Islamic Fiqh > Companies and leases > Ijara (leasing) > The exclusive hired worker is a trustee
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 6:57 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
Al-Mawsu'a al-fiqhiyya divides hired workers into two broad categories: the exclusive hired worker (ajir khass), who places himself at the service of a single employer, or of a specific group, for a fixed period, and the shared hired worker (ajir mushtarak), who works for the public at large against the result of his work: fuller, dyer, tailor, porter, physician. The sixteen sheets below examine, school by school, the position of trust or liability of each, the validity of stipulating liability in the contract, the prayer times excluded from the hiring period, working for others during the engagement, the withholding of the entrusted object until the fee is paid, and the liability of the cupper, the physician, the circumciser and the veterinarian. The positions of the four schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali) are reported faithfully, with the classical references of the cited works.
(Makhssus): the absence of any mention of generalization; there is nothing besides it, whether the restriction is mentioned or not. But if the generalization is mentioned, by stating explicitly that the exclusive hired worker falls under the ruling of the shared hired worker, he then becomes a shared hired worker. It is as if the inhabitants of a village, or two men, or three, allowed a shepherd to graze the sheep of others: the shepherd becomes a shared hired worker.
From all of this it is drawn that a worker is neither exclusive nor shared according to the number of his employers: just as he is exclusive or shared when the employer is one, he is likewise so when the employers are many, according to the contract of hire.
The exclusive hired worker may not commit himself to work for anyone other than his employer, or his employers, during the period for which he was hired; for his availabilities during that period belong to his employer, or his employers, and he therefore cannot alienate them, at the same time, to anyone else. The exclusive hired worker engaged by one man alone is called a "single worker" (ajir wahd), a name not given to one engaged by two persons or more: every "single worker" is an exclusive hired worker, but not every exclusive hired worker is a single worker (Durrar al-Hukkam, 1/386).
The Malikis said: the worker of a specific person, or of a specific group, bears no liability (al-Sharh al-Kabir, 5/376; Hashiyat al-Sawi 'ala al-Sharh al-Saghir, 9/41).
The exclusive hired worker is a trustee:
The jurists of the four schools, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali, agree in principle that the exclusive hired worker is liable neither for what perishes in his hands nor for what perishes through his work. As for the first case, it is because the object is a trust in his hands: he received it with the permission of its owner, so he is the owner's deputy in directing the benefits of that object toward what he was ordered; he therefore bears no liability short of transgression, like the agent (wakil), the partner and the mudaraba partner.
As for the second case, it is because when the benefits have become the property of the employer, the latter may charge him to dispose of his property, and the worker becomes a valid deputy; his act is then transferred to the employer as if he had acted with his own person, and that is why he is not liable for it.
For example: whoever engages a tailor or a blacksmith for a day or a month so that he works for him alone does not guarantee the object that perishes in his hands, as long as there is neither transgression nor negligence in guarding it, whether the thing perishes in his hands or in the course of the work.
What perishes through his transgression, on the other hand, must be compensated: such as the baker who exceeds in the fire, who presses the dough against it before its time or leaves it beyond its time until it burns; the thing perished through his transgression, so he is liable for it, unlike the exclusive hired worker.
Ibn Abi Musa of the Hanbalis went so far as to say that he is liable for what his hand has spoiled; and it is related from Ahmad, in one narration, the liability for what perishes through a hidden order known only from his side (Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama, 4/86; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 5/137; al-'Inaya, 12/436; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 3/344; al-Lubab, 1/481; al-Ta'rifat of al-Jurjani, p. 34; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 8/23-24; Durrar al-Hukkam, 7/102; Majma' al-Anhur, 3/547-548; al-Durr al-Mukhtar, 6/69-70; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 7/28; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 3/411; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 5/355; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 5/376; Kanz al-Raghibin, 3/197; al-Mughni, 5/306; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 6/64; Sharh al-Zarkashi, 2/186; al-Mubdi', 5/84; al-Insaf, 6/71).
The jurists differed concerning an employer who would stipulate on the exclusive hired worker liability for what does not have to be liable on his part.
The Hanafis, the Malikis and the Hanbalis, in one view, said: stipulating liability on the trustee is not valid.
The Malikis said: the employer is a trustee who bears no liability if he asserts loss or destruction, whether it is something that can be hidden from him or not; and he swears an oath if he is suspected, saying: "It was lost and I neglected nothing."
If liability was stipulated on him, the contract of hire is corrupted, because it is a condition that contradicts the contract; should it occur, he is entitled to the fee of the like (ujrat al-mithl), whether it exceeds the stipulated fee or falls short of it. The corruption takes place only if the condition was not removed before the loss; otherwise the contract is valid. The loss here means the completion of the work: its cancellation in the course of the work is, for validity, like its cancellation before.
The upshot is that it is a condition that corrupts the contract as long as it is not removed; but if it is discovered after the work, the worker is entitled to the fee of the like and the condition is not applied (al-Sharh al-Kabir with the hashiya of al-Dasuqi, 5/370; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 4/494-495; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 7/26; Tahbir al-Mukhtasar, 4/574; Hashiyat al-Sawi, 9/31).
The Hanafis said: the contract of hire is corrupted by conditions that the contract does not require, as when liability is stipulated on the exclusive hired worker for what perishes through his act or without his act, or on the shared hired worker for what perishes without his act, according to the view of Abu Hanifa. But if a condition that the contract requires is stipulated, as when liability is stipulated on the shared hired worker for what perishes through his act, the contract is not corrupted (al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 3/345; al-Hindiyya, 4/442).
The author of al-Durr al-Mukhtar said: in al-Qunya, Muhammad Najm al-Din was asked about a little girl who fell from a roof, and her head swelled. Many surgeons said: if you cut her head open, she dies. One of them said: if you do not cut it open today she dies, and I will cut it open and cure her. He cut it open, and she died after a day or two. Is he liable? He pondered for a long time, then said: no, if the incision was made with permission, and it was customary, and it was not excessive, going outside the norm (that is, outside the established practice). He was told: and if he had said: if she dies, I am liable, would he be liable? He pondered for a long time, then said: no. The condition of liability was therefore not taken into account, for a condition imposed on a trustee is null, according to the fatwa (al-Durr al-Mukhtar with the hashiya of Ibn Abidin, 6/567-568; Majma' al-Damanat, p. 147).
The Hanbalis said: everything that is a trust does not become liable through a stipulation, because the contract requires that it remain a trust; if its liability is stipulated, one binds oneself to compensate what has no cause of liability, and it therefore does not apply, as if one stipulated the liability of a deposit (wadi'a) or the liability of property in the hands of its own owner.
And what is liable does not lose its liability through a stipulation, because the contract requires liability; if its negation is stipulated, it is not removed as long as its cause exists, as if one stipulated the negation of liability for what one exceeds the limits in.
It is related from Ahmad that this was mentioned to him and he said: "The believers are bound by their conditions," which indicates the removal of liability through stipulation; and it is the apparent view of the school (al-Mughni, 5/312-313; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 6/366-367; al-Mubdi', 5/145; al-Insaf, 6/113).
The jurists have indicated that when a worker is hired to work for a determined period, the following are excluded from the hired period: the time taken by the obligatory acts of worship that can only be performed at specific times, as well as the customary meal times, among workers and employers alike. Likewise, when the period is fixed over a long span of time, the days of festivals established by the Law and the days of rest established by custom are excluded; the worker is entitled to the fee for those days and those times even if the contract does not mention them, and the employer may deduct nothing from the agreed fee for the day, the month or the year, as long as custom is observed. They differed over whether the worker may perform the supererogatory prayers.
The Hanafis said: the exclusive hired worker may perform the obligatory prayers, but he may not perform the supererogatory prayers (nafl).
It is said in al-Tatarkhaniyya and in al-Fatawa al-Fadliyya: if a man is hired for a day to do such-and-such work, he must do that work until the end of the period and not occupy himself with anything besides the obligatory prayers.
And in the Fatawa of Samarqand: some of our shaykhs said: he may also perform the sunna. They agreed that he does not perform the supererogatory prayer, and this is the fatwa.
In Gharib al-Riwaya, Abu Ali al-Daqqaq said: in the capital he is not prevented from attending the Friday prayer; if he is far, the measure of his occupation is deducted from his fee, and if he is near, nothing is deducted from him. If he is far and occupies himself for a quarter of the day, a quarter of the fee is deducted from him. If the worker says: deduct from the quarter the measure of my occupation by the prayer, that is not granted him. Then he said: it is possible that the measure of his occupation by the prayer be deducted from the quarter. So it is in al-Muhit. A worker is hired for a month to do such-and-such work: the day of Friday does not enter it according to custom, and the count begins from the dawn prayer. So it is in Khizanat al-Fatawa (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 'ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar, 6/70; al-Muhit al-Burhani, 7/730; al-Hindiyya, 4/416-417).
The Hanbalis said: whoever hires himself out for a known period, his employer is entitled to his benefit throughout it, except the time of the five prayers with their regular sunnas at their lawful times, and except the time of the Friday prayer and the prayer of the festival of breaking the fast or of the sacrifice; for those times do not enter the contract, but are excluded from it by the Law. By analogy with the five prayers stands the funeral prayer, if he must attend it.
Al-Majd (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the apparent meaning of the text is that he is prevented from the particularity of congregational prayer, except with permission or a condition. Al-Ruhaybani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it is strongly inclined that the exclusive hired worker may perform the prayer in congregation (Matalib Uli al-Nuhha, 3/626; al-Mubdi', 5/108; Kashshaf al-Qina', 4/39; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 4/37; al-Rawd al-Murbi', 2/101; Manar al-Sabil, 2/227).
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Ahmad said: the worker hired by the month attends the festivals and Friday, without that being stipulated. He was told: does he perform the two supererogatory rak'ahs? He said: as long as it does not harm his employer. He only permitted him that because the prayer times are excluded from the service; that is why they are likewise excluded for the retreatant in spiritual retreat who leaves his retreat for them. Ibn al-Mubarak said: there is no harm in the worker performing the rak'ahs of the sunna; Abu Thawr and Ibn al-Mundhir said: he cannot be prevented from them (al-Mughni, 5/271; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 6/7).
The Shafi'is said: the worker hired for a person (ajir al-'ayn) must attend Friday. They said: as for what custom establishes, such as one who bakes bread and receives the customary fee, his occupation with the bread is not an excuse: attendance at Friday is obligatory, even if the bread is spoiled, as long as the owner of the bread has not prevented him from attending; he therefore does not disobey. It is proper to say that if he transgressed and placed his hand on it, whereas if he left it and went to Friday the bread would spoil, that would be an excuse, even if he sins by the very fact of occupying himself with the bread in a way that leads to its spoiling if he goes to Friday. The rest of the workers are in the same case: the carpenter, the builder and the like. Al-Jamal said in his hashiya: the apparent meaning of its absolute wording, as with pilgrimage, is that wherever his work is not corrupted, attendance is obligatory, even if its time exceeds, at the place of work, the time of the prayer, however long. The wording of the expository and reference books is that hire is not an excuse for Friday: the two shaykhs mentioned, in its chapter, that the time of purifications, the obligatory prayer and the regular prayers are excluded from it, even if it is a Friday. Al-Azra'i showed that the employer is not required to enable him to go to the mosque for congregation other than on Friday. He said: there is no doubt about that when he is far away, or when his imam lengthens the prayer. Friday is therefore distinguished from congregation: congregation is an accessory, recurring quality, so it was conditioned, to lighten its weight, that its time not be long, out of regard for the employer's right; and the solitary prayer sufficed to discharge the duty, unlike Friday, which does not fall away even if its time is long, because its falling away would cause the prayer to be missed without a substitute (Hashiyat al-Jamal 'ala Sharh al-Manhaj, 2/4; Hawashi al-Shirwani 'ala Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 2/406).
The shaykh Zakariyya al-Ansari (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the time of purifications and the obligatory prayer, even if it is Friday, and of the regular prayers, is excluded from the hire for work of a determined period; nothing is therefore deducted from the fee. If he prayed and then said: I was in a state of major impurity, al-Qaffal said: we do not prevent him from repeating it, but the measure of the second prayer is deducted from his fee and he is prevented from the third, for he is being stubborn. Al-Azra'i said: the apparent meaning is that the employer is not required to enable him to go to the mosque for congregation other than on Friday, and there is no doubt when the mosque is very far from him; if it is very near, it is possible, unless his imam is one of those who lengthen the prayer, in which case no. It falls to the worker to lighten the prayer while completing it. The moment when he must be enabled to go to Friday is when he does not fear the corruption of his work, and that is the apparent meaning. Likewise, the Sabbath of the Jews is excluded if it is recognized for them, and the case of the Christians on Sunday is the same, as al-Zarkashi said. He said: do the rest of their festivals join it? That is to be examined, especially those lasting days; the closer view is prevention, for they are not widespread in the custom of the Muslims and most people are ignorant of them, and the dhimmi is negligent in not excepting them (Asna al-Matalib Sharh Rawd al-Talib, 2/436).
Al-Suyuti (may Allah have mercy on him) said: al-Ghazali was asked about the Jew who hires himself out for a known period: what is the ruling on the Sabbaths that fall within it if he does not except them; and if he excepts them, is the hire valid, since it leads to delaying delivery after the contract?
Al-Ghazali answered: if their custom is constant in this respect, the generality of the contract amounts to an explicit exception, like the exception of the night for work that can only be done by day; its ruling is that if he concludes the hire at the beginning of the night, stating that it runs to the beginning of the next day, it is not valid; if he leaves it general, it is valid, even if the situation requires postponing the work, as when land is leased for cultivation at a time when sowing cannot be done, or a house full of furnishings that cannot be emptied except in a day or two. End of quotation. Al-Rafi'i and al-Nawawi transmitted it from him without transmitting it from anyone else. Al-Subki said: it should not be adopted as it stands, but examined. The qadi of the qadis Abu Bakr al-Shami was asked about it, and he said: he is compelled to work on those days, for it is our Law that is the criterion in this. Al-Ghazali's words were mentioned to him and he said: it is not sound. Then he said: it may be said so, and they may be excepted by custom. Al-Subki said: al-Ghazali's words are solid and sound, full of benefits, and preferable to those of Abu Bakr al-Shami; for custom, though not general, exists among them, and it then ranks like the custom of rest times (Asna al-Matalib, 2/436).
He said: his words "if their custom is constant in this respect" must be referred to the custom of the employer and the lessor together, whether the employer is a Muslim or not. If the custom of the Jews is constant in this but the Muslim employer does not know of it, the generality of the contract does not amount to an exception in his regard; the word of the Muslim prevails, if he is not of the people of that town and nothing in his state indicates that he knows that custom. Then, shall one say the contract is null, or that it is valid giving a right of option, or that the Jew is obliged to work? That is to be examined; the closest is the third, for the Jew, by leaving it general with one who is not of the people of the custom, is at fault. He said: when the situation requires the exception and the dhimmi embraces Islam during the period of hire, and the Sabbath day comes after his conversion, work on that day becomes obligatory; for in the case of the exception we say that he is outside the contract of hire; if that were so, the dispute would run within the hire itself, as with the hire of offspring ('aqib), and it would be permitted for him to hire himself out on the Sabbath day to another; and permitting that is far-fetched, for it would result in one contract of hire upon one person for two persons, with completeness in a single period, and the words of the jurists do not allow it: they stated explicitly that when a contract is concluded upon a person, a like contract cannot be concluded upon her. The same applies to the exception of the prayer times and the like: it does not mean that those times are inserted between the times of the hire, as with the hire of offspring; rather, for all of it one says that the benefit of that person throughout that period is owed to the employer, acquired by the contract, and that nevertheless he must be spared work at those times, just as the master is entitled to the benefit of his slave at all times yet must spare him the times of the prayers and of nightly rest. Such is the meaning of the exception: an exception from enjoyment, not from entitlement; if you will, from the enjoyment of the possessed thing, not of the possessor; if you will: the contract requires the entitlement, but an impediment opposes it, hence the exception. The Sabbaths therefore form part of the hire, and their benefit is the property of the employer; only the enjoyment is forbidden him by a customary cause conditioned upon the continuance of his Jewishness. When he converts, the impediment disappears and the entitlement remains established by the generality of the contract: he then enjoys it, and he must, after his conversion, perform the prayers at their times, while the employer's right to enjoy it vanishes with Islam, although the benefit belongs to him by the contract; just as, in the hire of a Muslim, he has no right to enjoy it although it belongs to him by the contract. The right to put it to work was only obligatory before Islam, for lack of any impediment to enjoyment, the entitlement standing. The same applies if a woman is hired for work for a period and she menstruates during part of it: the prayer times during menstruation are not excluded, outside of it they are; and one looks, in this, not at the state at the contract, but at the state at enjoyment. Likewise the hire of camels for pilgrimage: their march is reckoned by custom and the usual stages; if, during the period of hire, custom changes and people travel otherwise than before, without harm to the worker or the employer, one returns to what has become the custom of the people; and we do not say the contract is rescinded by applying the first custom: such is the requirement of fiqh, even if I have not found it transmitted. He said: if the employer makes the Jew work on the Sabbath day unjustly, or compels the Muslim to work at the prayer times, the fee of the like is not owed to him. Al-Baghawi said in his fatawa: if a slave is hired and then put to work at the rest times, no additional fee is due, for the whole of the time is owed; if he leaves him to rest in order to complete his work and a deficiency enters it, the arsh (compensation) of the deficiency is due; and if he puts him to work at the prayer times, no increase of fee is due, and he must be left to make up the prayer. Such are his words. End (al-Ashbah wa-l-Naza'ir, pp. 99, 101).
Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if a worker is hired for work for a period, the time of purifications, the obligatory prayers and their regular sunnas is excluded, and nothing is deducted from the fee, Friday or otherwise. It is related from Ibn Surayj the lawfulness of leaving Friday for this reason, transmitted by Abu l-Fadl Ibn 'Abdan.
The Sabbaths (sabbut) are excluded in the hire of the Jew if their custom is constant; this is the view of al-Ghazali in his Fatawa (Rawdat al-Talibin, 4/82).
Note: the sabbut are the plural of sabt; the sabt of the Jews is their interruption of daily life and of earning (al-Misbah al-Munir, entry s-b-t).
A woman may hire a woman, and a man may hire a man; but the jurists differed over the case of the woman: may a man hire her for service when seclusion (khalwa) with her is possible? If he hires her for service or for work without being able to be alone with her, there is no disagreement among them over its lawfulness.
The Hanafis said: it is disapproved for a man to hire a woman for service. Imam Abu Hanifa said: I disapprove of a man hiring a free woman to employ her and being alone with her; the same applies to the slave girl; and this is the view of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad. As for the disapproval of seclusion, it is because being alone with a foreign woman is disobedience; and as for the employment, it is because it does not secure against looking at her and falling into disobedience (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 4/189).
Burhan al-Din Ibn Maza (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Muhit al-Burhani: Muhammad (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Asl: it is disapproved for a man to hire a free woman to employ her while being alone with her; for seclusion with a foreign woman before hire is disapproved, lest it become a cause of falling into temptation; and this meaning exists after the hire, but the hire is permitted because it was concluded upon employment, and that is permitted with seclusion, which may or may not occur; it resembles hire for the writing of elegies and singing, which is permitted because the disobedience lies in the recitation, which may or may not occur; here likewise, except that he did not mention the disapproval there and mentioned it here; because he may be alone with her, and seclusion with a foreign woman to lead her into disobedience is stronger than writing to lead him into recitation; that is why he mentioned the disapproval here and not there.
It is said in al-Nawazil: "A free woman hired herself to a man with a family: there is no harm in it, but it is disapproved to be alone with her, for it falls under the likelihood of falling into corruption; this is the explanation of what is mentioned in al-Asl" (al-Muhit al-Burhani, 8/36; Durrar al-Hukkam, 1/556).
The Shafi'is: it is said in the hashiya of 'Umayra: if a foreign man hires a slave girl to serve him, there are two views, and the more correct would be prohibition, for he can hardly avoid looking at her (Hashiyat 'Umayra 'ala Kanz al-Raghibin, 3/170-171).
The Hanbalis said: if a foreign woman, free or slave, is hired for lawful work to be done for him, it is permitted, an explicit text; and the ruling of looking at her and of seclusion with her remains what it was before the hire.
Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the foreign man may hire the slave girl and the free woman for service, but he must turn his face away from looking at the free woman. The slave girl is not like the free woman: one does not stay alone with her in a house, one does not look at her uncovered nor at her hair. He only said that because the ruling of looking after the hire is like before it, and there is a difference between the free woman and the slave girl because they differ before the hire; so it is after it: it is not permitted for the employer to look at anything of the free woman, unlike the slave girl, of whom he may look at the six members, or what is not the prayer 'awra.
The upshot is that the employer of either is like the foreigner: he may not be alone with either of them in a house, nor look at the free woman uncovered nor at her attached hair, which is part of her 'awra, unlike the slave girl (al-Mughni, 5/271; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 6/7; Matalib Uli al-Nuhha, 3/614-615).
The ruling on hiring the wife, with or without her husband's permission, has already been treated.
There is no disagreement among the jurists that a Muslim may hire a dhimmi.
There is likewise no disagreement that if the Muslim hires himself from the dhimmi for a specific work falling within his responsibility (dhimma), such as sewing a garment or shortening it, it is permitted, with disapproval among the majority; for Ali hired himself to a Jew to water for him: a bucket for a date; he informed the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and he did not disapprove of it; the same was the case with the Ansari. And because it is a contract of exchange that involves neither humiliation of the Muslim nor employment of his person, resembling his pledge of allegiance.
They only differed over this: may the dhimmi hire the Muslim for service?
The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, the Malikis and the Shafi'is in one view, and the Hanbalis in one narration, hold that it is disapproved for a Muslim to hire himself for the service of a dhimmi in what is not forbidden to the Muslim; otherwise it is forbidden.
The Hanafis said: if a dhimmi hires a Muslim to serve him, it is mentioned in al-Asl that it is permitted, but it is disapproved for the Muslim to serve the dhimmi. As for the disapproval: employment is a humiliation; the hire of the Muslim's own person is therefore a humiliation of himself, and the Muslim may not humiliate himself, especially in the service of an infidel. As for its lawfulness: it is a contract of exchange, therefore permitted like sale (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 4/189).
It is said in al-Fatawa al-Fadliyya: the hire of the Muslim's person to the Christian for service is not permitted; for other than service it is permitted, and the worker has wide scope in it as long as there is no humiliation (al-Muhit al-Burhani, 8/40).
It is said in Ghumz 'Uyun al-Basa'ir, the commentary on the Book of al-Ashbah wa-l-Naza'ir, by Ibn Nujaym, for al-Hamawi: his words "it is disapproved for the Muslim to hire himself from an infidel to press grapes".
I say: pressing grapes is not a restriction; the intent is that he hires himself for his service; as is said in Sharh al-Majj' by Ibn al-Malik: if an infidel hires a Muslim for service, it is permitted by consensus, but disapproved, for it involves contempt in appearance. End.
It is said in al-Dhakhira: if a Jew enters the bath, may the Muslim servant serve him? If he does so hoping for his money, there is no harm; if he does so to honor him without intending what we mentioned, or stands up in honor of his wealth, it is disapproved (Ghumz 'Uyun al-Basa'ir, 3/401).
The Malikis said: it is disapproved for a Muslim to hire out his person, his child, his slave or his mount to an infidel; and this applies when the Muslim may do it for himself: sewing, building, plowing and the like. As for what the Muslim may not do for himself, such as pressing wine, herding pigs and the like: he may not hire himself for it, and the Muslim is disciplined, unless excused by ignorance.
If it is discovered before the work, the hire is rescinded; if the work has taken place, the fee is taken from the infidel and given in charity to the poor, as correction of the Muslim, unless he is excused by ignorance; in that case it is not taken from him.
It is said in al-Mudawwana al-Kubra, concerning the man who hires himself to the Christian: I say: what do you think of a Christian who hires a Muslim to serve him: is this hire permitted in Malik's view? It is said: Malik was asked about the Muslim who takes money from a Christian in qirad, and he disapproved of it for him; other people of knowledge disapproved of it too, and I do not think Malik disapproved of it except on the side of hire. It has reached me that Malik disapproved of the Muslim hiring himself to the Christian. I say: what do you think if he hires himself to guard his olive trees, to plow or to build? He said: I disapprove of his hiring himself in the service of this Christian (al-Mudawwana al-Kubra, 11/433; Mawahib al-Jalil, 7/424; al-Bayan wa-l-Tahsil, 5/154; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 5/361; al-Dhakhira, 5/398; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 7/20; Tahbir al-Mukhtasar, 4/567; Manh al-Jalil, 7/498).
The Shafi'is said: it is valid, with disapproval, for a dhimmi to hire a Muslim, even a hire of the person; and the Muslim may charge an infidel to deputize for him in the service of the infidel, as an obligation in the hire of responsibility; and it is ordered, as an obligation, to remove ownership from him in the hire of the person; the ruler may prevent him from it; and it is not permitted for a Muslim to serve an infidel, even without hire (Hashiyat Qalyubi, 3/163).
Al-Shirazi said in al-Muhadhdhab: chapter: they differed concerning the infidel who hires a Muslim by a specific hire. Some said: two views; for it is a contract that involves the confinement of the Muslim, like the sale of the Muslim slave. Others said: valid by a single view, for Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, used to draw water for a Jewish woman: a bucket for a date (al-Muhadhdhab, 1/395).
Al-'Imrani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if the infidel hires a Muslim, it is examined: if he hires him for a work within his responsibility, it is valid, for there is no humiliation in that.
If he hires him for a reckoned work, in a known time, there are two ways: the first: some of ours say: two views, on the basis of the two views on the lawfulness of the infidel buying the Muslim; for in it there is dominion over him and humiliation, like ownership. The other: some say: valid by a single view, for what we mentioned of the hadith of Ali, and because it is a work in return for a counter-value, resembling work within his responsibility and differing from ownership, which requires domination and perpetuity of possession over him (al-Bayan, 7/294-295).
Ibn Hajar al-Haytami was asked about the case of an infidel who hires a Muslim by a hire of the person: is it forbidden for the Muslim to complete the hire with his own person? He answered: it is not forbidden for the Muslim to complete the hire with his own person, but it is disapproved; however, if the hire concerns what is degrading, such as lowly works unbefitting him, the disapproval intensifies, and prohibition has even been said in that case (al-Fatawa al-Fiqhiyya al-Kubra, 3/147).
The Hanbalis, in the school, and the Shafi'is, in one view, as has preceded, hold that a Muslim may not hire himself for the service of an infidel.
Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the summary of his school (that is, of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him): the hire of the Muslim's person to the dhimmi is of three types: the first, a hire for a work within the responsibility: it is permitted. The second, a hire for service: two explicit narrations, the more correct of which is prohibition. The third, a hire of his person for other than service: it is permitted. Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) hired himself to a Jew to draw water for him: a bucket for a date, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ate of those dates.
All of this when the hire is for a work that does not involve honoring their religion and their rites; if the hire concerns a work that involves it, it is not permitted, as Ahmad explicitly stated in the narration of Ishaq ibn Ibrahim: a builder asked him: shall I build for the Magians a tomb? He said: do not build for them (Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimma, 1/208-209).
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the hire of the Muslim to the dhimmi for his service is not permitted; Ahmad explicitly stated it in the narration of al-Athram: if he hires himself from the dhimmi for his service, it is not permitted; if it is a work, it is permitted; and this is one of the two views of al-Shafi'i; in the other he said: it is permitted, for the hire of his person for other than service is permitted for him, so it is permitted here, as his hire from the Muslim.
And for us: it is a contract that involves the confinement of the Muslim with the infidel, his humiliation and his employment, resembling sale; it is confirmed by the fact that the contract of hire for service necessarily requires his confinement during the period of the hire and his employment, whereas sale does not require that; if sale is prevented, it is more fitting to prevent hire.
If he hires himself for a specific work within the responsibility, such as sewing a garment or shortening it, it is permitted without any disagreement we know of; for Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) hired himself to a Jew to water for him: a bucket for a date, informed the Prophet and he did not disapprove of it; the same was the case with the Ansari; and because it is a contract of exchange involving neither humiliation nor employment. If he hires himself for a work other than service, for a known period, it is also permitted, according to the apparent meaning of Ahmad's words; by his words in the narration of al-Athram: if it is a work, it is permitted.
Ahmad ibn Sa'id transmitted from him: there is no harm in his hiring himself from the dhimmi; and that is absolute in both types of hire. Some of our companions mentioned that the apparent meaning of Ahmad's words is prohibition, and argued by what al-Athram related, holding that it is a contract that involves the confinement of the Muslim, resembling sale. The correct is what we mentioned; Ahmad's words only indicate the contrary: he restricted prohibition to the hire for service and permitted the hire for work; and this is a hire for work; it differs from sale, which establishes ownership over the Muslim, and from the hire for service, which includes humiliation (al-Mughni, 5/322-323; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 6/38-39; Kashshaf al-Qina', 3/658-659; Matalib Uli al-Nuhha, 3/615).
The jurists of the four schools hold that the exclusive hired worker may neither hire himself elsewhere, nor perform any work other than that for which he was hired during the period; for his availabilities during that period are owed to his employer. The majority of jurists said: the measure of what he did for another is deducted from his fee.
The Hanafis said: the exclusive hired worker may not hire himself from another; he was named exclusive because he is reserved for his work, to the exclusion of others; he cannot work for another during the period, for his availabilities in it are owed to the employer, and the fee is the counter-value of the availabilities; that is why the fee remains owed even if the work diminishes. It is said in al-Durr al-Mukhtar: the exclusive worker may not work for another; if he works, the measure of his work is deducted from his fee.
Ibn Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it is said in al-Tatarkhaniyya: a carpenter was hired until nightfall, and he worked for another an inkwell for a dirham, knowing of it: he is a sinner; if he did not know, nothing is imputed to him; and the measure of his work on the inkwell is deducted from the carpenter's fee (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin with al-Durr al-Mukhtar, 6/70; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 3/343; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 5/134; al-'Inaya, 12/435; al-Muhit al-Burhani, 8/31).
The Malikis said: the worker of service, that is, the exclusive hired worker, may not hire himself from anyone other than his employer; if he hires himself for a day or more and causes the employer to miss what he hired him for, or part of it, the fee belongs to the first employer, or he may leave him the fee and deduct the share of that day from the first fee. If he causes him to miss nothing by handing over to him all that he was hired for, no claim lies. Likewise if he works gratuitously: the value of what he did is deducted from his fee (al-Sharh al-Kabir with the hashiya of al-Dasuqi, 5/368; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 7/24; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 4/492; al-Fawa'id al-Dawaniyya, 2/116).
The Hanbalis said: the exclusive hired worker may not work for anyone other than his employer, for he causes him to miss what he acquired by the contract; if he works for another and harms the employer, the employer has, according to the correct view of the school, the value of what he caused him to miss of his benefit through his work for another.
Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) said concerning a man who hired a worker to cut wood for him on two donkeys every day: the man transported for him and on the donkeys of another man, taking from him the fee; if harm enters it, there is recourse against him by the value.
Ibn Qudama said in al-Mughni: the apparent meaning is that the employer has recourse against the worker for the value of what he was harmed by his occupation with another work; for he said: if harm enters it, there is recourse by the value; the harm was taken into consideration. The apparent meaning is that if he was not harmed, no recourse takes place; for he hired him for a work and paid him in full, so nothing is incumbent on him, as if one hired him for a work and he recited the Quran during his work: if he harms the employer, there is recourse against him for the value of what he caused him to miss.
It is possible that he meant that recourse takes place for the value of his work for another, for he diverted the availabilities of the object of the contract to the work of one other than the employer; their value is therefore incumbent on him, as if he had worked for himself.
Al-Qadi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: its meaning is that there is recourse against him for the fee he took from the other; for his availabilities during that period belong to another, and what is obtained in return belongs to the one who hired him (al-Mughni, 5/269; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 6/59; al-Insaf, 6/72; Kashshaf al-Qina', 4/40; Matalib Uli al-Nuhha, 3/674).
The Shafi'is said: the isolated worker (munfarid), who hires himself for a determined period for work for another, whether he fixes it by a duration or by a work, cannot lawfully commit himself likewise to another during that period; he is named thus because the employer alone possesses his benefit during that period (Rawdat al-Talibin, 4/55-56; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 3/411; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 5/355; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 5/376; Kanz al-Raghibin, 3/197; al-Siraj al-Wahhaj, p. 294). But I have not found them stating explicitly: if he works for another, is the fee owed to him, or does it belong to the first employer?
The shared hired worker, or the worker of the many, is he who works for the generality of people, or he who is entitled to the fee by the work, not by the handing over of his person: dyer, blacksmith, practitioner of cautery, craftsman, physician and the like.
The Hanafis said: the shared hired worker is anyone who is entitled to the fee only after working: fuller, dyer, tailor; for the shared worker works for the employer and for others, and is therefore not reserved to his work; when the object of the contract is the work or its effect, he may work for the generality, for his availabilities have not become owed to any single person; it is from this angle that he is called shared (al-'Inaya, 12/426; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 3/340; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 8/30). Or he is he who works not for one, or for one without a determination of time; and one of its rulings is that he is entitled to the fee only after performing the object of the contract, like the dyer and the tailor (al-Lubab, 1/479-480). It is also said: the shared hired worker is he whose contract falls upon a known work (al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 8/30; Majma' al-Anhur, 3/544).
The Shafi'is said: the shared hired worker is he who commits to work within his responsibility, as is the habit of tailors, goldsmiths and porters who carry for everyone; if he commits to a person, he can commit likewise to another; he is thus as if shared among people (al-Muhadhdhab, 1/408; Tahrir al-Alfaz al-Tanbih, p. 224; Rawdat al-Talibin, 4/55-56; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 3/411; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 5/355; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 5/376; Kanz al-Raghibin, 3/197).
The Hanbalis said: the shared hired worker is he whose benefit is reckoned by the work, whether the duration is mentioned in it, like a kohl-applier for a month, each day so many times, or not, like the sewing of a garment, the building of a wall, the transport of an object to a determined place; or upon a work for a period whose benefit he does not have in its entirety, like the physician. He is named shared because he accepts works for a group at one time, working for them who share in his benefit: weaver, fuller, cook, porter; that is why he is called shared. The hire attaches to his responsibility, not to his person, and he is entitled to the fee only by the handing over of his work, not of his person, unlike the exclusive hired worker, whose benefit is reckoned by time, as has preceded (al-Mubdi', 5/109; Kashshaf al-Qina', 4/40; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 4/67; Matalib Uli al-Nuhha, 3/678).
The ruling of what is in the hands of the shared hired worker was like that of the exclusive hired worker: the hand of each is a hand of trust, and he guarantees the loss of the thing only through transgression or negligence. But, because of the corruption of people's religion and the multitude of their claims of loss, the jurists imposed liability on the shared hired worker, for the interest of people.
Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the origin, for the craftsmen, that is, the shared hired workers, is absence of liability; they are trustworthy because they are hired workers, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) removed liability from the hired worker. The scholars singled out the craftsmen from that and made them liable, by consideration and ijtihad, for the necessity of people; and this belongs to the dominant interests that must be preserved (al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 4/498).
Ibn Wahb (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Malik told me: the craftsmen only guarantee what is handed over to them of what they work upon on the side of people's need for their works, not on the side of choice and trust; if that were left to their trust, people's wealth would perish and they would dare to take it; if they left it, they would find no one to entrust it to, and no one else does those works; so they became liable for the interest of people. Among what resembles this in the interest of the generality: the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
"Let not the townsman sell on behalf of the bedouin, and do not lay hold of goods until they are moved down to the markets."This hadith combines two hadiths: the first narrated by Bukhari (2160) and Muslim (1521), the second narrated by Bukhari (2165)
When he saw that it reformed the generality, he commanded it (al-Mudawwana al-Kubra, 11/388).
On this basis, the four schools agree that the shared hired worker guarantees what his hand has spoiled or what he neglected to guard. As for what perishes in his hands without transgression or negligence on his part, the jurists differed over it.
Abu Hanifa, Zufar, al-Hasan ibn Ziyad, al-Shafi'i in one narration, and Ahmad in one narration, said: the hand of the shared hired worker is a hand of trust, like the exclusive hired worker; for the origin is that liability falls only upon the transgressor, according to the word of Allah:
"And there is no aggression except against the wrongdoers"
Surah Al-Baqarah, 193
And no transgression is found on the part of the worker, for he was permitted to receive the object: he received it with the permission of its owner, and the loss is not of his making; liability therefore does not fall upon him; that is why it does not fall upon the depositor either.
The majority of jurists, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad (upon which the Hanafi fatwa is established), the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in the school, said: the hand of the shared hired worker is a hand of liability: he guarantees what perishes in his hands even without transgression or negligence on his part, except in predominant fire, predominant drowning or predominant theft, according to Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, the Malikis and one Hanbali view.
That is because it is related that Umar made the shared hired worker liable as a precaution for people's wealth; and this is the meaning of the issue: these workers to whom wealth is handed over without witnesses, of whom treachery is feared; if they knew they do not guarantee, people's wealth would perish, for they would not fail to claim loss; and this meaning does not exist in predominant fire, predominant drowning and predominant theft (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 4/210).
The qadi Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) said: our proof is the consensus of the Companions; for it is related from Umar and Ali, and Ali said: "Nothing reforms people but that"; and because the interest of the craftsmen and of the owners of goods is attached to it, while abandoning it opens a way to the destruction of people's wealth; likewise when people have necessity for the craftsmen: for not everyone knows how to sew, shorten his garment or embroider it; if we accepted the craftsmen's word in matters of destruction, they would rush to claim it, and the owners of goods would be harmed, placed between two things: either the goods are handed to them and one cannot be secure from them against what we mentioned, or they are not handed over, which harms them. Making them liable is thus a reform for both parties. And because he received the object for his own profit, without entitlement to the fee by a prior contract, his word on its loss is not accepted, as in the qirad and the loan for use ('ariya) (al-Ishraf, 3/229).
On this basis, the shared hired worker guarantees what perishes in his hands absolutely: the fuller guarantees what tears in his hands, the cook what he spoiled of his cooking, the baker what he spoiled of his bread, the porter what falls from his load or perishes during his stumbling, the camel-driver what perishes through his driving, his hastening and the breaking of the rope by which he ties his camel, and the sailor what perishes in his possession or because of the materials with which the ship is coated or provisioned.
Here is the detailed exposition of their views:
In Abu Yusuf's view, liability falls upon the worker only if the thing perishes in his hands; for the object enters liability in his and Muhammad's view only by taking, like the usurped object; so long as taking does not occur, there is no liability, even if the owner of the goods rides with him in the ship or on the mount carrying the load, and the load is spoiled without the worker's doing: no liability, for the goods are in the hands of their owner.
Likewise if the owner of the goods and the hirer are two riders on the mount, or two drivers or two guides: the goods are in their hands, the worker is therefore not alone by the hand, and the liability of the hand does not fall upon him.
Bishr transmitted from Abu Yusuf: if the goods are stolen from atop the porter's head while the owner walks with him, there is no liability; for the goods did not pass into his hand, the owner not having interposed between him and them.
They said of food: if it is in two ships and its owner in one, and the two sail together and are detained together, there is no liability upon the sailor for what perishes from his hand, for it perished in the hands of its owner.
Likewise the caravan of camels (qitar): if it carries a load and the owner of the load is upon a camel, there is no liability upon the camel-driver, for the goods are in the hands of their owner, who is their keeper.
Ibn Sama'a transmitted from Abu Yusuf concerning a man who hired a porter to carry a skin of butter; the owner of the skin and the porter carried it together to place it upon the porter's head, the skin tore and its contents were lost. Abu Yusuf said: the porter does not guarantee, for it was not handed over to him, it was still in his hand. And if it is carried to the owner's house, then the porter lowers it from his head together with the owner, and it falls into their hands, the porter is liable; this is Muhammad's first view, who then retracted and said: no liability upon him.
Abu Yusuf holds that the cargo enters the liability of portering by the establishment of his hand upon it; it is therefore only released by delivery to its owner; if both of them err, the porter's hand remains, and the liability remains.
Muhammad holds that the thing reached its owner by the lowering, and left liability, as if it had been carried from the start upon the porter's head and perished.
In the view of both of them, he only guarantees if work has been introduced into the goods hired upon; if a mushaf is given to make a binding for it, a sword to make its fittings, a knife to make its haft, and the mushaf, the sword or the knife is lost, he does not guarantee, by consensus. And it is related from Abu Yusuf: if a mushaf is given to be punctuated for a fee and its binding is lost, he does not guarantee; likewise if a garment is given to be mended together with a handkerchief and the handkerchief is lost; likewise if a scale is given to repair its pans and the wood in which the scale is set is lost (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 4/210-211; al-Mabsut, 15/80 ff.; Majma' al-Damanat, pp. 100-103; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 8/30-31; Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama, 4/85; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 3/340-341; al-Hindiyya, 4/500).
The Malikis said: the shared hired worker, that is, the craftsman, for a fee or without a fee, guarantees what is absent from him, who claims its loss and whose loss is known only by his word; and he bears no liability for what its loss is established by evidence without his misappropriation. The craftsman guarantees his work product only for what he has work to do in: a jewel he fashions, a book he copies, a garment he sews, a piece of wood he shapes; then he claims its loss or disappearance. As for what he has no work in, he does not guarantee: like the book given to the copyist to copy from, since he has no work to do in it; likewise if a sword is given for its blade to be fashioned and its sheath is given with it, and the sheath is lost: he does not guarantee it; likewise the wheat vessel lost with the miller, and the like, which he needs; if he needed it, he would have worked on it, that is, if the other needed the work of the product for him, he guarantees his product only; for he is a trustee over that other, not a craftsman. Whoever gives a miller wheat in a basket to grind, or gives a copyist a book to copy another from, and he claims the loss of the whole, guarantees the wheat without the basket, and the copied book without the book copied from. It is thus safer not to guarantee what the work does not need, like one of the two boots needing repair, when the pair is given to the craftsman and the one with no work in it is lost.
He guarantees what perishes of what he has work to do in, whether he did it in his house or his shop, for a fee or without, through his work or otherwise, as long as there is no deception: engraving of round beads, piercing of pearls, straightening of swords, baking of bread at the baker's, putting the garment in the dyer's vat, unless he exceeds the limits in it.
Upon all the craftsmen lies the evidence that they returned the goods, worked for a fee or without, whether it is taken with evidence or without, if they admit it.
Conditions are required for the craftsman's liability:
(al-Mudawwana al-Kubra, 11/388; al-Ishraf, 3/228-229, no 1081-1082; al-Sharh al-Kabir with the hashiya of al-Dasuqi, 5/375-376; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 7/28; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 4/499-500; Hashiyat al-Sawi, 9/41; Sharh Mayyara, 2/327.)
The Shafi'is in the school said: the shared hired worker guarantees absolutely, with no difference in loss between calamity, the worker's act, or destruction by a third party; this, when the worker is alone by the hand. If he is not alone by the hand, as when the employer sits with him until he works, or the thing is carried to his house for him to work on: the school, upon which the majority decides, says: no liability; for the wealth is not truly handed over to him: the owner sought his help, as one seeks the help of an agent (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 7/425; al-Muhadhdhab, 1/408; Rawdat al-Talibin, 4/56; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 3/411; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 5/355; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 5/376; Kanz al-Raghibin, 3/197).
The Hanbalis said: the shared hired worker guarantees what perishes through his act, even by mistake: the tearing of the garment by the fuller in his beating, stretching, wringing or spreading; the error of the tailor, that is, the sewer, in his sewing and his handing to one other than its owner; related from Umar and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them both); for his work is owed upon him, since he is entitled to the counter-value only by work: if the garment perishes in his keeping after his work, he has no fee for what he worked on, unlike the exclusive worker. And what follows from it must be liable: transgression by cutting a limb, the slipping of a porter, the fall of the load from the beast's back or from his head, or the loss of the load by the carrier's stumbling, human or animal; and he guarantees that, as has preceded.
He also guarantees what perishes through his driving, his hastening and the breaking of the rope by which he ties his load; likewise the cook, the baker, the weaver, the ship's sailor and their like among the shared hired workers: they guarantee what perishes through their act, for what has preceded, whether the owner of the wealth is present or absent, and whether he works in the employer's house or his own; for his liability is due to his transgression.
The qadi, with his companions, chose that the bare shared hired worker only guarantees if he works in his own property, like the baker who bakes in his oven and property, the fuller and the tailor in their shops. He said: if a man calls a baker who bakes for him in his house, or a tailor or a fuller to shorten and sew with him, there is no liability upon him for what he destroys without negligence; for he handed his person to the employer and becomes like the exclusive hired worker.
He said: if the owner of the goods is with the sailor in the ship, or rides on the mount above the load, and the load is spoiled, there is no liability upon the sailor nor the hirer, for the hand of the owner of the goods has not left. If the owner of the goods and the camel-driver are two riders upon the load and the load perishes, the camel-driver does not guarantee it, for the owner did not hand it to him.
The school is that there is no difference between working in one's own property or the employer's, between the presence or absence of the owner of the work, and between his being with the sailor or the camel-driver or not.
Likewise what perishes through the sailor's transgression in rowing, or the hirer's in pulling the goods, and the like: it is liable upon him, whether the owner is with him or not; for the obligation of liability is due to the transgression of his hand, with no difference between the owner's presence and absence, like transgression; and because the camel-driver's and the sailor's transgression, when the owner rides with them, covers the goods and their owner, and their negligence covers both; the liability therefore does not fall away, as if someone shot at an armored man, broke his armor and killed him. And because the physician and the circumciser, when their hands err, are liable even with the patient and the circumcised present. The qadi mentioned that if the load was carried on the head, the owner with him, and he stumbled, the goods fell and perished, he guarantees; if it is stolen, he does not; for in the stumble the loss took place through his transgression, and theft is not of his transgression, and the owner of the wealth did not interpose between him and it. This implies that its loss through his transgression is liable upon him, whether the owner is present or absent; rather, the obligation of liability in the disputed case is more fitting; for the act, in that, aims at the place by the doer, whereas the porter's fall is not aimed at by him; if liability falls here, there it is more fitting.
If the fuller and his like do their work voluntarily, he does not guarantee the transgression of his hand: explicit text; for he is a pure trustee; if they differ over whether he is a worker or a volunteer, his word prevails: he is a volunteer.
There is no liability upon the shared hired worker for what perishes from his keeping through theft or loss without his act, if he was not negligent; for the object in his hands is a trust, resembling the depositor; and he has no fee for what he worked on and which perished before delivery to its owner, whether he did it in the employer's house or his own; for he did not hand over his work to the employer and is therefore not entitled to the counter-value, like sold food that perishes in the seller's hands.
If someone hires a butcher to slaughter a sheep for him and he slaughters it deliberately without naming it, he guarantees it, for its flesh is forbidden; if he leaves it forgetfully, it becomes lawful again and there is no liability (al-Mughni, 5/305-306; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 6/120-121; Sharh al-Zarkashi, 2/186-187; al-Mubdi', 5/109; Matalib Uli al-Nuhha, 3/678; al-Ifsah, 2/313; Kashshaf al-Qina', 4/40-42; al-Insaf, 6/71-73).