the man. When he had finished, the man said to him, ‘Do an equivalent amount of work for me elsewhere.’ The location where he was to perform the replacement work required more labour than the location where the rock had been found. He replied, ‘You have entered into a transaction in which there is no good. In my view, you must reimburse him for the portion that that man excavated; you are not required to perform equivalent work for him elsewhere’—meaning that the proportion of the work represented by that section of ground should be assessed, and he should refund a corresponding portion of what he had received. Ibn al-Qāsim said, ‘I do not adopt Mālik’s opinion on this. I consider that he should be paid the customary fee for comparable work.’ Sahnūn said, ‘That is also my opinion; his view on this matter is preferable and sounder.’”

This is the exact wording of the case. It contains an ambiguity that has obscured its meaning for many people, leading them to interpret it incorrectly. Among them was Ibn Lubāba, who erred in interpreting it as a task-based reward contract. He said that Mālik’s answer assumed that the worker had broken through the rock, although the stipulated condition had made this the landowner’s responsibility. He further said that Ibn al-Qāsim and Sahnūn understood Mālik’s answer to assume that the landowner had broken through the rock, although doing so had been the worker’s responsibility. Yet the case makes clear that their agreement stipulated that the landowner would break through any rock encountered, and that it was the worker who actually broke through it, as indicated by the words: “When he had finished, he said to him, ‘Do an equivalent amount of work for me elsewhere.’”

One of our companions asked me about the meaning of Mālik’s statement here—may Allah Most High have mercy on him—and requested clarification of Ibn al-Qāsim’s explanation of his intent, the grounds for his disagreement with Mālik, and Sahnūn’s support for him in that disagreement. I replied:

My view on this—and Allah, through His mercy, grants success in reaching the truth—is that this case admits several interpretations. It does not explain how the contract to excavate the five thousand cubits was concluded between them: whether it stipulated that the owner of the spring would break through any rock encountered and that the agreed fee would be reduced by the corresponding proportion, or that he would break through any rock encountered without any reduction in the fee. On this latter interpretation, the uncertainty in the hire is evident, and the stronger view is that the contract is invalid. The position of Ibn al-Qāsim and Sahnūn—that the worker is entitled to the customary fee for all the work he performed—is what legal analogy requires.

The basis for Mālik’s view—may Allah Most High have mercy on him—on this interpretation, and in light of Ibn al-Qāsim’s appended explanation, ‘meaning that the proportion of the work represented by that section of ground should be assessed, and he should refund a corresponding portion of what he had received,’ is that Mālik—may Allah Most High have mercy on him—regarded a contract containing this condition as one of