known. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Thawr said: It is valid without mentioning a term, and it applies to one year. Some of the people of Kufa permitted it as a matter of istihsan (juristic preference); because when he stipulated a part of the fruit for him, that was evidence that he intended a period in which the fruit would be obtained. Our evidence is that it is a binding contract, so it must be specified by a term, like ijarah (lease). Furthermore, musaqah (sharecropping) is more similar to ijarah, because it entails work upon a specific asset while it remains. Also, if it occurs in an absolute (unspecified) manner, it is impossible to leave it as such while it is binding, because this leads to the worker monopolizing the trees for his entire duration, thereby becoming like the owner. It is not possible to limit it to one year because that is arbitrary; the fruit might mature in less than a year. Based on this, the maximum duration is not fixed; rather, the period upon which they agree, during which the trees remain, is permissible, even if it is long. It has been said: It is not permissible for more than thirty years. This is an arbitrary ruling and a temporal limit that is not resorted to except by a scriptural text or consensus (ijma'). As for the minimum duration, it is determined by a period in which the fruit matures, so it is not permissible for less than that, because the objective is for them to share in the fruit, which is not found in less than this duration. If he enters into a musaqah agreement for a period in which the fruit does not mature, the musaqah is invalid. If he performs the work therein and the fruit appears but does not mature, he is entitled to his equivalent wage (ajr al-mithl), according to one of the two views, while in the other, he is entitled to nothing because he consented to work without consideration, making him like a volunteer. The first view is more correct; because he did not consent except for a consideration, which is a part of the fruit, and that part exists, except that it is impossible to deliver it to him. When it became impossible to pay the consideration they agreed upon, he is entitled to his equivalent wage, as in an invalid ijarah. It differs from a volunteer, for he consented to [receiving] nothing. If the fruit does not appear, he is entitled to nothing, according to the more correct of the two views, because he consented to work without consideration. If he enters into a musaqah agreement for a period in which the fruit typically matures, but the trees do not bear fruit that year, the worker is entitled to nothing, because it is a valid contract in which the growth, the share of which was stipulated, did not appear; it therefore resembles mudarabah if no profit is made. If the fruit appears but does not mature, he is entitled to his share of it, and he must complete the work on it, just as if it were rescinded before its maturation. If he enters into a musaqah agreement for a duration in which it is possible that the trees may have fruit and it is possible that