the landowner. If they stipulate that the empty patches of land are to be planted, 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 (34).
Section: If he enters into a muzara'a agreement with him regarding land that contains a few trees, it is not permissible for the laborer to stipulate [that he owns] their fruit. This is the view held by al-Shafi'i and Ibn al-Mundhir. Malik permitted it if the trees constitute a third or less, because it is considered insignificant and thus enters [the contract] as an accessory. Our view is that he has stipulated all of the fruit, so it is not permissible, just as [it would not be] if the trees were more than a third.
Section: If he leases the empty patches of land to him (35) and enters into a musaqat agreement with him regarding the trees located therein, it is permissible; for these are two contracts, and it is permissible to isolate each one of them, so it is permissible to combine them, just like sale and lease. It is possible that it is not permissible, based on the view that one cannot combine them in principle. The first view is more appropriate, unless they are doing this as a trick to purchase the fruit before it exists or before its ripeness becomes apparent; in that case, it is not permissible, whether they combine the two contracts or contract one after the other, for the reason we mentioned (36) regarding the invalidation of legal ruses.
889 - Issue: He said: (If the seed is from the landowner)
The apparent position of the school is that muzara'a is only valid if the seed is from the landowner and the labor is from the laborer. Ahmad stipulated this in a narration by a group, and the general body of our scholars chose it. This is the school of Ibn Sirin, al-Shafi'i, and Ishaq, because it is a contract in which the laborer and the provider of capital participate in its growth, so it is necessary that all the capital be from one of them, just like musaqat and mudaraba. It has been narrated from Ahmad that which indicates that it is permissible for the seed to be from the laborer; for he said, in a narration by Muhanna, concerning the man...
(34) In the original: "munfarida" (separate). (35) In M: "ard" (land). (36) In M: "dhakarna" (we mentioned).
الأرْضِ أنَّه يَزْرَعُ البَيَاضَ، لم يَصِحَّ؛ لأنَّ الداخِلَ يَسْقِى لِرَبِّ الأرْضِ، فتلك زِيَادَةٌ ازْدَادَها عليه. ولَنا، أنَّ هذا لم يَتَنَاوَلْه العَقْدُ، فلم يَدْخُلْ فيه، كما لو كانت أرْضًا مُفْرَدَةً (٣٤).
فصل: وإن زَارَعَه أرْضًا فيها شَجَراتٌ يَسِيرَةً، لم يَجُزْ أن يَشْتَرِطَ العامِلُ ثَمَرَتَها، وبهذا قال الشافِعِىُّ، وابنُ المُنْذِرِ، وأجَازَه مالِكٌ إذا كان الشَّجَرُ بِقَدْرِ الثُّلُثِ أو أقَلَّ؛ لأنَّه يَسِيرٌ، فيَدْخُلُ تَبَعًا. ولَنا، أنَّه اشْتَرَطَ الثَّمرَةَ كلَّها، فلم يَجُزْ، كما لو كان الشَّجَرُ أكْثَرَ من الثُّلُثِ.
فصل: وإن أجَرَه بَيَاضَ الأرضِ (٣٥)، وسَاقاهُ على الشَّجَرِ الذي فيها، جازَ؛ لأنَّهما عَقْدانِ يجوزُ إفْرادُ كلِّ واحدٍ منهما، فجازَ الجَمْعُ بينهما، كالبَيْعِ، والإِجَارَةِ. ويَحْتَمِلُ أن لا يجوزَ، بِنَاءً على الوَجْهِ الذي لا يجوزُ الجَمْعُ بينهما في الأصْلِ. والأَوَّلُ أَوْلَى، إلَّا أن يَفْعَلَا ذلك حِيلَةً على شِرَاءِ الثَّمرَةِ قبلَ وُجُودِها، أو قبلَ بُدُوِّ صَلَاحِها، فلا يجوزُ، سواءٌ جَمَعَا بين العَقْدَيْنِ، أو عَقَدَا أحَدَهُما بعدَ الآخَرِ؛ لما ذكرْنا (٣٦) في إبْطالِ الحِيَلِ.
٨٨٩ - مسألة؛ قال: (إذَا كَانَ الْبَذْرُ مِنْ رَبِّ الأَرْضِ)
ظاهِرُ المَذْهَبِ أنَّ المُزَارَعةَ إنَّما تَصِحُّ إذا كان البَذْرُ من رَبِّ الأرْضِ، والعَمَلُ من العامِلِ. نَصَّ عليه أحمدُ، في رِوَايةِ جَمَاعةٍ. واخْتارَه عامّةُ الأَصْحابِ. وهو مَذْهَبُ ابنِ سِيرِينَ، والشافِعِىِّ، وإسحاقَ؛ لأنَّه عَقْدٌ يَشْتَرِكُ العامِلُ ورَبُّ المالِ في نَمَائِه، فوَجَبَ أن يكونَ رَأْسُ المالِ كلُّه من عندِ أحَدِهِما، كالمُسَاقاةِ والمُضَارَبةِ. وقد رُوِىَ عن أحمدَ ما يَدُلُّ على أنَّ البَذْرَ يجوز أن يكونَ من العامِلِ؛ فإنَّه قال، في رِوَايةِ مُهَنَّا، في الرَّجُلِ
(٣٤) في الأصل: "منفردة".(٣٥) في م: "أرض".(٣٦) في م: "ذكر".