two sales in one sale, so how could Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, perform it? We say: It is possible that he said that (8) to give them the choice between whichever of the two contracts they wished, so whoever chose one contract concluded it with him specifically, just as if he were to say in a sale: "If you wish, I will sell it to you for ten whole [coins], and if you wish, for eleven broken [coins]" (9). Then he chose one of the two and concluded the sale with him upon it specifically. It is also possible (10) that his bringing the seed, or his starting the work without seed, with the approval and knowledge of Umar, functioned as a contract. This is why it is narrated from Ahmad that it is valid to lease [a service] when someone says: "If you sew it (11) in the Roman style, you shall have one dirham, and if you sew it in the Persian style, you shall have half a dirham." The analogy (qiyas) mentioned by our companions contradicts the explicit text (nass) and consensus (ijma) which we have mentioned; so how could it be acted upon? Moreover, it is invalidated by the case where two properties are combined (12) along with the labor of the owner of one of them.

Section: If the seed is provided by both of them in halves, and they stipulate that the crop is to be shared between them in halves, it is divided between them, regardless of whether we claim the muzara'a (sharecropping) is valid or invalid. This is because if it is valid, the crop is between them according to what they stipulated; and if it is invalid, each of them is entitled to the amount corresponding to his seed. However, if we rule it to be valid, neither of them has a claim against the other for anything. If we say: a condition for its validity is that the owner of the property provides the seed, then it is invalid. In this case, the laborer is entitled to half the rental value of the land, and he owes the owner of the land (13) half the value of his labor, so they offset each other for the amount of the lesser of the two, and the one [to whom the difference is due] has a claim against the other for the remainder. If they stipulate a variation in the shares of the crop, and we deem it valid, the crop is between them as they stipulated, and there is no mutual reimbursement. If we deem it invalid, the crop is divided between them according to the proportion of their seeds, and they reimburse one another, as we have mentioned.