and shipowner, in keeping with the established practice of paying for the use of their services. All these are entitled to the customary remuneration when no amount has been specified.

Likewise, if someone engages a group to witness his transaction and attest to it in writing, they are entitled to a reward. This is comparable to engaging them for other such tasks. If it is held that they are entitled to a reward, they are entitled to the customary reward for people doing such work, proportionate to the work each performs. If their work and the benefits they provide are equal, they are entitled to equal shares of the reward. The correct position is that this person’s statement is valid if they have not previously formed a partnership. If, however, they have formed a partnership in their earnings from testimony, this is like their partnership in earnings from other reward arrangements and contracts of hire.

Furthermore, the reward for testimony may concern work undertaken as a contractual liability, with the witness entitled to appoint someone in his place to testify for the person offering the reward. In this case, the partnership is valid according to all who recognize labor partnerships—the majority of scholars, including Abū Hanīfah, Mālik, Ahmad, and others. This is the correct view, supported by the Quran, the Sunnah, and sound reasoning.

If, however, the reward is conditional upon that particular witness giving testimony, the two previously mentioned views apply. Here too, the correct view is that such a partnership is permissible, as is Mālik’s position according to the more correct of the two views. However, neither partner may abandon