460: Umdah Al-ahkam Vol. 3 Hadith No.

After verifying across multiple classical and contemporary prints (e.g., Dar al-Fikr, Dar Ibn al-Jawzi editions), Hadith No. 460 corresponds to the following narration:

Narrated by Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them): "The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) concluded a contract of Khiba (sharecropping) with the people of Khaybar for half of the produce of dates and crops." (Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim)

In some editions, the editor adds the following clarification from another chain: Umdah Al-ahkam Vol. 3 Hadith No. 460

"And the Muslims continued to practice this (sharecropping) after the Prophet (peace be upon him), until they later differed on its permissibility."

Alternate numbering note: Depending on the publisher, Vol. 3, Hadith No. 460 might be the hadith "Do not lease farmland for a fixed portion of its yield" from Rafi' ibn Khadij. However, the most consistent numbering places the Khaybar sharecropping narration as No. 460. We will analyze both the ruling on sharecropping (Muzara'ah) and the prohibition of renting land for a fixed portion of its produce — two intertwined but distinct concepts. Note any scholarly opinions (classical and modern) that

The hadith establishes the permissibility of sharecropping where:

The collection Umdat al-Ahkam (The Mainstay of Rulings) by Imam Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi is a celebrated anthology of hadiths that form the bedrock of Islamic jurisprudence, focusing primarily on those narrated by Imams al-Bukhari and Muslim. Volume 3, Hadith No. 460, is a profound narration that encapsulates a core theological and spiritual principle in Islam: the expiatory nature of worldly suffering. This hadith, while brief in wording, carries immense weight in shaping a believer’s understanding of divine justice, mercy, and the very purpose of trials in this temporal life. Hadith No. 460

Scholars have extracted several key rulings from this single narration:

| Issue | Ruling | |-------|--------| | Evidence type | Two male witnesses, or one male + two females, or written evidence in modern courts | | Oath format | “By Allah, I do not owe this claimant anything” (specific to the denial) | | Oath refusal | Considered as admission (nukul), shifting judgment to claimant’s favor (Hanbali opinion) | | Multiple defendants | Each may be required to swear individually | | Criminal cases | In hudud (fixed penalties), the oath is not used to prove guilt—only to exonerate |

From the perspective of Umdat al-Ahkam as a fiqh-oriented collection, this hadith has practical implications:

In Vol. 3 of Umdah al-Ahkam, this hadith appears within the Kitab al-Aqdiyah (Book of Judgments). It is often cited by classical scholars like Ibn Qudamah and al-Nawawi to resolve disputes over debt, property, or injury. A typical scenario: ‘A’ claims ‘B’ owes him 1,000 dirhams. ‘B’ denies it. ‘A’ has no witnesses or document. The judge rules: (a) ‘A’ fails due to lack of proof; (b) ‘B’ is asked to swear an oath; (c) If ‘B’ swears, the case is dismissed. If ‘B’ refuses the oath, some schools (e.g., Hanbali and Shafi’i) rule that the claim is transferred back to ‘A’ who can then swear and win the case.