BOOK OF SHARE CROPPING (MUZARA'A)

It is an agreement between the landowner and a person ready to undertake farming and plantation in exchange for a certain portion of the produce. In this agreement the following conditions and matters are required. (a) An offer from the landowner followed by an acceptance from the farmer, by means of communicating and expressing the intentions of the parties about such agreement, the agreement of making the land available on the part of the owner and the acceptance, of the other party. It verbally could be expressed by such words as; "I make the land available to you for farming and plantation, followed by the farmer's words such as, "I have accepted." It can also be expressed through the deeds indicating the owner's intentions of making the land available for farming and the other party's acceptance. It is not necessary to express such agreements in Arabic language or the use of the past grammatical tense. It also is not necessary to first express the offer. It is not necessary for the offer to be made by the owner of land and acceptance by the farmer; in fact, the reverse also is good and valid. (b) Both parties must be mature, free of mental illness and free of compulsion and duress. The owner must not be under a court order not to use his belongings because of certain financial problems like bankruptcy or health reasons like mental illness and the same rule applies to the worker if he is involved in some financial dealings. (c) The share of both parties must be taken from the whole produce, thus, if the first harvest is agreed to go to a certain party and the last Harvest to another party, the contract is void; the same rule applies if the whole produce is given to one party. (d) That the share of each party must be a certain portion of the produce in common like one third, or one fourth etc. If the owner says, " cultivate this land and give me whatever amount you like, the agreement is not valid and the same rule applies if certain specified amount like 10 tons is agreed to go to a certain party. (e) Specifying the duration and the total time of the contract in terms of months, years, or season within which at least it would be possible to farm and harvest, thus, after specifying the beginning of the term, it is enough to consider harvest time the end of term. (f) The land must be good for cultivation, even after some repair works and improvements, but if it is not good and cannot be cultivated, the contract is void. (g) Specifying the kind of plantation if there exists any difference in the parties' choice of views, otherwise, it is not necessary. (h) Specifying the piece of land and its boundaries and its area, otherwise, the contract is void. If, however, it is specified only by saying ten acres, of this land, while all parts of that land are of the same nature, and would not result in any deception or fraudulent situation, this also is enough for specifying requirements. (I) Specifying the expenses like seeds etc., as who would be responsible for such expenses one party or both and how much will be each one's share, if both would provide a certain amount. The common practice in the community around is also a way of specifying such expenses, as the general nature of the contract also refers to such standard.

CR (485) It is lawful for the farmer to cultivate the land all by himself or with someone else as partner, provided, a condition in the contract does not require him to personally farm the land.

CR (486) If one allows someone to cultivate his land for a certain portion of the produce, can such deal be considered, the popular share-cropping contract or not; there are two views about it. According to the more clear reason it is share-cropping contract and the rules of such contract apply to it, the same rule applies if the landowner says, "Any one who undertakes cultivating work of my land, will have one-half of the produce or one third etc."

CR (487) It is said that it is lawful to assign a certain amount of the produce for one party, provided there is such extra amount, and divide It according to the specified ratios. In the same way it is lawful to exclude a certain amount for a certain expense, like taxes, cost of improvements and the amount of seeds which is the responsibility of one of the parties but, except for taxes, excluding other items is objectionable, in fact, it is not allowed.

CR (488) If the owner sets a condition in the contract which requires the farmer to cultivate only a certain kind of plantation, like wheat or barley etc., it is not lawful for the farmer to cultivate something else, but if he did, the owner has the right to revoke the contract or approve it, if he revokes he demands from the farmer the fair market value payment equal to the value of the benefits of the land lost. The produce of farming belongs to the farmer if the seeds were his but if the seeds belong to owner he can demand for its kind and if the kind of seed is given to owner the produce goes to farmer and the farmer cannot demand payment for his work from the owner. This is when the owner learns about it after it is about harvest time but if he learns before such time, he can demand compensation for the lost benefits of the land, and force the farmer to clear the land of plantation or let the plantation until harvest for a certain amount of rent or free if the seeds belong to farmer. If the seeds belong to the owner he can demand for replacement for the benefits of the lands he has lost and the seeds, if the seeds replacement is returned the produce goes to the farmer this is when a condition in the contract requires it, but if the specification requires the farmer to grow a certain kind of plantation in a restricted sense not as a condition in the contract, the agreement becomes void (See rule 381) for difference between a condition and a limitation.

CR (489) When the invalidity of share-cropping agreement is discovered, after the land is cultivated, if the seed belongs to the owner, the plantation belongs to him and he owes to the farmer all that he has spent and payment for his work and his tools used. If the seeds belong to the farmer, the plantation belongs to him and he owes to the owner rent of the land and all that the owner has spent. If the owner agrees to let the plantation stay on the land for rent or free, the problem is solved; but if the owner does not agree, he can force the farmer to clear the land even if the farmer cannot have any produce and suffer loss. The farmer cannot force the owner to let plantation stay in the land even for rent, just as the owner cannot force the farmer to let the plantation stay in the land even for no charges. The same rule applies when the lease expires and the plantation is not ready for harvesting.

CR (490) It is valid if one party sets a condition to receive something other than the produce like gold or silver owed to one party by the other besides his share of the produce.

CR (491) Sharecropping agreement is a binding contract, it cannot be revoked unless the parties formally agree or is annulled on the basis of a party's having the right of choice to do so because of other party's violating a required condition on his part. The contract does not become invalid because of one party's death, the heirs take charge of the deal, however, if a condition in the contract requires the farmer to personally do the work and the farmer dies, the contract is annulled.

CR (492) If the farmer after formalizing the contract leaves the land without cultivation until the time of lease expires if the land was at his disposal, and he has left the land as such without any good reason, he owes the fair market value rent to owner, regardless the owner knew about the case or not, or even if the land was not at his disposal, the owner was in-charge of the land instead and if the owner knew about it, apparently, the farmer is not responsible, otherwise, he, the farmer is responsible.

CR (493) It is lawful for the parties with consent of the other to estimate the quantity of the plantation, thus, the rest of the farm goes to the other party, and the farmer gets that certain amount, or if some of it is destroyed they both share the loss.

CR (494) If the land is flooded before the farmer takes charge of it or after his taking charge before the plantation grows or before harvest the share-cropping contract becomes void. If it is only partially flooded, the parties have the choice to revoke or approve the contract, and keep it.

CR (495) According to a strong reason it is not lawful to make share-cropping contract between more than two parties in which one party has the land the other has the seeds and another party undertakes the work and another one managing etc., the same rule applies if a whole group shares a share-cropping deal.

CR (496) It makes no difference for the validity of contract whether the seed belongs to owner or farmer or both but all must be mentioned and formalized in the contract, unless there exists a well-known common practice, which explains the nature of the contract. Also it does not make any difference whether the land belongs to one party or both; both parties do the work or not and the same is true of tools and other factors. In general it all depends upon the terms of the contract.

CR (497) If some thing happens before the plantation grows or before harvest, like when water is cut off or is flooded or there is some other obstacle which makes it impossible to reach the produce, apparently, the contract retrospectively becomes void, thus, the existing produce goes to the party to whom the seeds belong if he is the owner he pays the fair market value wages to the worker, and if the seeds belong to the worker he owes fair market value rent of the land to the owner of land.

CR (498) When land under share-cropping contract happens to be usurped and the seed belongs to the worker, the contract is void from the side other than the farmer if the owner approves the contract, it becomes effective in his favor, otherwise, the produce goes to farmer and he pays fair market value rent of land to owner. If the above case is discovered before harvest the owner has the choice to revoke the contract or approve it, if he revokes he can demand to clear the land or agree to let the plantation stay for rent and the farmer has to pay fair market value rent of the land for the time past.

CR (499) It is necessary for both parties to pay ZAKAT if every one's or only one's share is more or equal to the standard quantity for which ZAKAT becomes payable, this is when the plantation is commonly owned by the parties from the beginning of plantation or the time fruits started to appear before they could be called fruits. But if the parties have made a condition that requires them to become partners only after the time when fruits appear or at the time of harvest and collecting in such cases ZAKAT becomes the obligation of the owner of seeds, regardless, he is the owner or works.

CR (500) If in the next season after the lease expires and plantation is harvested plants grow out of the remaining roots, such plantation belongs to land-lord if due to a condition in the contract they are not partners in the roots also.

CR (501) If the parties differ about the duration of lease, one holds it to be longer and the other shorter, the words of one who denies it to be a longer time, will be accepted. If they differ about the amount of each one's share and one says it is a lesser amount and the other says it to be a greater amount in this case the words of the owner of seeds who believes it to be a lesser amount, are accepted. If the parties' difference is based on the fact that who is responsible for seeds, work and workers, one solution is both on the basis of each one's swearing or their refusing to do so, the contract is revoked.

CR (502) If the farmer does not treat the land properly and as a result there is less produce, he very possibly could be held responsible, provided, the seeds in this case belong to the owner, but if seeds belong to worker and the neglect in treating the land takes place before plantation starts to grow, he is not responsible, but the owner can revoke the contract and demand for the fair market value rent for the land.

CR (503) If the owner accuses the farmer of not fulfilling some conditions of the contract or not doing some works or neglecting the plantation with harmful results or not watching the farm etc., and the farmer denies it, his words are accepted. The same rule applies whenever one party claims certain things and the other party denies it until he proves his case to be true according to shar'i standards.

CR (504) If the supervisor of some endowed land for certain generations forms a share-cropping contract for a certain time as he may think to be for the good of the beneficiaries, such contract becomes binding and it does not become void due to his death. But if such contract, as mentioned in CR 481 is made by the former generation of beneficiary and such persons die during the terms of contract before it expires the contract becomes void at that time, unless the next generation of beneficiaries approve it.

CR (505) It is lawful for the landlord and farmer after the plantation appears from the ground to reach settlement among themselves about each other's shares in exchange for some thing of its kind or other things after estimating the quantity of the share on the basis of common practice as it is lawful even before the plantation appears from the ground by including some other property in the deal.