—that is, specific rather than undivided portions—of crops, such that one portion would perish while another survived, or one survived while another perished. People had no form of rent other than this, and so the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, forbade it. As for something known and guaranteed, there is nothing wrong with it.” (1) By “something known and guaranteed,” he means a known, guaranteed, undivided share.

“It is a revocable contract. If the owner rescinds it before the fruit appears, the worker is entitled to wages; but if the worker rescinds it, he is entitled to nothing ...”

His statement, “It is a revocable contract,” is with respect to the declaratory legal ruling, for a prescriptive legal ruling is that which entails reward and punishment.

A declaratory legal ruling is that which entails validity or invalidity. Thus, when we say that it is revocable in the declaratory sense, we mean that it is among those contracts which either of the two contracting parties may rescind without the other’s consent. The opposite of a revocable contract is a binding one, which neither party may rescind except for a legally valid reason. In terms of the prescriptive legal ruling, however, when I say that something is permissible, I mean that there is no sin in it; its opposite is what is prohibited.

Accordingly, the owner of the trees cannot compel the farmer, nor can the farmer compel the owner of the trees. But the difficulty arises if this farmer takes possession of the palm trees in the month of Muharram, for example, and labours over them, waters them, and does everything that contributes to the growth and appearance of their fruit; then the owner says, “I have rescinded the contract.” In this case, is the worker’s right to be lost, or should we say that the contract has now become binding? The author clarifies the ruling, saying:

“If the owner rescinds it before the fruit appears, the worker is entitled to wages.” Thus, there is no