in proportion to that part of the day. Sahnūn said that this is the view of Ibn al-Qāsim to be relied upon. This view can already be inferred from the beginning of the book, where Ibn al-Qāsim discusses someone who sells another man half a garment on condition that he sell the remaining half for him. He says that this is permissible if a deadline is set, because setting a deadline makes it a hiring contract.

Sahnūn preferred this view because the statement, “Sell this garment for me today, and you will have a dirham,” may be intended as a reward arrangement, in which case it is invalid, or as a hiring contract, in which case it is permissible. When wording admits both a valid and an invalid interpretation, his approach in many cases is to construe it as valid unless its invalidity becomes clear. One example is hiring a shepherd to tend specified sheep: he considers the hiring contract valid even if their replacement is not stipulated, contrary to Ibn al-Qāsim’s position on this issue. This is like his position in the case we related at the beginning of the book. Another example is his ruling that the statement, “Sell this garment for me, and you will have a dirham,” is permissible. He construed it as a reward arrangement and therefore allowed it, although it might have been intended as a hiring contract, which would be invalid without a specified deadline.

Since this view accords with Sahnūn’s approach, he preferred and approved it, saying that it was Ibn al-Qāsim’s predominant view and the one to be relied upon. Had the speaker made his intention explicit by saying, “I hire you to sell this garment for me today, for a dirham,” it would be permissible by agreement. Had he instead explicitly said, “I offer you a dirham as a reward for selling this garment for me today,” it would not be permissible by agreement, unless it were stipulated that the worker could discontinue whenever he wished. Where no such intention is made explicit, the case is the one discussed in the book, concerning which Ibn al-Qāsim held differing views. The matter thus falls into these three categories.

This is the most appropriate interpretation of the passage. I have not seen anyone else offer it. It is sound and clear, and no other interpretation should be entertained. The question of shaking olives from the trees falls under this same principle, so reflect upon it. The same applies to the disagreement between Ibn al-Qāsim and Ashhab concerning someone who sells another man a house on condition that the buyer support him for the rest of his life: it is permissible on this basis. There are many similar examples.

Section

There are two views on whether the validity of a reward arrangement requires that the person offering the reward derive some benefit from it.