Likewise, if they vary in the [contribution of] seed and stipulate equality in the crop, or if they stipulate for one of them more than the proportion of his seed or less.

Section: If the owner of the land says: "I have leased you half of this land of mine, for half of your seed, half of your labor, and the labor of your cattle and equipment," and the sharecropper provides all the seed, it is not valid because the [value of the] labor is not known. Similarly, if he makes it a rental for another piece of land or a house, it is not permissible, and all the crop belongs to the sharecropper, who owes the rental value of the land. If it is possible to know the labor and define it in a way that does not vary, and to know the seed, it is valid and the crop is between them. It is also possible that it is not valid, because the seed is a consideration (iwad), so its possession must be stipulated, just as if it were an object being sold, and no possession has occurred here. If he says: "I have leased you half of my land for half of your labor and the labor of your cattle and equipment," and they both bring the seed, it is like the preceding case, except that the crop is between them in all circumstances.

890- Issue: He said: (If they agree that the landowner takes the equivalent of his seed and they divide what remains, it is not permissible)

The sharecropper is entitled to the rental value of his labor. Similarly, it is void if the sharecropper brings the seed; the crop becomes the sharecropper's, and he owes the rental value of the land. As for when they agree that the landowner takes the equivalent of his seed, it is not valid because it is as if he stipulated a specific quantity (qufzan) for himself, and that is a corrupt condition that invalidates the sharecropping agreement; this is because the land might yield only that amount, in which case the owner of the property would be exclusively entitled to it, or the land might not yield it at all. As for when the sharecropper brings the seed, it is based on the two opinions regarding the validity of this condition. Al-Khiraqi has mentioned that it is corrupt. Thus, if the sharecropper brings the seed, it is invalid, just as if the worker in a Mudaraba contract provided the capital from his own wealth. Whenever the sharecropping agreement is invalid, the crop belongs to the owner of the seed because it is the essence of his property, which changes from one state to another and grows; it thus becomes like the saplings of trees when they are planted and grow tall, or an egg when it is incubated and becomes a chick. The seed here is from the sharecropper, so the crop is his, and he owes the rental value of the land, because its owner only offered it