The Lawgiver does not forbid benefits; He only forbids harms and corruptions. This indicates the error of the narrator regarding the prohibition of it, and that the benefit is realized in what he thought was prohibited. Once this is established, the ruling of sharecropping (muzara'a) is the same as the ruling of irrigation/sharecropping (musaqat) in that it is only permissible for a portion of the crops to go to the laborer, and in terms of its permissibility, its binding nature, what is incumbent upon the laborer and the landowner, and other such rulings.

Section: If there are trees on the land and empty patches of land between them, and he enters into a musaqat agreement with him regarding the trees and a muzara'a agreement regarding the land between the trees, it is permissible, whether the empty patches of land are few or many. Ahmad stipulated this, saying: The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) assigned Khaybar on this basis. Every scholar who permits muzara'a on land alone holds this view. Thus, if he says: "I have entered into a musaqat agreement with you regarding the trees, and a muzara'a agreement with you regarding the land for half [of the produce]," it is permissible. If he says: "I have entered into a transaction with you regarding the land and the trees for half [of the produce]," it is permissible because the transaction encompasses both. If he says: "I have entered into a muzara'a agreement with you regarding (31) the land for half, and a musaqat agreement regarding the trees for a quarter," it is permissible, just as it is permissible to enter into a musaqat agreement with him regarding various types of trees, assigning him a specific amount in (32) each type. If he says: "I have entered into a musaqat agreement with you regarding the land and the trees for half," it is permissible, because muzara'a is a form of musaqat [insofar as it requires irrigation, as the trees require it. The followers of al-Shafi'i said: It is not valid, because musaqat] (33) does not cover the land, and it is only valid for date palms alone. It has been said: It is based on the [validity of] partitioning the transaction. Our view is that he expressed one contract using the terminology of another contract that shares the same meaning for which it is well-known in its derivation, so it is valid, just as if he expressed it using the terminology of a sale in a salam (forward sale) contract; and because the intent is the meaning, which has been made clear by the circumstances surrounding him. This is also the case if he says regarding empty land: "I have entered into a musaqat agreement with you regarding this land for half of what is planted in it." However, if he says: "I have entered into a musaqat agreement with you regarding the trees for half," and does not mention the land, it does not enter into the contract, and the laborer has no right to plant. This is the view held by al-Shafi'i. Malik and Abu Yusuf said: The laborer may plant the empty areas, and if they stipulate that it is shared between them, it is permissible; if the landowner stipulates that he will plant the empty areas, it is not valid because the laborer is irrigating for the landowner, and that is an additional benefit he obtained from him. Our view is that this was not encompassed by the contract, so it did not enter into it, just as if it were separate land.