[...something other than] this of the types of corruption, and it is highly inconsistent. Al-Athram said: I heard Abu Abd Allah being asked about the hadith of Rafi' ibn Khadij that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade sharecropping (muzara'a). He replied: 'Several versions have been narrated from Rafi' concerning this,' as if he meant that the difference in the narrations from him weakens his hadith. Tawus said: 'The most knowledgeable among them—meaning Ibn Abbas—informed me that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not forbid it, but rather said: "For one of you to grant his land to his brother is better than for him to take a known rent for it."' This was recorded by al-Bukhari and Muslim. Zayd ibn Thabit also rejected the hadith of Rafi' regarding it. So how can it be permissible to abrogate a matter that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) practiced until he passed away, while he was doing so, and then his Caliphs and Companions reached consensus on it after him, by means of a report that cannot be acted upon, even if no one else had contradicted it! As for Ibn Umar's return to it, it is possible that he retracted [his previous stance] regarding some of the corrupt transactions that Rafi' explained in his hadith. As for others besides Ibn Umar, they rejected [the report of] Rafi', did not accept his hadith, and interpreted it as him having erred in his narration. The meaning points to this; for many of the owners of date palms and trees are unable to cultivate and irrigate them, and they cannot afford to hire labor for it, while many people possess no trees but are in need of the fruit. Thus, in permitting sharecropping (musaqat), both needs are met and the interests of both groups are achieved. Therefore, it is permissible, similar to the partnership in capital (mudaraba).