it belongs to someone else. Sa'id ibn Mansur mentioned this hadith from al-Walid ibn Muslim, from al-Awza'i, and from Wasil ibn Abi Jamil, from Mujahid, and he said at its end: 'I narrated it to Makhul, and he said: "I would not be pleased to have a servant for this hadith."' The ruling for this issue is the same as the ruling for the issue we mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, and both are invalid; because the subject of muzara'a (sharecropping) requires that the seed be from the landowner or from the laborer, and here it is from neither of them. It is not a partnership (sharika), because a partnership is established with monetary capital, and even if it were with goods, it would be required for them to be known, and none of that is present here. And it is not a lease (ijara), because a lease requires a known period and a known compensation. This is the opinion of Malik, al-Shafi'i, and the jurists (Ashab al-Ra'y). Based on this, the crop belongs to the owner of the seed because it is the growth of his wealth, and his two partners are owed the fair rental value (ajr al-mithl) of their services; because they entered the contract on the basis that he would deliver to them the named amount, and when he did not, it reverted to its replacement value. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i and Abu Thawr. The jurists (Ashab al-Ra'y) said: 'He gives away the surplus in charity.' The correct view is that the growth belongs to the owner of the seed, and he is not required to give it in charity, just like the rest of his wealth. If the land belonged to three people and they entered a partnership to cultivate it with their own seeds, animals, and helpers, on the condition that what God produces shall be shared between them according to the proportion of their wealth, it is permissible. This is the opinion of Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir. We do not know of any disagreement regarding this, because none of them is preferred over his companions by anything.

Section: If a man enters into a sharecropping contract with someone, or leases his land to him and he cultivates it, and some grain falls and sprouts in that land another year, it belongs to the landowner. [Ahmad stated this explicitly in a narration by Abu Dawud and Muhammad ibn al-Harith. Al-Shafi'i said: 'It belongs to the owner of the grain'] because it is the essence of his property, so it is as if he had sown it intentionally. Our argument is that the owner of the grain abandoned his right to it according to custom,