collecting debts: he treated the worker’s death like that of the working partner in a profit-sharing partnership. If he had begun the work, his heirs would take his place, provided they were trustworthy; but if he had neither begun the work nor collected any of the debt, his heirs would have no entitlement. He also said that the reward arrangement terminates upon the death of the person offering the reward, whether he dies before or after the worker begins. In this respect, he treated it neither as a profit-sharing partnership nor as a reward arrangement with regard to the person offering the reward, since the arrangement becomes binding on him either upon conclusion of the contract or when the worker begins, according to the disagreement explained above. As for his stipulation that the worker’s heirs must be trustworthy upon his death, this is correct and should not be disputed, since this is a matter requiring trustworthiness.
Section
It is not a condition for a reward arrangement to be valid that the work be limited in scope. Although Abd al-Wahhāb and others have stated this condition, it is incorrect. Rather, the correct position is that such an arrangement is permissible for any work from which the person offering the reward can benefit only upon its completion, as explained above, whether the work is little or much. It is impermissible for work from which he can benefit before its completion, whether little or much. Accordingly, Ibn al-Mawwāz said that a reward arrangement for digging wells is permissible only on unowned land. On owned land, if the worker abandons the work after digging part of the well, the person offering the reward can benefit in many ways from what has been dug. On unowned land, however, the person offering the reward derives [no] benefit from what the worker has dug if he does not finish digging it.
Thus, if the person offering the reward can benefit from the stipulated work only upon its completion, the arrangement is permissible by analogy with the words of Allah Most High:
“Whoever brings it shall have a camel-load, and I guarantee it.” [Joseph: 72]
For if the worker fails to bring the object sought, the person offering the reward gains no benefit from his efforts in searching. This is clear.
Section
His statement that Mālik permitted reward arrangements only for a small quantity, such as one or two garments, and his statement that a large quantity of goods admits a hiring contract but not a reward arrangement, whereas a small quantity admits