The jurists disagreed over who is responsible for harvesting the fruit, for repairing the fence around the orchard, for clearing the spring, and for maintaining the sāniyah—the animal-powered device that draws water.

Mālik reports in the Muwaṭṭaʾ: “The Sunnah regarding musāqāh allows the owner of the orchard to stipulate that the worker mend the fence, dredge the spring, bring the irrigation water, pollinate the palms, cut away the fronds, and harvest the fruit. Such tasks and whatever resembles them fall upon the worker.” This wording can be read in two ways: either these duties enter the agreement only by explicit stipulation, or they are included by the contract itself.

Al-Shāfiʿī holds that the worker is not required to repair the fence, because that sort of work does not increase the yield in the way that pollination and irrigation do.

Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan states that the worker is not obliged to clean the sāniyahs or the irrigation canals.

Regarding the actual harvesting, Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī both say it falls to the worker, though Mālik allows the worker to shift it to the owner through a valid condition. Al-Shāfiʿī, however, rules that such a condition is invalid and that, if inserted, it nullifies the musāqāh. Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan maintains that the harvesting should be shared equally between the two parties.

The analytic scholars of the Mālikī school explain that orchard work is of two kinds. One kind has no effect on improving the fruit; the other does. Work that does improve the fruit is itself divided into what leaves a lasting benefit after the crop and what does not. Tasks that do not affect the fruit’s quality are not part of musāqāh, whether by the contract itself or by stipulation, except for a negligible amount. Tasks that improve the fruit and leave a permanent benefit—such as digging a well, building a water channel, planting new trees, or erecting a storehouse—may be included only by explicit stipulation, not by the contract alone. Tasks that improve the fruit but do not endure—such as digging temporary trenches, irrigating, pruning the vines, trimming the trees, pollinating, and harvesting—are automatically included by the contract itself.

The jurists unanimously agree that any livestock or slaves present in the orchard are not part of the worker’s entitlement. They differ, however, on whether the worker may stipulate their use at the owner’s expense. Mālik permits such a condition when the animals or slaves were already in the orchard before the musāqāh; if they were not, the condition is invalid. Al-Shāfiʿī sees no harm in the stipulation even if they were not previously there, a view also held by Ibn Nāfiʿ among Mālik’s followers. Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan rules that the worker may not impose such a condition on the owner, whereas the owner may impose it on the worker. His objection is the uncertainty this introduces into the owner’s share, while those who permit it regard the matter as trivial.

Because the ruling oscillates between these two principles, Mālik deemed the stipulation acceptable only for slaves already present in the orchard at the time of the musāqāh and prohibited it in other cases, for the benefit being stipulated is more obvious there. Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan’s distinction rests on the premise that requiring such service from the worker resembles the labor he is already obliged to perform with his own hands.

All scholars who validate musāqāh concur that if all expenses are borne by the owner of the orchard and the worker contributes nothing beyond his labor, the contract is invalid, for this would be a lease based on something not yet created.

Such, then, are the attributes of this pillar of musāqāh and the conditions attached to it—those that are permissible and those that are not.