these cases is also their disagreement over hiring a worker for a month to sell a particular garment or tend particular sheep, without stipulating replacements, and similar cases. Under this interpretation, Mālik’s position—may Allah have mercy on him—means that he disapproved of entering into such a contract out of regard for the disagreement. He may also have disapproved of it because of advance payment—even when this was not stipulated—since there is unanimous agreement that advance payment cannot validly be stipulated in such a contract. Once concluded, however, he upheld it in accordance with his established position. He awarded the worker the customary remuneration for comparable work for breaking through the rock, and required him to refund the portion of the agreed fee corresponding to the rock’s share of the total five thousand cubits. Ibn al-Qāsim and Sahnūn, however, considered it an invalid hire contract for the reason mentioned: the total price was unknown when the contract was concluded. They therefore held that the worker was entitled to the customary remuneration for comparable work for everything he had done. Sahnūn was consistent here with his position concerning someone who hires a carrier to bring his goods from a particular town, on condition that, if the carrier finds them along the way, he returns and receives a proportionate fee. Ibn al-Qāsim, however, departed from his own established position, so his rulings are inconsistent on this point. Both interpretations are tenable, though the first is more apparent. And Allah knows best.

Some have interpreted Mālik’s statement as referring to a case in which the owner of the spring broke through the rock, and the statements of Ibn al-Qāsim and Sahnūn as referring to a case in which the worker broke through it. This is a far-fetched and groundless interpretation, since the worker’s breaking through the rock has no bearing on the invalidity of the contract. One of those who asked me about this case, and to whom I explained it along the lines set out above, also interpreted Mālik’s statement as referring to the second of the two arrangements we mentioned, and the statements of Ibn al-Qāsim and Sahnūn as referring to the first. This, too, is a possible interpretation. Others held that all three were discussing the first arrangement, and that Mālik meant that the hire contract was invalid, as indicated by his words, “You have entered into a transaction in which there is no good,” and that Ibn al-Qāsim’s explanation was incorrect. The correct view, however, is that his explanation of Mālik’s position is sound, for he is better placed to understand Mālik’s intent. And Allah knows best.

Section

As for prohibited hire contracts, they fall into three categories: (the first) hiring someone to