the fruit is known, it is also valid. The ruling regarding it is the same as if he entered into a musaqat contract regarding small trees, according to what we have explained. Ahmad said, in the narration of al-Marwudhi, regarding a man who said to another: "Plant trees or palms in this land of mine, and whatever produce comes of it, you shall have for your labor such-and-such share of such-and-such [portion]." He permitted it and cited the hadith of Khaybar regarding crops and palm trees. However, it is on the condition that the planting materials are from the owner of the land, just as it is stipulated in muzara'a (sharecropping) that the seeds be from the owner of the land. If they are from the worker, it is extrapolated according to the two narrations regarding [the case where] the seeds are stipulated to be from the worker in muzara'a. The Qadi said: "The transaction is void, and the landowner has the option between ordering him to uproot them—in which case he must indemnify him for the reduction in their value—or keeping them in his land and paying him their value, similar to a purchaser if he plants in land he purchased, then the pre-emptor (shafi') comes and takes it." If the worker chooses to uproot his trees, he may do so, whether [the owner] offers him the value or not; because it is his property, so he is not prevented from removing it. If they agree on keeping the planting and paying rent for the land, it is permissible. If he handed over his land to a man to plant, on the condition that the trees be shared between them, it is not permissible, according to what has preceded. It is possible that it is permissible, based on muzara'a, for the sharecropper plants in the land, and the crop belongs to him and the landowner, and this is its equivalent. If he handed it over on the condition that the land and the trees be between them, the transaction is void, by unanimous view. Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad also held this view, and we know of no opponent regarding it, because he stipulated their sharing in the core, so it became invalid, just as if he handed over trees and palms to him so that the core and the fruit would be between them, or stipulated in muzara'a that the land and the crop be between them.

Section: If he enters into a musaqat contract with him regarding trees, and it becomes apparent that [the land] was rightfully owned by another after the work was done, the owner shall take it and its fruit, because it is the substance of his property. The worker has no right to its fruit, because he worked on it without the permission of its owner, and he has no entitlement to wages for that.