّ مِنْ الْمَاءِ وَالأَرْضِ أَوْ يَُْضِيَ لََنَُّ؟ فَمِنْهُنَّ مَنْ اخْتَارَ الأَرْضَ، وَ » اخْتَارَ الْوَسْقَ، وَكَانَتْ عَائِشَةُ اخْتَارَتْ الأَرْضَ “

The Prophet contracted the people of Khaybar upon a half of what they produced from the land, in terms of crops or fruits, so he used to give his wives one hundred loads, eighty of dates, and twenty of barley, then Umar divided Khaybar and gave the wives of the Prophet the choice to be given land and water from it, or to continue taking the loads, and so some of them chose the land, and others the loads, and Aisha chose land”. Therefore, this narration indicates the permission of renting land for a part of its yields, and so indicates the permissibility of renting land absolutely.

The reply to this is that the land of Khaybar was wooded land irrigated by water, and between the trees was a flat land whose area was less than that of the area of the wooded land. It was this land that was cultivated, and this is supported by what was mentioned in some of the narrations:

» عَامَلَ أَهْلَ خَيْبَرَ بِشَطْرِ مَا يََْرُجُ مِنَ النَّخْلِ وَالشَّجَرِ أَنَّ النَّبَِِّ «

“The Prophet contracted the people of Khaybar over what they produced from the palm trees and trees.” (reported by Al-Daraqutni from Ibn Umar). And in the narration of Ibn Abbas:

 "أرضها ونخلها"

“its land and its palm trees.” Accordingly, the reality of what the Messenger (pbuh) did when he leased Khaybar is that it was Musaqah (renting trees for a portion of their yields) and not sharecropping, or in other words, renting of a wooded land and not the rental of the land alone, rather the rental of trees and the land with them, which is Musaqah, and this is permitted without any difference. It is permitted to rent a tree for a fixed portion of its fruits in exchange for someone watering and harvesting them, and the land is rented since the tree is on the land, on the condition that there is more land with trees than empty land in order that the rental be for the trees and not the land. So this is Musaqah which is permitted, and what is forbidden is the renting of land and not the Musaqah. A detailed look at the narration in Bukhari reveals that the land was mainly full of trees, and the land with trees was greater than the empty land, and there was water there to irrigate the trees, which means it was Musaqah. Look at the words in the narration: “so he used to give his wives one hundred loads, eighty of dates, and twenty of barley”, and his words: “to be given land and water from it”, which indicates that the land of Khaybar used to have trees, and that its rental was on the basis of Musaqah, and not share-cropping nor renting of the land.

Based upon that, the narration cannot be used as an evidence for the permissibility of renting land, and therefore its use is negated.

In summary, therefore, the prohibition of renting is an issue which is as clear as can be. And accordingly the evidence for the article has been proven with the most prominent manner of deduction.

As for Musaqah – the renting of trees for a portion of their fruits or the renting of trees with the land they are on for a portion of the fruit and crops, as long as there are more trees than empty land - the proof for this is the Shari’ah meaning of Musaqah and the permission for Musaqah in the narrations reported regarding it. Al-Bukhari reported from Abu Hurayrah who said:

 اقْسِمْ بيَْنَنَا وَبيََْ إِخْوَانِنَا النَّخِيلَ، قَالَ: لا، فَقَالُوا: :قَالَتْ الأَنْصَارُ لِلنَّبِِِّ « » تَكْفُونَا الْمَئُونَةَ وَنَشْرَكْكُمْ فِي الثَّمَرَةِ، قَالُوا: سََِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا

“The Ansar said to the Prophet : distribute the date palm trees between us and our emigrant brothers. He replied, "No." The Ansar said (to the emigrants)"look after the trees (water and watch them) and share the fruits with us." The emigrants said: "We listen and obey"”. And Al-Bukhari extracted through Nafi’ that ‘Abd Allah (swt) b. Umar informed him:

عَامَلَ خَيْبَرَ بِشَطْرِ مَا يََْرُجُ مِنْهَا مِنْ ثَََرٍ أَوْ زَرْعٍ، فَكَانَ يعُْطِي أَنَّ النَّبَِِّ « أَزْوَاجَهُ مِائَةَ وَسْقٍ ثَََانُونَ وَسْقَ تََْرٍ وَعِشْرُونَ وَسْقَ شَعِيرٍ، فَقَسَمَ عُمَرُ خَيْبَرَ فَخَيَّرَ أَزْوَاجَ النَّبِِِّ أَنْ يقُْطِ مِنْهُنَّ مَنْ عَ لََنَُّ مِنْ الْمَاءِ وَالأَرْضِ أَوْ يَُْضِيَ لََنَُّ؟ فَمِنْهُنَّ مَنْ اخْتَارَ الأَرْضَ، وَ » اخْتَارَ الْوَسْقَ، وَكَانَتْ عَائِشَةُ اخْتَارَتْ الأَرْضَ

“The Prophet contracted the people of Khaybar upon a half of what they produced from the land, in terms of crops or fruits, so he used to give his wives one hundred loads, eighty of dates, and twenty of barley, then Umar divided Khaybar and gave the wives of the Prophet the choice to be given land and water from it, or to continue taking the loads, and so some of them chose the land, and others the loads, and Aisha chose land”, and Muslim and Abu Dawud and Al-Nasa’i reported: دَفَعَ إِلَى يهَُودِ خَيْبَرَ نَُْلَ خَيْبَرَ وَأَرْضَهَا عَلَى أَنْ يعَْتَمِلُوهَا مِنْ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ « » شَطْرُ ثََرَِهَا أَمْوَالَِِمْ، وَلِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) gave the Jews the date palms and land of Khaybar, for them to work upon it with their wealth, and the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) would have half of its fruits”. Ahmad and Ibn Maja reported from Ibn ‘Abbas:

 » دَفَعَ خَيْبَرَ أَرْضَهَا وَنَُْلَهَا مُقَاسَََةً عَلَى النِّصْفِ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ «

“The Prophet gave Khaybar’s land and date palms as a division over half”. These narrations indicate that Musaqah is the renting of trees alone for part of their fruits, as is apparent from the narration of Abu Hurayrah regarding the actions of the Ansar. They also indicate that Musaqah is the renting of trees with land for a portion of the fruits of the trees and the yield of the land, as is apparent from the narration of Nafi’ from ‘Abd Allah (swt) b. Umar:

» عَامَلَ خَيْبَرَ بِشَطْرِ مَا يََْرُجُ مِنْهَا مِنْ ثَََرٍ أَوْ زَرْعٍ «

“contracted the people of Khaybar upon a half of what they produced from the land, in terms of crops or fruits”, and likewise from the narration of Muslim, Abu Dawud and Al-Nasa’i: “date palms and land of Khaybar” and the narration of Ibn Abbas: “Khaybar’s land and date palms”. So they indicate that the renting is either of the trees alone, or the trees and the land with them. Similarly they indicate that the land should be less than the trees, as is clear from the narration of Nafi’ from ‘Abd Allah (swt) b. Umar:

» مِائَةَ وَسْقٍ ثَََانُونَ وَسْقَ تََْرٍ وَعِشْرُونَ وَسْقَ شَعِيرٍ «

“hundred loads, eighty of dates, and twenty of barley”. Accordingly it is confirmed that the reality of Musaaqah is renting the trees for a portion of its fruits, or renting the trees and land for a portion of the fruit and the crops, as long as the trees are more than the land. Additionally these narrations are evidence for the permissibility of Musaqah.

Dead land is possessed through its revival and fencing. Any other type of land is not possessed except through a Shari’ah means such as inheritance, purchase, and donation by the State.

The evidence for the article are the words of the Prophet :

 » مَنْ أَحْيَا أَرْضًا مَيِّتَةً فَهِيَ لَه «

“whoever revives dead land, it belongs to him” reported by Al-Bukhari Mawquf to Umar (ra), and it is narrated with an authentic chain connected to the Prophet by Ahmad and Al- Tirmidhi from Jabir, and:

» مَنْ أَحَاطَ حَائِطًا عَلَى أَرْضٍ فَهِيَ لَه «

“whoever surrounds a land with a wall, it belongs to him” reported by Ahmad and Abu Dawud with a chain authenticated by Al-Jarwud and Al-Zayn, and:

 » عَادِيُّ الأَرْضِ للهِ وَلِرَسُولِهِ، ثُمَّ هِيَ لَكُمْ «

“Aadiy land is for Allah (swt) and His Messenger (pbuh), and then for you” reported by Abu ‘Ubayd by an authentic Mursal narration, and Abu Yusuf mentioned in Al-Kharaj from Salam b. ‘Abd Allah (swt) that Umar b. Al-Khattab (ra) said on the pulpit:

 » من أحيا أرضا ميتة فهي له، وليس لمحتجر حق بعد ثلاث سنين «

“whoever revives a dead land, it belongs to him, and the one who fences it off has no right to it after three years (if not cultivating it).” The text of these narrations indicate that if an individual revives a dead land or fences it, in other words, putting stones, fencing or a wall around it, then it becomes their possession. The understanding of the texts is that if the land was not dead then he could not take it into possession through revival or fencing, even if it was not cultivated, or not suitable for cultivation without any work being done to it, and even if the owner was not known. Therefore, if the land was not dead then it cannot be possessed except by one of the causes of possession if its owner was known, and if the owner was unknown it could not be possessed unless the Khalifah granted it, and so it becomes possessed through this grant. If it is dead land, then it is possessed either through its revival or by placing one’s authority over it even if that occurs without necessarily reviving the land.

The dead land is the land where there are no signs upon it that it belongs to anyone, so there is no evidence of any kind of walling, agriculture, building or anything similar, and no owner or anyone utilising it. This is the dead land, and anything else is not considered dead land even if there was no owner or person utilising it.

Tithed land (‘Ushriyyah) constitutes land within the Arabian Peninsula and land whose owners had embraced Islam, whilst possessing the land, before the Islamic State conquered them by Jihad. Taxed land (Kharajiyyah) is all land, other than the Arabian Peninsula, which was opened by jihad, whether through war or peace treaties. The ‘Ushriyyah land, together with its benefits, is owned by individuals, whereas the Kharajiyyah land is owned by the State, while individuals own its benefits. Every individual has the right to exchange, through Shari’ah contracts, the tithed land and the benefits of taxed land. All people can inherit these, the same as with all other wealth.

Its evidence is that land is the same as wealth, and is considered as booty for the Muslims if it was taken through war, similar to all the war booty. This would be the Kharajiyyah land and control of it belongs to the Bayt Al-Mal. If on the other hand, its inhabitants accepted Islam, then it would be considered like the wealth of the Muslims, owned by them and they are responsible for it, and this is the ‘Ushriyyah land.

As for the evidence as to the land being a booty like the rest of the wealth, Hafs b. Ghiyath narrated from Abu Dhi’b from Al- Zuhri who said:

 فِيمَنْ أَسْلَمَ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْبَحْرَيْنِ أَنَّهُ قَدْ أَحْرَزَ دَمَهُ وَمَالَهُ إِلاَّ قَضَى رَسُولُ اللهِ « » أَرْضَهُ، فَإِن هََّا فَيْءٌ لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ، لأَن هَُّمْ لَمْ يُسْلِمُوا وَهُمْ مُمْتَنِعُونَ

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) judged that the people who became Muslim from Bahrain have their blood and wealth protected, apart from their land, since it was a booty for the Muslims, as they did not embrace Islam at first and rather resisted” (from the book Al-Kharaj by Yahya b. Adam).

With respect to the fact that it is not split amongst the fighters like the rest of the booty, this is because of the difference which occurred regarding this rule between Bilal (ra) and Al- Zubayr (ra) on one side and Umar (ra) on the other, while the evidence of Umar (ra) was stronger, as well as his being supported by ten people from the Ansar and Muhajireen. Al-Zubayr (ra) thought that the land of Egypt which had been opened should be like the transferable wealth which was divided between the fighters, but Umar (ra) rejected this whenAmrf Bin Al-Aas (ra) wrote to him, and so he replied:

 » أَقِرَّهَا حَتَى يَ غْزُوَ مِنْ هَا حَبَلُ الحَبَ لَةِ «

“leave it so that the children of the next generation will fight from it”. In other words, it will be property for the Muslim generations to come. And Bilal (ra) held the same opinion Al- Zubayr (ra) with respect to the land of Iraq, and so Sa’ad (ra) wrote to Umar (ra) about that so Umar (ra) replied to him:

واترك الأرضين والأنهار لعمالها ليكون ذلك في أعطيات المسلمين، فإنا لو « » قسمناها بين من حضر لم يكن لمن بعدهم شيء

“and leave the lands and rivers for its workers in order that it can provide for the Muslims, since if we divide it between those who are present, there will be nothing for those who come after them” (reported by Abu ‘Ubayd in Al-Amwal and Abu Yusuf in Al-Kharaj and Yahya b. Adam in Al-Kharaj, from Yazid b. Abi Habib). Umar’s (ra) proof for this was the words of Allah (swt):

“And what Allah (swt) restored [of property] to His Messenger (pbuh) from them - you did not spur for it [in an expedition] any horses or camels.” (TMQ 59:6), and then Allah (swt) said: “- It is for Allah (swt) and for the Messenger (pbuh) and for [his] near relatives and orphans and the needy and [stranded] traveller.” (TMQ 59:7), then said: “For the poor emigrants” (TMQ 59:8), and then was not content until others were joined to them and so said:

“And [also for] those who were settled in Al-Madinah and [adopted] the faith before them. They love those who emigrated to them.” (TMQ 59:9) who are the Ansar specifically, and then was not content until others were joined to them and so said:

 

“And [there is a share for] those who came after them.”, which is general encompassing everyone who came after them, and in this manner the booty was made for all of those mentioned. So this was Umar’s (ra) evidence regarding that the land whose inhabitants had not embraced Islam and was opened through conquest would become a wealth for all of the Muslims until the Day of Judgement, and that the Imam possesses its benefits for the sake of the people. He consulted with the Muslims, and they differed, and so he called for ten of the leaders and respected people from the Ansar, five from Al-Aws and the other five from Al-Khazraj, and he said to them:

 وقد رأيت أن أحبس أرضين بعلوجها، وأضع فيها الخراج، وفي رقابهم « الجزية يؤدونها، فتكون فيئاً للمسلمين المقاتلة والذرية من بعدهم. أرأيتم هذه الثغور لا بد لها من رجال يلزمونها، أرأيتم هذه المدن العظام كالشام والجزيرة والكوفة والبصرة ومصر لا بد لها أن تشحن بالجي وش وإدرار العطاء لهم. فمن أين يعطى هؤلاء إذا »؟ قسمت الأرضون والعلوج

“I thought I should keep the infidels on the land, and put a land tax (Kharaj) upon it, and a Jizya upon their necks to pay, and so it would be a booty for the Muslims who fought and for their offspring after them. Do you see these frontiers that require men to defend them?, do you see these large cities like As-Sham, Al-Jazeera, Kufa, Basra and Misr which have to be loaded with soldiers, and money has to be spent upon them?, so from where will we get the money if we divide the land and the infidels?” (As reported by Abu Yusuf in Al-Kharaj) So all of them said:

الرأي رأيك، فنعم ما قلت وما رأيت

“Your opinion is our opinion, what you have said and seen is correct”. Therefore, Umar’s (ra) citation of the verse and the reason that leaving the land would mean it would be continuous revenue for the Bayt Al-Mal was powerful evidence, and accordingly the land that was conquered was considered as a Kharajiyyah land; it was owned by the State and its inhabitants utilised it.

This is the rule irrespective of whether the land was conquered through force such as the land of Iraq, or through agreement, such as the city of Bayt Al-Maqdis. However, in the situation that the land was conquered through agreement, if the agreement stipulated a certain amount of tax then it is obligatory to interact upon the basis of that agreement, due to the words of the Messenger (pbuh) :

إِنَّكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُ قَاتِلُونَ قَ وْماً فَ يَتَّ قُونَكُمْ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ دُونَ أَنْ فُسِهِمْ وَأَبْ نَائِهِمْ « » وَيُصَالِحُونَكُمْ عَلَى صُلْحٍ فَلاَ تَأْخُذُوا مِنْهُ فَ وْقَ ذَلِكَ، فَإِنَّهُ لاَ يَحِلُّ لَكُمْ

“Truly you may fight a people, and they will save themselves and their children by their property, and then they conclude peace with you, so do not take anything more from them, because it is not lawful to you”. Abu ‘Ubayd said regarding this narration: the Sunnah in the land opened by treaty is that it is not worked more than what was agreed, even if they were capable of more than that, due to his words:

» فَلاَ تَأْخُذُوا مِنْهُ فَ وْقَ ذَلِكَ، فَإِنَّهُ لاَ يَحِلُّ لَكُمْ «

“so do not take anything more from them, because it is not lawful to you”, reported by Abu ‘Ubayd in Al-Amwal, and even though there is an unknown narrator in the chain, the companions all adhered to leaving the land opening by treaty according to the treaty it was opened with, as from the narration

» وَالْمُسْلِمُونَ عَلَى شُرُوطِهِمْ إِلاَّ شَرْطًا حَرَّمَ حَلاَلاً أَوْ أَحَلَّ حَرَامًا «

 "And the Muslims will be held to their conditions, except the conditions that make the lawful unlawful, or the unlawful lawful.” which Al-Tirmidhi reported and said was Hasan Sahih, from Kathir b. ‘Abd Allah (swt) b. ‘Amru b. Al-‘Awf Al-Muzani from his father from his grandfather, and is applied here.

If no condition is made as happened with Bayt Al-Maqdis then it is treated like the land which was conquered through force, since it is booty for the Muslims.

All of this applies outside of the Arabian Peninsula. As for the Arabian Peninsula, all of its land is considered to be ‘Ushriyyah land since the Prophet conquered Makkah through force and left its land to its inhabitants, and did not impose any land tax upon them. This is because the tax is upon the land in the way that the Jizya is upon the individual, and so it is not established in the Arab land in the same way that no Jizya was established upon them, because the idol worshippers from the Arabs had the choice of either embracing Islam, or the sword:

“You may fight them, or they will embrace Islam.” (TMQ 48:16), and, accordingly, their land is ‘Ushriyyah and not Kharajiyyah, just like any land whose inhabitants embraced Islam.

The ‘Ushriyyah land has Zakah upon it, which is that the State takes 10 per cent of its actual produce if it is irrigated by natural means, and if it is irrigated by watering or industrial irrigation then 5 per cent of the actual produce is take. Muslim reported from Jabir who said:

» فِيمَا سَقَتْ الأَنْ هَارُ وَالْغَيْمُ الْعُشُورُ، وَفِيمَا سُقِيَ بِالسَّانِيَةِ نِصْفُ الْعُشْرِ «

“A tenth is payable on what is watered by rivers, or rains, and a twentieth on what is watered by camels.”. This tenth is considered Zakah and is to be placed in the Bayt Al-Mal, and should not be spent except upon one of the eight categories mentioned in the verse:

“Zakah expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect [Zakah] and for bringing hearts together [for Islam] and for freeing captives [or slaves] and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah (swt) and for the [stranded] traveller - an obligation [imposed] by Allah (swt). And Allah (swt) is Knowing and Wise.” (TMQ 9:60). It is reported from Al- Hakim, Al-Bayhaqi and Al-Tabarani from the narration of Abu Musa and Mu’adh when the Prophet sent them to Yemen, to teach the people the issues of the Deen, and so he said:

 » لاَ تَأْخُذَا الصَّدَقَةَ إِلاَّ مِنْ هَذِهِ الأَرْبَ عَةِ: الشَّعِيرِ، وَالْحِنْطَةِ، وَالزَّبِيبِ، وَالتَّمْرِ «

“Do not take any Zakah except on these four crops: barley, wheat, raisins and dates.”

As for the Kharajiyyah land, the tax of Al-Kharaj is applied. The State takes a specific amount from the owner of the land, which is specified and limited according to the approximate produce of the land in usual circumstances, and not upon the actual produce. It is calculated according to its potential, in order that neither the owner of the land nor the Bayt Al-Mal (treasury) is disadvantaged. The Kharaj is taken from the owner each year, irrespective of whether the land was cultivated or not, or whether it was fertile or barren. Abu Yusuf reported in Al-Kharaj from ‘Amru b. Maymun and Harithah b. Madrib, saying:

بعث عمر بن الخطاب )رضي الله تعالى عنه( عثمان بن حنيف على السواد، « » وأمره أن يمسحه، فوضع على كل جريب عامرٍ أو غامرٍ، مما يعمل مثله، درهماً وقفيز اً

“Umar Bin Al-Khattab sent ‘Uthman Bin Hanif to Sawad, and commanded him to survey it, and so he placed tax of a Dirham and a qafiz upon each part of arable land”. Al-Hujaj b. Arta’a from Ibn Awf narrated:

مسح السواد، ما دون جبل حلوان، فوضع على  أن عمر بن الخطاب « » كل جريب عامرٍ أو غامرٍ يناله الماء بدلو أو بغيره، زُرع أو عُطّل، درهماً وقفيزاً واحد اً

“Umar b. Al-Khattab surveyed the land of Sawad, below mountain Hilwan, a Dirham and a qafiz was placed upon each part of arable land (or sunken by water land) that water reached by bucket or anything else, whether it was cultivated or not.” (reported by Abu Yusuf in Al-Kharaj).

As for imposing the tax upon the Kharajiyyah land, this is because the tax (Al-Kharaj) is the word for leasing and revenue, as used in the words of the Prophet :

» الْخَرَاجُ بِالضَّمَانِ «

“the produce is for the responsible” (reported by Ahmad and the authors of the books of sunan, and Al-Tirmidhi said it was Hasan Sahih and similarly Al-Hakim authenticated it and Al- Dhahabi agreed with him). And the land here is owned by the Bayt Al-Mal. Then, it is given to the people in order to utilise it, and a tax is levied upon them which is for a fixed amount annually, and so it is just like a lease for them, which is why its calculation is left to the Khalifah, but it cannot exceed what the land is able to produce. The Kharaj is put in the Bayt Al-Mal in other than the Zakah section, and it is spent upon all aspects the State sees fit like the other wealth.

The Kharaj imposed upon the land which was conquered by force remains forever, and so if the people embraced Islam or sold the land to Muslims, the Kharaj is not voided, since its characteristic of being opened by conquest remains until the end of time. It is obligatory upon them to pay the 'Ushr with the Kharaj, since the Kharaj is a right upon the land and the 'Ushr is a right obligated upon the produce of the land of the Muslim according to the verses and narrations. There is no contradiction between these two rights, since they are obligated due to two different causes. As for what the Hanafis use as proof for the non-joining between 'Ushr and Kharaj, the narration they report from the Messenger of Allah (pbuh)

)لا يجتمع عشر وخراج في أرض مسلم(

 (The 'Ushr [land Zakah] and Kharaj [land tax] are not combined in the land of a Muslim) – this is not a narration, and is not confirmed by any of the collectors of narrations from the words of the Messenger (pbuh) .

So the payment of Kharaj is started first. If after paying Kharaj there remains crops and fruits which reach the Nisab (prescribed minimum amount) on which Zakah has to be paid, then the Zakah is exacted. If it does not reach the Nisab then there is no Zakah on him.

If the Muslim owns ‘Ushriyyah land, then he has to pay the Zakah upon the basis of either 10 per cent or 5 per cent, and if he owns Kharajiyyah land then he has to pay both Kharaj and Zakah, in other words, 10 per cent or 5 per cent.

If a disbeliever owns Kharajiyyah land then he has to pay Kharaj and if he owns ‘Ushriyyah land then he must pay Kharaj and not ‘Ushr since the land must not be left unused, and since he is not from those upon whom the ‘Ushr applies so then Kharaj is assigned.

As for whoever revives a dead land from the Kharaj land, which previously had Kharaj paid upon it before it became dead land, then it becomes Kharajiyyah land, irrespective of whether it was a Muslim or non-Muslim who revived it.

This is if it was revived for the sake of agriculture. However, if it was for residential purposes or to establish factories, storehouses or pens, then neither ‘Ushr nor Kharaj would apply to it, irrespective of whether the land was originally for ‘Ushr or Kharaj. When the companions opened Iraq and Egypt, they developed Kufa, Basra and Fustat, which were then inhabited at the time of Umar (ra), and others came and inhabited the areas with them, and they did not charge them Al-Kharaj, and nor was Zakah paid from it since it is not obliged upon homes and buildings.

It is possible to trade and inherit ‘Ushriyyah and Kharajiyyah land from its owners, because it is a literal possession belonging to its owner, and so all the rules regarding possession apply to it. In relation to ‘Ushriyyah land this is clear, and as for Kharajiyyah land then possession of it is the same as possessing ‘Ushriyyah land without any difference between them from the angle of possession, except for two issues: firstly, with respect to what it is that is owned and secondly, with respect to what is obligatory upon the land. As for the issue of what it is that is possessed, the owner of the ‘Ushriyyah land possesses the land itself and its yields, while the owner of the Kharajiyyah land possesses the yields alone. Consequently, if the owner of ‘Ushriyyah land wanted to give it as a charity, he is permitted to do so anytime he wishes. However, the owner of Kharajiyyah land is unable to do so, since in order to give anything as an endowment, it is a condition that the person donating it own the object itself, and the owner of Kharajiyyah land does not own the land itself but rather owns its yields, since the title of the land itself belongs to the Bayt Al-Mal.

And as for the issue of what is obligatory upon the land, the 10 or 5 per cent is applicable to the ‘Ushriyyah land; in other words, the Zakah upon what was actually produced by the land if it reaches the minimum applicable amount (Nisab). The land tax (Kharaj) is imposed upon the Kharajiyyah land, in other words, the annual amount specified by the State, irrespective of whether it was planted or not, cultivated or not, or whether the crop was harvested or there was a drought. These two issues are the only differences between the rules regarding the ‘Ushriyyah and Kharajiyyah land, and there is nothing apart from them which differentiates between the two, and so the rules regarding them are the same, which are the rules regarding possession of wealth. Therefore, the right is there for the land, whether ‘Ushriyyah or Kharajiyyah, to be exchanged by means of any of the types of Shari’ah transactions such as contracts and so on, and for them to be inherited from their owners like all other types of wealth.

The disposal of property is restricted by the permission of the Legislator (swt), for both of spending and investment. Squandering, extravagance and miserliness are all forbidden. Capitalist companies, co-operatives and any other type of transactions which contradict the Shari’ah are forbidden. Interest, fraud, monopolies, gambling and anything similar are all forbidden.

The evidence for this is the evidence regarding spending wealth and the evidence of verbal disposals of wealth such as selling, renting and so on, which are the evidences regarding increasing property.

As for the evidence of expenditure, Allah (swt) said:

“Let a man of wealth spend from his wealth.” (TMQ 65:7).

Regarding the prohibition of squandering, Allah (swt) said: “And be not excessive (extravagant). Indeed, He does not like those who commit excess.” (TMQ 7:31), and He (swt) said: “And do not spend wastefully; Indeed, the wasteful are brothers of the devils.” (TMQ 17:26-7).

With respect to the prohibition of miserliness, Allah (swt) said: “And [they are] those who, when they spend, do so not excessively or sparingly but are ever, between that, [justly] moderate.” (TMQ 25:67).

With respect to verbal disposals, the Legislator (swt) restricted them to specific transactions, such as selling, rent, partnership, and so on, and specified the manner they should be undertaken and prohibited any other method. The Prophet said:

 » مَنْ عَمِلَ عَمَلاً لَيْسَ عَلَيْهِ أَمْرُنَا فَ هُوَ رَد «

“If anyone introduces in our matter something which does not belong to it, it is rejected.” (reported by Muslim from Aisha(ra)). So this is a restriction that the transactions have to be carried out upon a specific method, and a clear prohibition of specific transactions, which is that the transactions to increase wealth are restricted to that which is in accordance with the permission of the Legislator (swt).

There are actions which have been ordered to be undertaken based upon a specific restricted form, and the Shari’ah texts related conditions for the concluding of a transaction and conditions for its validity in a decisive manner. Therefore, to carry out this transaction upon the form that has been explained by the Shari’ah text is obligatory, and it should fulfil all the conditions for contraction and the validity that were mentioned in the Shari’ah text. If it was undertaken in a manner which contradicts the text or does not fulfil all the conditions for contraction and validity, then it has contradicted the Shari’ah, and it would either be invalid if the conditions on contraction were not met, or defective if it contradicted anything that the Shari’ah ordered or prohibited. This would be a contradiction against the Shari’ah, in other words, a contradiction of the orders and prohibitions of Allah (swt), which is sinful since it is considered to be something that the Shari’ah forbade.

An example of that is the Shari’ah contract: the Legislator (swt) ordered that it should be between two contracting parties; the Prophet said:

» الْبَ يِّ عَانِ بِالْخِيَارِ «

“The two parties to a transaction both have the choice.” (agreed upon from Ibn Umar and Hakim Bin Hizam), and Allah (swt) said in a Qudsi narration:

» أَنَا ثَالِثُ الشَّرِيكَيْنِ «

“I make a third with two partners.” (reported by Abu Dawud from Abu Hurayrah, and he authenticated it and Al- Dhahabi confirmed it). And He (swt) ordered the contract to be upon offer and acceptance. So if the contract in any transaction does not fulfil these conditions: two contracting parties along with offer and acceptance, the contract is invalid and not concluded. Any action which occurred in this transaction is considered as a sin and a Haram action, since it would be considered a transaction that the Shari’ah had forbidden. An example of that would be the share companies, since they are concluded from one side, and by someone simply signing to the conditions of the company they become a partner and also by simply buying shares in the company they become a partner. According to the capitalists this is from the actions of individual choice, like an endowment or bequest in Islam. So in the share company there are not two contracting parties but rather there is only one party, and there is no offer and acceptance - rather there is acceptance alone. In the Shari’ah the company must be based upon a contract of offer and acceptance between two contracting parties, and similar to it is selling, renting, marriage and any other comparable contracts. Accordingly, the share company is not contracted and so is invalid and Haram, since it contradicts the Shari’ah and is considered to be prohibited by it. The share company neglected the order of Allah (swt) with respect to the conditions of contracting a company, and is an action that Allah (swt) prohibited since He (swt) prohibited people from contradicting His (swt) orders:

“So let those beware who dissent from the Prophet's order.” (TMQ 24:63). Therefore, establishing such a company would be committing a sin and a Haram action, and so it is from the transactions forbidden by the Shari’ah because every invalid contract is Haram.

In a similar fashion, life insurance, or any insurance for goods or property is Haram, since it is a contract between the insurance company and the insuring person in which the latter asks the insurance company to give him a promise that it will compensate him for that object which he loses or for its price with regard to goods or property, or a certain sum of money with regard to life and the like such as insurance for a limb. This takes place if the accident which was specified occurs within a defined period in exchange for a certain amount of money. In insurance there is no person being guaranteed, nor a joining of liabilities, since there is no person present who the company guaranteed and joined their liability to. Also in insurance there is no financial obligation for the believer with anyone that the insurance company committed him to, since the believer did not have a financial obligation to anyone, and then the company came and guaranteed him. Insurance is a guarantee, and the guarantee according to the Shari’ah is the joining of the liability of the guarantor with that of the one being guaranteed to fulfil the obligation, and so it is imperative that there should be a joining of liabilities, and there must be a guarantor, someone being guaranteed, and the issue that he is being guaranteed for, and it is imperative that it is a guarantee for a confirmed obligation they are liable for. These are the conditions for contraction and validity in the guarantee, and as long as the insurance contract does not fulfil these Shari’ah conditions then it is invalid according to the Shari’ah and is Haram. Therefore, to take out insurance is committing a sin and a Haram action and consequently is a transaction that the Shari’ah prohibited because every invalid transaction is Haram.

These actions such as partnerships and guarantees have been restricted to a specific manner and specific conditions explained by Shari’ah texts, and so it is obligatory to be bound to them, and this is proof that the actions to increase property are restricted by the permission of the Legislator (swt).

There are actions which have had direct prohibitions related, such as fraud, due to what was narrated from Abdullah Bin Umar (ra) that a man mentioned to the Prophet that he had been cheated in a sale, so he said:

 “When you enter a transaction, say, “No trickery.” (agreed upon from Ibn Umar). And he said:

» بَ يْعُ الْمُحَفَّلاَتِ خِلاَبَةٌ وَلاَ تَحِلُّ الْخِلاَبَةُ لِمُسْلِمٍ «

“Selling Muhaffalahs (unmilked animals) (to deceive the buyer) is trickery, and trickery is not lawful for the Muslim” (reported by Ahmad and Ibn Maja from Abdullah Bin Mas’ud, and Ibn Abi Shaybah and ‘Abd Al-Razzaq reported it Mawquf (the chain ends at the companion) to Ibn Mas’ud with an authentic chain). Accordingly fraud is Haram, as well as actions like monopolising, due to the words of the Prophet :

 » مَنْ احْتَكَرَ فَ هُوَ خَاطِ ئٌ «

“Whoever monopolises is in error”, (reported by Muslim from Mu’ammar b. ‘Abd Allah (swt) Al-‘Adawi), and like gambling due to the words of Allah (swt):

“O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allah (swt)], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful.” (TMQ 5:90). Similarly, interest, due to words of Allah (swt): “But Allah (swt) has permitted trade and has forbidden interest (Usury).” (TMQ 2:275). This clear prohibition for these actions and those similar to them is a restriction upon how to conduct the increase in property, as it should not be done through these and similar transactions. This is another evidence that the action to increase property is restricted by the permission of the Legislator (swt).