Priorities for Land Cultivation Partnerships According to Islamic Principles

 

After examining the merits and drawbacks of land sharecropping and leasing arrangements, and considering the various possible models for agrarian relations, the logical framework can be simplified as follows:

First option: Cultivate the land oneself.

The preferred approach is for the owner to cultivate the land personally. However, the land must not be left idle or fallow if the owner is unable to work it. If the owner cannot cultivate the land—whether due to a lack of time (holding another profession) or a lack of funds—they may enter into a partnership with another farmer. There is a Hadith of the Prophet stating that granting the use of land to someone is better than demanding a specific tax or rent.

Second option: "Lending" the land to another person without charging any fee.

There are numerous Hadiths supporting this practice. If the owner assists by providing tools, seeds, or draft animals for cultivation—while taking no share of the produce and seeking only a reward from Allah SWT—it constitutes an excellent form of sadaqah jariyah (ongoing charity). Abu Hurairah narrated that the Prophet (PBUH) said: "Whoever possesses land should cultivate it or give it to a friend." In another narration, the Prophet stated: "Whoever possesses land should cultivate it themselves or ask their brother to cultivate it; otherwise, they should leave it [unoccupied]." Thus, simply lending the land without demanding compensation is highly encouraged.

Third option: Muzara’ah (profit-sharing/crop-sharing), often referred to as musaqat or mukhabarah.

The landowner provides tools, seeds, and animals to the person who will cultivate the land, under an agreement that the owner will receive a predetermined share of the harvest—such as one-half, one-third, or another agreed-upon ratio. Hadiths narrated by Imam Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Umar, Ibn Abbas, and Jabir bin Abdullah explain that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) leased land to the people of Khaibar under an agreement where half the produce went to the landowner. This muzara’ah (sharecropping) arrangement was practiced by the Messenger and the Caliphs who succeeded him, and was even continued by the Prophet’s wives after his passing.

In reality, there is a fourth option—a form of muzara’ah where the farmer is essentially "hands-off" (providing little to no labor). Based on the literature I have encountered, there is no scriptural evidence (dalil) for this specific variation. Yet, this practice is widely applied in Indonesia, where the landowner typically receives one-third of the gross harvest.

The legal basis for muzara’ah is very strong; not only does it align perfectly with Islamic logic, but it was also a common practice during the time of the Messenger. Unlike certain forms of land leasing that are prohibited under specific conditions, the Messenger explicitly permitted muzara’ah.

Fundamentally, muzara’ah represents a mutually beneficial partnership. It addresses situations where skilled farmers lack land while landowners are unable to cultivate their own holdings; muzara’ah serves as a middle-ground solution for both parties. This practice was implemented during the Messenger’s era in Medina—involving many Muhajirin (emigrants)—and was continued by the Rightly Guided Caliphs, persisting into the era of Umar bin Abdul Aziz, who derived income from such profit-sharing arrangements.

*****

Agricultural Profit-Sharing According to Islam

Compared to land leasing, I believe this form of agricultural partnership based on profit-sharing—known as muzara’ah—is superior and more highly recommended. Many hadiths support this view. Furthermore, within Islamic economics, "profit-sharing" is a very common financing product; indeed, laypeople often characterize Islamic economics simply as a "Profit-Sharing Economy."

Cultivating land through partnership is a practice permitted by Islamic teachings and is widely found in society today. God willing, this model benefits both parties, ensuring mutual gain. In the socio-economic realm of agriculture, the concept of "tenancy relations" is widely recognized; it encompasses various forms of temporary arrangements arising when land is managed by someone other than the owner. Tenancy relations are categorized into two types: leasing and profit-sharing. Indeed, the meaning of "tenancy relation" appears to align precisely with that of "muzara’ah," covering all forms of cooperation in cultivating another person's land—including both leasing and profit-sharing.

Additionally, land pawning (gadai) does not actually fall under the concept of muzara’ah, as pawning involves the land merely serving as collateral. However, based on my observations as a researcher, the practice in our society has evolved such that land pawning often becomes a means to acquire land for cultivation. This effectively creates a tenancy relation, even though it does not strictly fit the definition of "muzara’ah."

Definition and variations of muzara’ah (profit-sharing)

Although muzara’ah could technically encompass both leasing and profit-sharing, many hadiths—perhaps due to translation nuances—have led to a narrower interpretation: muzara’ah is specifically associated with "profit-sharing," whereas land leasing is referred to by the terms ijarah or kira’. Therefore, in this context, "muzara’ah" is defined as a land cultivation partnership in which an owner entrusts their land to another person for planting, with the resulting harvest subsequently shared between them. Linguistically, muzara’ah refers to a transaction involving land based on the sharing of its produce.

Based on research across various sources, I have identified several variations of profit-sharing models, as follows:

First, the musaqat model. In this arrangement, a worker is entrusted with tending a plot of land that already has established crops—such as date palms—and receives payment in the form of a share of the harvest. This means that when the worker arrives, the plants are already mature, whether or not they have yet borne fruit. This practice is common in plantation agriculture. It appears to be the method the Prophet applied with the farmers of Khaybar.

Musaqat is defined as an arrangement where a person entrusts trees to another individual to irrigate and maintain them in exchange for a specific share of the fruit. This differs from daily-wage labor. A rough equivalent found in Indonesia is the bawon system for rice farming; here, the worker is responsible for planting and harvesting, while the owner handles maintenance tasks like irrigation and spraying. The bawon farmer receives payment at harvest time, typically a one-sixth or one-seventh share of the gross harvest.

Musaqat (an agricultural partnership contract) is permissible based on the cooperative arrangements established by the Messenger and the Rightly Guided Caliphs after his passing. Imam Bukhari narrates from Abdullah bin Umar that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) instructed the people of Khaibar to cultivate the land of Khaibar in exchange for a share—specifically half—of the crops or fruit produced by the land. Similar contracts were also entered into by Abu Bakar (RA), Umar bin Khattab (RA), Uthman bin Affan (RA), and Ali bin Abu Talib (RA).

Two, the seeds are provided by the owner. Several hadiths state that the owner must provide the seeds. The rationale behind this obligation can be traced back to the fundamental concept of land ownership: a farmer does not possess absolute ownership of the land itself but merely holds the right to utilize it. By providing the seeds, the owner maintains a tangible "link" to the obligation of land utilization; if the owner were to provide nothing, it might create the impression of full, absolute ownership.

Imam Bukhari recounts in his Sahih collection that Umar bin Khattab (RA) practiced this method, providing the seeds himself as the owner and receiving more than half of the yield. Conversely, if the farmers provided the seeds, they would receive more than half the yield.

What is the correct profit-sharing model? I have not yet found a definitive reference on this specific point. However, in the profit-sharing practices of the Messenger and the Caliphs, the share allocated to the cultivating farmer was never less than half—as seen in the arrangement with the Jewish farmers of Khaibar. It is considered inappropriate for the landowner's share to exceed that of the cultivator.

Three, the seeds are provided by the cultivating farmer. Regarding the arrangement with the Khaibar farmers—which continued until the Messenger’s passing—one hadith mentions that the farmers bore the costs and provided the seeds, rather than the Prophet doing so. This implies that the seeds may be provided by the farmer, the owner, or both parties jointly.

This is the practice commonly observed in Indonesia, where the owner typically receives one-third of the gross yield. A cultivator who provides the seeds, fertilizer, and land preparation—thereby incurring those costs—receives a two-thirds share; a practice that does not appear to have existed during the time of the Prophet. Interestingly, upon closer examination, the landowner's share remains roughly the same even when they provide the seeds and fertilizer under a "fifty-fifty" split arrangement.

It turns out the farming community has calculated the economics so precisely that, despite the differing methods, the resulting obligations and entitlements end up being similar. Variations in sharing arrangements are driven by factors such as soil fertility and, crucially, the ratio of available land to the number of farmers. As the number of landless farmers rises, the share allocated to the tenant farmer is squeezed to the absolute minimum; yet, like it or not, the tenant accepts the terms rather than having no land to cultivate at all—this persists despite the existence of Indonesia's Law No. 2 of 1960 concerning Agricultural Sharecropping Agreements.

*****

Conditions Giving Rise to Land Leasing in Indonesia

 

Let us consider why the culture of land leasing is so prevalent in Indonesia—not to take a side for or against it, but to understand the context. Research indicates that land leasing flourishes in open areas where competition for arable land is intense. There is a tendency to view sharecropping as a hallmark of traditional agriculture, whereas leasing characterizes modern farming. Sharecropping arrangements are often considered fairer, as the sharecropper typically belongs to a lower socioeconomic class, whereas farmers who opt for leasing generally come from a higher economic bracket. Thus, sharecropping serves as a mechanism to realize the social value of land—a distinct contrast to the leasing system.

My research reveals that the relationship between the landowner and the lessee is more impersonal, distant, and calculated. The fee (rent) is paid upfront, often covering multiple seasons or years at once, ensuring the landowner incurs no loss.

In sharecropping, the cultivator usually comes from a lower economic stratum. In leasing, however, the cultivator or lessee may belong to a higher economic class, often possessing greater capital than the landowner. Unlike sharecropping, leasing shifts greater authority to the lessee; effectively, the lessee holds more power. Landowners sometimes feel fortunate simply because someone is willing to lease their land for a substantial sum.

To put it simply: this leasing relationship carries a distinct air of individualistic capitalism. The question arises: is this the agricultural muamalah (social-economic interaction) envisioned by Islam?

Therefore, after examining the relevant Quranic verses and hadiths and comparing them with current land-leasing practices—which tend to be exploitative—I believe we must approach this with caution. I have yet to encounter a tenant farmer who is truly happy with their situation. Yet, they are the voiceless—people who not only do not know where to turn for redress but have also likely never heard a religious sermon explaining how deeply the Prophet cared about the plight of tenants like them.

The expansion of land leasing in Indonesia is also closely related to broader structural changes in the rural economy. Population growth, land fragmentation through inheritance, rising land values, urban expansion, and the commercialization of agriculture have all contributed to a situation in which access to land increasingly depends on financial capacity rather than social relations. At the same time, advances in agricultural technology, the growing importance of market-oriented production, and the emergence of entrepreneurial farmers have encouraged the concentration of operational control over larger areas of land. Under such circumstances, leasing becomes an efficient mechanism for consolidating fragmented plots into economically viable farming units. However, this efficiency often comes at the cost of weakening traditional norms of reciprocity, mutual assistance, and community solidarity that historically characterized agrarian relations in many Indonesian villages.

Furthermore, the widespread adoption of leasing reflects unequal bargaining positions within rural society. Many landowners lease out their land because they are elderly, have migrated to urban areas, lack labor, or no longer wish to engage directly in farming. On the other hand, tenant farmers frequently accept high rental costs because they have limited alternatives for accessing land. This creates a situation in which agricultural risks—such as crop failure, pest outbreaks, market fluctuations, or extreme weather events—are disproportionately borne by the cultivator. The moral concern from an Islamic perspective is therefore not merely the legality of the contract itself, but whether the arrangement protects the dignity, livelihood, and welfare of those whose labor sustains agricultural production. Any agrarian system that systematically transfers risk downward while concentrating security and returns upward deserves careful scrutiny in light of Islam’s enduring concern for justice, compassion, and the protection of vulnerable groups.

*****

 

How is the rental value of agricultural land calculated according to Islamic principles?

 

If we agree to a lease arrangement, how is the rental value determined? According to one narration, the rental value is based on the land's fertility or its production potential. A hadith narrated by Abu Dawood mentions basing the rent on "the crops produced from it" and "the section irrigated by water."

It is narrated from Sa’id bin Musayyib and Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas: "We used to lease land in exchange for the crops produced from it (meaning the rent was the yield from a specific portion of the leased land) and for the section irrigated by water (meaning the rent was the yield from the irrigated section). The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) forbade us from doing this and commanded us to lease it for gold or silver" (Narrated by Abu Dawood).

During the Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic) era, a person leasing land did not need to make a payment at the time the lease began. The lessee simply had to hand over the harvest from a specific portion of the land—for example, the northern or southern section, the upper or lower section, and so on. At harvest time, the yield from that specific section was given to the owner. The rent was paid later, but the amount was determined at the outset. Allah knows best.

However, during the era of the Messenger of Allah, this practice was prohibited; it was replaced by a system where the value was clearly defined at the time of the contract and paid immediately in gold or silver. This method is considered clearer and prevents mutual injustice. The Jahiliyyah method carried the risk of gharar (deception or uncertainty).

This method of paying rent upfront might appear unfair—for instance, if the harvest fails—but the key lies in the validity and completeness of the contract. Naturally, anyone willing to lease the land would already possess the knowledge and confidence regarding the future success of their venture. The decision should naturally take into account the land's historical production success rates. What distinguishes the Islamic model from the Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic) model is that the terms of the agreement—including the specific rental amount—are clearly defined from the outset.

To determine the rental value, one might apply principles regarding profit limits in trade. Various fatwas (religious rulings) suggest that setting an exorbitantly high rent is inappropriate, even if there are desperate individuals willing to pay it. Such exploitative landlord behavior could be classified as a form of deception. It is important to remember that land ownership carries inherent social obligations due to the asset's fixed nature and limited availability.

Ideally, both the landowner and the tenant should exercise a high degree of mutual tolerance: the landowner should not demand an excessive price, while the tenant should avoid causing financial loss to the owner.

An Analysis of the Permissibility of Leasing Agricultural Land in Islam

Upon closer examination, the situation appears to be as follows: the permissibility or prohibition of land leasing (at a fixed rate) essentially hinges on agrarian conditions—specifically, the ratio of land to farmers in a given region. The leasing practices prohibited during the time of the Prophet were those involving elements of deception and ambiguity that led to conflict. Many Companions imposed unfair conditions on those cultivating their land; for instance, they would differentiate between specific plots and their respective rental rates. Some plots had their value fixed based on the expected harvest (measured by volume or weight), while others operated on a fifty-fifty split. This was unjust because the land would not always yield the amount originally projected.

In such scenarios, the landowner might claim the entire harvest while the other party suffered a massive loss—or received nothing at all. Conversely, a plot might yield nothing, leaving the owner with nothing while the tenant kept the entire produce.

Therefore, to ensure fairness, a profit-sharing arrangement is recommended. If the yield is abundant, both parties benefit; if the yield is meager, both receive a smaller share. If there is no yield at all, both parties share the loss.

Another reason for the prohibition of certain leasing practices is the potential for disputes. To avoid this, the Messenger emphasized the need for a high degree of tolerance (tasamuh) between the landowner and the tenant. The landowner should not demand an excessive rate, and the tenant should not disadvantage the landowner. "Indeed, the Prophet (PBUH) did not forbid the leasing of land (muzara'ah); rather, he commanded that they treat one another with gentleness and leniency." (Narrated by Al-Tirmidhi). Note that this hadith mentions muzara’ah, which signifies a profit-sharing arrangement.

A number of Salaf scholars held this view. Tawus—a prominent jurist from Yemen and a leading figure among the Tabi'in—disapproved of leasing land for gold or silver (currency), preferring instead to lease it for a share of the produce, such as one-third or one-quarter. When his position was challenged on the grounds that the Prophet had forbidden the leasing of land, Tawus maintained that the prohibition applied specifically to leasing for money (gold and silver), whereas muzara’ah was permissible.

This interpretation suggests that the legal reasoning ('illah) behind the prohibition was not the mere existence of a rental agreement, but rather the presence of injustice, excessive uncertainty (gharar), and the concentration of risk on one party. Consequently, many contemporary Islamic scholars distinguish between historical agrarian conditions and modern agricultural systems. In regions where land is scarce and a large number of farmers depend on access to it for their livelihoods, profit-sharing arrangements such as muzara'ah and musaqah may better reflect the Islamic objectives of equity, risk-sharing, and social justice. By contrast, where land markets are transparent, contractual rights are clearly defined, and both parties freely negotiate fair terms, fixed-rent agreements may be considered permissible provided that exploitation, coercion, and uncertainty are absent.

From a broader perspective, Islam seeks to ensure that agricultural land remains productive and contributes to the welfare of society. The ultimate concern is not whether a contract is labeled as rent, lease, or profit-sharing, but whether it promotes fairness, mutual benefit, and harmonious social relations. Any arrangement that enriches one party while exposing the other to excessive risk contradicts the spirit of Islamic economic ethics. Conversely, agreements that distribute rights, responsibilities, and risks in a balanced manner are more consistent with the Qur'anic principles of justice ('adl), cooperation (ta'awun), and the prevention of harm (la darar wa la dirar). In this sense, the debate over agricultural land leasing should be understood not merely as a legal question, but also as a reflection of Islam's broader commitment to economic justice and rural welfare

 ****

Views Permitting Land Leasing in Islam

On the other hand, proponents of land leasing argue that leasing land under a fixed-term agreement offers benefits and remains mutually advantageous for both parties. An experienced entrepreneur can calculate potential profits and simplify accounting from the outset—for instance, when dealing with perennial crops that require a long time to yield a harvest.

Law No. 21 of 2008 concerning Sharia Banking provides opportunities for leasing movable or immovable assets to customers. This includes ijarah (standard leasing) and ijarah muntahiya bittamlik (lease-to-own). The ijarah contract involves the provision of funds to transfer the right of use or the benefit of an asset or service based on a lease transaction, without the transfer of ownership of the asset itself. This differs from ijarah muntahiya bittamlik, where the ownership of the asset is eventually transferred to the lessee.

Leasing arrangements based on clearly defined values ​​are also supported by other historical accounts. A Hadith narrated by Imam Muslim from Handalah bin Qais Al-Ansari states: "I asked Rafi’ bin Khudaij about leasing land in exchange for gold and silver. He replied that there was no harm in it. He explained that people used to lease land—prior to the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)—in exchange for the produce from specific sections (such as those near water sources or dams) or for a specific portion of the harvest. This led to situations where one section might fail while another succeeded, or vice versa, and this was the only method of leasing practiced at the time; hence, it was prohibited. However, leasing in exchange for something clearly defined and known is permissible" (Narrated by Muslim).

It is also noted that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah permitted land leasing; however, he personally stated that muzara'ah (sharecropping) aligns more closely with the principles of justice and Islamic Sharia. He stated: "Muzara'ah is more lawful than kira' (fixed-rent leasing). In kira', one party (the owner) is guaranteed a return, whereas the other (the tenant) is not."

So, it appears that the arguments supporting land leasing are not particularly strong, nor are there many of them. And Allah knows best. Wallahu a’lam.

Reasons Cited by Scholars Who Prohibit the Leasing of Agricultural Land

The Messenger (SAW) once forbade the leasing of agricultural land—whether kharajiyah (land subject to land tax) or ushriyah (land subject to tithe)—regardless of whether the rent was paid in the form of produce or cash. However, this must be understood critically, taking into account the specific conditions and timing under which the prohibition was issued.

The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: "Whoever possesses land (agricultural land) should cultivate it or give it to his brother; if he refuses (to give it), then he should retain the land himself" (Narrated by Al-Bukhari). In a sahih (authentic) hadith narrated by Muslim, the Messenger of Allah (SAW) forbade accepting rental fees (ajrun) or a share of the produce (hazhun) derived from the land. These hadiths clearly prohibit the leasing of agricultural land (ijaratul ardh).

Some scholars permit the cultivation of agricultural land under a profit-sharing system known as muzara'ah. They base this on the fact that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) engaged in a transaction with the people of Khaybar using a profit-sharing arrangement, wherein half the produce went to the Messenger of Allah (SAW) and the other half to the people of Khaybar.

This argument is not strong enough to support a general land-leasing system, because the land in Khaybar was not empty agricultural land but rather land containing trees. Thus, the transaction conducted by the Prophet (SAW) was a profit-sharing arrangement for tending existing trees—known as musaqat—rather than profit-sharing from empty land that was subsequently planted (muzara'ah). The majority of the land in Khaybar consisted of tree-bearing land (specifically date palms); only a small portion was empty land suitable for planting crops.

The prohibition discussed here applies specifically to leasing agricultural land for the purpose of planting crops. As for leasing land for purposes other than planting—such as for livestock enclosures, fish ponds, storage facilities (warehouses), drying harvested rice, and the like—it is permissible, as there is no Sharia prohibition regarding such matters. Some hold the view that the leasing of agricultural land is prohibited because it resembles riba (usury). Why is this the case? Because the lessee pays the rent upfront, yet there is no guarantee of a harvest. What happens if the crop fails, even though the rent was paid at the outset?
The religious scholars who prohibit this type of leasing arrangement base their ruling on the following hadiths. It is narrated from Ibn Abi Nu’aim that Rafi’ bin Khudaij recounted how the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) passed by him while he was cultivating the land. The Messenger asked him who owned the crops and who owned the land. Rafi’ bin Khudaij replied, "These are my crops, my seeds, and my labor; I will receive half, and the landowner will receive half." The Messenger then said, "You have engaged in riba (usury)." "Return the land to its owner and take your wages" (Narrated by Abu Dawud).

At first glance, this hadith appears to forbid land leasing. However, upon closer examination, it actually reinforces the meaning of the preceding hadith. The "riba" (usury) referred to by the Messenger of Allah here likely alludes to a Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic) practice that had long been in use.

Faced with this difference of opinion—regarding what is permissible and what is not—some adopt an attitude of wara’ (pious caution), choosing the best course of action between two equally permissible options. A case in point is the hadith narrated by Salim bin Abdullah bin Umar (Abu Dawud), which recounts how Abdullah bin Umar ultimately chose not to lease out his land, fearing that the Messenger of Allah might have issued a new ruling.

Some argue that leasing land for a fixed monetary sum is permissible, whereas leasing it in exchange for a share of the future harvest is forbidden (haram). Others maintain that land leasing cannot be equated with riba.

A prominent modern scholar, Yusuf al-Qardawi, holds the view that leasing land for money—or for a fixed rental fee—is prohibited. His opinion warrants careful study, as he boldly forbids fixed-rate land leasing, contrasting with the views of many other scholars—such as Abu Hanifah and Imam Malik—who permit it.

According to experts who have analyzed the matter in depth, Yusuf al-Qardawi’s stance was formulated in contrast to profit-sharing arrangements. This prohibition is based on several grounds, notably the inherent injustice found in the system of leasing land for money. Justice is a fundamental tenet of Islam; if this principle is absent, the practice becomes haram because it conflicts with Islam's core values. A key factor contributing to the injustice of fixed-rate monetary leasing is the uncertainty regarding the land's actual yield or benefit.

And Allah knows best. This is indeed a sensitive issue. Honestly, I am not certain which view is correct. Therefore... We ask readers to approach this matter wisely. Please consult religious scholars and teachers who can explain this more precisely.

In summary, I believe the prohibition on land leasing stems from the following reasons:

1.              It is inequitable. There is a potential for the tenant to suffer losses if the harvest fails or is only partially successful. Conversely, the landowner is guaranteed a profit, having already received the lease payment in cash at the start of the season. Therefore, a profit-sharing arrangement is the recommended alternative.

2.              Land is a unique resource—truly one of a kind—necessitating specific legal principles. A tenant gains nothing without the effort of cultivating, planting, tending, and harvesting the land. They must also incur costs for seeds, fertilizer, and labor, alongside their own physical toil, before any yield is realized. This differs from renting a room, which offers immediate utility (a place to sleep) upon occupancy. For this reason, the practice of qiyas—drawing an analogy between land leasing and the rental of other goods—is flawed.

3.              Land belongs to Allah SWT, not the landowner. Even when someone is said to "own" land, that ownership extends only to its utilization; the essence of the land remains Allah’s property. Thus, in accordance with the hadith, if one lacks the manpower or time to cultivate the land, one should entrust it to another person rather than leasing it out for profit. Allah provided the land for all of us to cultivate, not for exclusive individual ownership. The notion that government authority—backed by a title deed—grants absolute ownership, allowing one to neglect the land at will, is perhaps a concept we need to reconsider.

4.              It exploits poverty. Landowners invariably benefit, whereas those without land lease out of necessity and often suffer hardship. In my experience as a researcher specializing in the sociology of agriculture—specifically agrarian issues—landowners generally enjoy a favorable position. Their share is consistently larger than that of the tenant. The lower the land-to-farmer ratio in a given region, the more the landowner can simply sit back and profit without effort. Money flows smoothly into their pockets every season, free of risk. Lease agreements are concluded against this backdrop of imbalance; tenants are compelled to rent—and to pay high rents—simply because they have no other choice.

 ******