and secures the well-being of both parties.” End of quote.

The jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) further state that, for a musāqāt contract to be valid, the trees under irrigation must bear fruit that is edible. It is therefore impermissible to apply the contract to trees that have no fruit at all or whose fruit is not eaten, for such a case is not covered by the texts.

Among the other conditions of validity is that the share of the worker or the owner be fixed as an undivided percentage of the overall yield—one-third, one-quarter, or the like—whether that percentage is small or large. If both parties stipulate that the entire crop go to one of them, the contract is void because the other would be excluded from the proceeds. Likewise, if they agree on a specified measure of the harvest—ten sāʿs, twenty sāʿs, and so forth—the contract is invalid, for it is possible that only that amount will be produced, leaving the stipulated party with everything and the other with nothing. The same ruling applies if a fixed sum of money is set as one party’s share, because the crop may not equal that amount. Equally invalid is a condition that one of them receive the produce of a particular tree or group of trees; the entire yield might come solely from those specified trees, or they might bear nothing at all, which would deprive the other party and introduce excessive uncertainty and harm.

The sound position adopted by the majority is that musāqāt is a binding contract; it may not be dissolved except with the consent of the other party.

Its term must also be defined—even an extended term—so long as the trees remain in place.

The worker is responsible for everything required to safeguard and improve the fruit: ploughing, watering, removing branches that harm the trees or their produce, pollinating the palms, and drying the crop.