Islamic Fiqh > Companies and leases > Wakala (agency mandate) > Types of mandate: specific, general, paid
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 6:57 PM
This section brings together three sheets of the chapter on mandate (wakala): the particular mandate (al-wakala al-khassa) and the knowledge required of its object in the four schools, then the mandate with fee (ju'l) and without fee, and finally the case of the agent who is told: "sell this at such a price, and whatever exceeds is yours". School positions are reported with their classical references in parentheses. Prophetic reports are flagged as such; the rest comes from the athar of the scholars and classical compilations.
The sheet opens at the close of the discussion of the general mandate, with the statement of al-Ruhaybani: it is related that a man of knowledge, to whom this learning had been expounded, wept and said: "this knowledge is not mine, it is the knowledge of Ahmad ibn Hanbal". Al-Ruhaybani comments: whoever is on this path (of knowledge and humility), nothing prevents the principal from delegating to him all works; whoever is not such has no right to dispose freely of the matter, but stops at stating the type and estimating the price, as no discerning reader overlooks (Matalib Uli al-Nuha, 3/433, 435; al-Mughni, 5/55; al-Insaf, 5/392; Kashshaf al-Qina', 3/562, 563; Manar al-Sabil, 2/163).
The particular mandate is that in which the offer (ijab) of the principal is specific to a determinate transaction, as when a person delegates another person to sell to him, or to buy for him, a specific item. There is no disagreement among the jurists on the validity of the particular mandate, nor on the fact that the agent does not go beyond what he was delegated for: if he was delegated for purchase specifically, he does not extend to selling; for in the particular mandate the agent does not exceed what he was permitted, and this is a point of agreement among the jurists of the four schools (Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 7/426; Minh al-Jalil, 6/282; al-Sharh al-Kabir of al-Rafi'i, 5/212, 214; Rawdat al-Talibin, 3/493, 495).
Some, however, laid down conditions: stating its genus and quality, or its genus and the amount of its price. In sum, they required the object of the mandate to be known, whether by description, by type or by custom, and that the uncertainty not be gross; slight uncertainty is excused, with detail between the schools as follows.
The Hanafis say that delegation to buy is of two kinds: a general mandate and a particular mandate.
The basic rule: if the uncertainty is great it prevents the validity of delegation; if small it does not prevent. This is istihsan (juristic preference); qiyas (analogy) would have both the small and the great prevent, and delegation be valid only after stating the type, the quality and the amount of the price: for sale and purchase are not valid even with slight uncertainty, so delegation is likewise not valid with them.
The ground of the istihsan: it is related that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) handed a dinar to Hakim ibn Hizam to buy for him with it a sacrificial animal.
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) handed a dinar to Hakim ibn Hizam to buy for him with it a sacrificial animal.From Hakim ibn Hizam
without stating its description. If slight uncertainty prevented the validity of delegation to buy, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would not have done so; for the uncertainty of quality is not removed by mentioning "sacrificial animal" nor by the amount of the price. Further, slight uncertainty in mandate does not lead to dispute: the basis of delegation is accommodation and leniency, so dispute is not expected while the uncertainty is slight, unlike sale, whose basis is constraint and bargaining since it is an exchange of wealth for wealth: there, uncertainty, however small, leads to dispute and entails the invalidity of the contract. That is the difference.
Once it is established that slight uncertainty is not a preventive, in every case where the uncertainty is slight, delegation to buy is valid, otherwise not. One therefore examines whether the name of the thing delegated for purchase applies to different types: delegation is then not valid without stating the type. Example: "buy me a garment"; for the name "garment" applies to different types, silk brocade (ibrisam), cotton, linen and others, so the uncertainty is great and prevents validity; nor is it valid even if the price is named, for uncertainty after stating the price is gross and only lessens by mentioning the type: "buy me a Harawi garment" (from Herat); if he is silent about it, the uncertainty becomes great and the delegation is not valid.
Likewise if he says "buy me an animal" (hayawan), or "buy me a mount, land, a slave, a jewel or grains"; each of these names is a genus name under which different types fall, so the type must be mentioned: "a Harawi garment"; if he is silent, the uncertainty is great and the delegation invalid.
Likewise if he says "buy me a house": not valid, for between house and house the difference is gross. If he specifies the house it is permitted; if he does not specify it but states the price, it is also permitted, and it covers the houses of the town where the agent is, for the uncertainty lessens after the price is stated.
It is related from Abu Yusuf that delegation is not valid after stating the price until he specifies one town among the towns. And if he says "buy me a house in such a place", or "a pearl", or "buy me a red ruby", without naming the price, it is not permitted, for the difference is gross; the quality does not become known from the principal's situation, so the price must be stated.
But if the name of the thing delegated for purchase applies to only one type, one of two things suffices: either the quality, "buy me a Turkish slave", or the amount of the price, "buy me a slave for a thousand dirhams"; for the uncertainty lessens by mentioning one of the two, and this by the principal's situation: the quality becomes known by the mention of the price even if he does not mention it, and when he mentions the quality, the price becomes known by the habit of the principal's peers in what he buys, so much so that if the buyer departs from the custom of his peers, the principal is not bound. Thus Abu Yusuf is related to have said of one who says "buy me a servant of such a kind": it means what people customarily transact of that kind; if the price is high, such that people do not deal in it, it does not bind the principal.
Likewise the Bedouin who says "buy me an Abyssinian servant": it means what the people of the desert customarily have; all of this is consideration of the principal's situation. If neither is mentioned at all, the mandate is void, for the uncertainty has become gross by omitting both.
If he says "buy me a donkey, a mule, a horse or a camel" without mentioning quality or price, they say: it is permitted; for the type has become known by mentioning donkey, mule, horse and camel, and the quality becomes known from the principal's situation, as does the price. One therefore examines: if he buys a donkey at its value, or at less or more, within what people bargain over for its like, it binds the principal, if the donkey is of the kind the principal buys; if not (for instance the principal is a carrier by profession and the agent bought an Egyptian donkey fit for riding, whereas his like buys donkeys for work and carrying, not for riding), it does not bind the principal but binds the agent, even if he bought it at its value.
If he says "buy me a sheep or a cow" without quality or price: not permitted; for the quality of a sheep or cow does not become known from the principal's situation, and one of the two must be known, as we have said.
If he says "buy me wheat", delegation is not valid unless he mentions one of two things: either the amount of the price or the amount of what is priced (the measured goods); for the uncertainty only lessens by mentioning one of them, and so for all quantities, measured and weighed. Likewise the taylasan (cloak): no validity without stating the price and the type (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 6/23, 24; Tuhfat al-Fuqaha, 3/232, 233; Fatawa al-Sa'di, 2/596, 598; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 3/478, 480; al-Lubab, 1/556, 557; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 7/298, 299).
Al-Zayla'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the basic rule is that uncertainty, when it prevents compliance and cannot be overcome, prevents the validity of the mandate; otherwise not. Uncertainty is of three kinds.
The first is gross uncertainty: that which concerns the genus; it prevents the validity of the mandate, whether the price is stated or not, as when one delegates the purchase of a garment or a mount, and the like.
The second is slight uncertainty: that which concerns the pure type, as when one delegates the purchase of a horse or a donkey, or a Harawi or Marwi garment (from Marw), and the like: the mandate is permitted even without stating the price. Bishr said: not permitted; the proof against him is what is related, that he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)
delegated Hakim ibn Hizam to buy a sheep for sacrifice.From Hakim ibn Hizam
and because the uncertainty of the type does not compromise the purpose sought, and can be averted by directing the delegation to what suits the principal's situation, to the point that if an ordinary man delegates the purchase of a horse and the agent buys one fit for kings, it does not bind him.
The third is uncertainty between type and genus: as when one delegates the purchase of a male slave or a slave-girl; if he states the price or the type, saying "a Turkish or Abyssinian slave", the mandate is permitted; if he states neither, it is not: for by stating the price one knows which type he wants, and by stating the type one knows its price; the remaining uncertainty is then slight and does not prevent validity, unlike uncertainty concerning the genus, which prevents validity even with the price stated, for with that amount of price one finds of every type, so that it yields no knowledge (Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 4/258, 259).
The Malikis hold that the object of the mandate must be known by explicit text, by indication (qarina) or by custom. If he simply says "I delegated you", it yields nothing until it is restricted by the delegation of judgment or by a specific command.
When the principal's wording is general, it is specified by custom (urf): as if he says "I delegated you to sell my beasts of burden", and custom requires specifying that by certain types of beasts: then it is specified. Likewise if he says "I delegated you to sell this merchandise": the wording is general for selling it in every place and time; if custom has this merchandise sold only in a specific market or at a specific time, that generality is specified. Likewise if the thing delegated is absolute, it is restricted by custom: as if he says "buy me" (with nothing more); it is restricted to what suits him, and the agent does not go beyond what he was delegated for, whether the thing was determined by text, particularized or restricted: it is particularized and restricted by custom (al-Sharh al-Kabir with the hashiya of al-Dasuqi, 5/57, 58; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 4/199, 200; Mawahib al-Jalil, 7/147, 148; Tahbir al-Mukhtasar, 4/282; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 6/70, 71; Minh al-Jalil, 6/638).
Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: as for the particular mandate, it has forms.
First form: delegation to sell the whole of his wealth, or to settle his debts and collect them: valid definitively (qat'an), and knowledge of his wealth is not required on the correct position; al-Baghawi's words imply that it is required.
In the "Fatawa al-Qaffal": if he says "I delegated you to collect my debts from the people", it is permitted, even if one does not know who owes the debt, nor whether it is one person or a great many, nor of what genus that debt is. But if he says "sell part of my wealth, or a portion of it, or a share", it is not valid, because of its uncertainty in the aggregate. And the condition is that the thing delegated be known, or that knowledge of it be easy.
If he says "sell whatever you wish of my wealth" or "collect whatever you wish of my debts", it is permitted, mentioned in al-Muhadhdhab and al-Tahdhib. In the "Hilya" there is a contrary report: if he says "sell whichever of my slaves you see", not valid until he distinguishes. Al-Nawawi says: the position mentioned from al-Muhadhdhab is the correct, known one. It is said in al-Tahdhib: nor may he sell the whole, except that he receive the whole.
As for the words of the author of the "Hilya", Ibn al-Sabbagh also explains them in similar terms: if he says "sell what you see of my wealth", not permitted; "what you see of my slaves", permitted; both positions are anomalous and weak. This quotation from the "Hilya", if it intends the Hilya of al-Ruwyani, is an error; for what is in al-Ruwyani's Hilya is: "if he says: sell, of these three slaves, whichever you see, it is permitted, and he does not sell all, for (min) expresses partition; and if he delegates him to marry him (his ward) to whomever he wishes, it is permitted", mentioned by Qadi Abu Hamid, and this is al-Ruwyani's wording in the Hilya, letter for letter. The Imam of the Two Sanctuaries (al-Juwayni) and al-Ghazali declared explicitly in "al-Basit" that if he says "sell whomever you wish of my slaves", he does not sell all of them, for (min) expresses partition. If he sold them all but one, it is permitted. Our companions (the Shafi'is) said: if he says "sell this slave or this one", it is not valid. If he is delegated to give away from his wealth whatever he sees, it is said in "al-Hawi": not valid; analogy with what precedes would make it valid, and Allah knows best.
Second form: delegation to buy. It does not suffice to say "buy me a thing, an animal or slaves"; it is required to specify that it is a male slave or a slave-girl, and the type: Turkish, Indian or other. A thorough statement of the attributes of salam (forward sale) is not required, nor what approaches them, without disagreement. If the classes of a type differ visibly, Shaykh Abu Muhammad said: one must address the class. As for the price, stating its amount is not required on the sounder position; on the second view, stating its amount or its limit is required: "between one hundred and one thousand". The author of "al-Taqrib" related a view that delegation to buy a slave without any specification is valid; this view is very weak, and "buy a thing" is farther still. Al-Nawawi says: in "al-Basit" there is hesitation over the word "buy a thing", as a corollary of this view, and Allah knows best.
If he says "buy me a slave as you wish", it is said that it is valid, as if he said in qirad (commenda): "buy whomever you wish of the slaves"; the correct position, held by the majority, is that it is not valid; the difference is that there the purpose is profit, and the worker (mudarib) knows it better. For the purchase of a house, mention of the quarter and the street is required; for a shop (hanut), the market is mentioned; and analogy follows this rule. Al-Nawawi adds: for the price too there are the two views, and Allah knows best.
Third form: delegation for release of debt (ibra'). It requires the principal's knowledge if we take the more apparent position: release of debt in favor of an unknown is not valid, as preceded in the book of dhaman (guarantee). The agent's knowledge is not required on the sounder position, and al-Qadi (al-Husayn) and al-Ghazali settled it decisively upon it. In al-Muhadhdhab and al-Tahdhib there is the requirement of knowledge of its genus and amount, as if he says "sell at the price at which so-and-so sold his horse"; for the validity of sale the agent's knowledge is required, not the principal's. In ibra', knowledge of the debtor is not required on the correct position; the disagreement rests on what preceded: is release of debt annulment (isqat) or transfer of ownership (tamlik)? If we say transfer of ownership: knowledge is required, that of the recipient (al-mutahhab); otherwise not.
Then, if the wording is "release so-and-so from my debt", he releases him from all of it; if he says "from part of it", he releases him from a small part of it; if he says "from whatever you wish", he releases him from what he wishes and leaves something. Al-Nawawi: the words "from a small part of it" mean the least to which the name "thing" applies, as stated explicitly in "al-Tatimma", and it is clear. If he says "release him from all of it" and he releases from part of it, it is permitted, unlike if he sold part of what he was ordered to sell, and Allah knows best.
Fourth form: if he says "I delegated you to litigate against my two opponents" and left it absolute, it is valid on the sounder position, and he becomes agent in all disputes. It is also said that specifying the one against whom he litigates is required, for the purpose varies with him (Rawdat al-Talibin, 3/493, 495; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 3/199, 201; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 5/36, 38; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 5/29, 30; al-Dibaj, 2/308; Kanz al-Raghibin, 2/849, 850; I'anat al-Talibin, 3/169, 170).
The Hanbalis say that the object of the mandate must be known: delegation is not valid if the principal says to his agent "buy whatever you wish" or "buy a slave at whatever you wish"; for what may be bought, and buying thereby, is vast, so that gharar (uncertainty) in it is immense, until he states for the agent a type and an amount of price with which the purchase is made; for gharar is only removed by mentioning the two things, unless the amount of its price is known among people, as with measured and weighed goods: then there is neither gharar nor harm. If he says "buy so-and-so and so-and-so", the delegation is not valid, because of the uncertainty. And if he says "buy me whatever you wish of the merchandise of so-and-so", it is not valid, for he may buy what he cannot pay the price of (al-Mughni, 5/55; Matalib Uli al-Nuha, 3/433, 435; al-Insaf, 5/392; Kashshaf al-Qina', 3/562, 563; Manar al-Sabil, 2/163).
There is no disagreement among the jurists that the mandate is permitted with a known fee (ju'l), such as dirhams or dinars, or a dirham of known description for known days, by delegating him ten days, each day for a dirham, or giving him, out of the thousand for example, a known thing, such as ten; for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) used to send his collectors to receive the alms and set them a fee for that. This is why his cousins said to him: "if you would send us to these alms, we would deliver to you what the people deliver, and we would receive what the people receive": the two meant the post of collection (amala).
The mandate without fee is also permitted: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) delegated Unays to enforce the legal punishment (hadd), Urwa to buy a sheep, and Amr and Abu Rafi' to conclude the marriage contract (on his behalf), without fee.
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if it is with a fee, the agent earns the fee by delivering to the principal what he was delegated for, if the thing can be delivered, such as a garment he weaves, shortens or sews: as soon as he delivers it to the principal in worked state, he has the fee. If the tailor is in the principal's house, each thing he does falls as received (in possession): the agent earns the fee as soon as the tailor finishes the sewing.
If he is delegated for a sale, a purchase or the pilgrimage, he earns the fee when he performs it, even if he did not receive the price in the sale. And if he says: "if you sell the garment, receive its price and deliver it to me, the fee is yours", he earns nothing of it until he delivers it to him; if he misses the delivery he earns nothing, because of the lapse of the condition (al-Mughni, 5/55; al-Kafi, 2/252; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 5/257; al-Furu', 4/385; Kashshaf al-Qina', 3/571; Matalib Uli al-Nuha, 3/487; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 3/501, 502).
The jurists differed in the case where the principal says to the agent or to the broker (dallal): "sell this at ten, for example, and whatever exceeds is yours": is it valid or not? The Hanbalis held it valid, and that there is no harm in it; they supported this with what Abd al-Razzaq related in the chapter of the man who says: "sell this at such a price and the surplus is yours", and how it is if he sold it on credit:
"Abd al-Razzaq informed us: Ma'mar informed us, from al-Zuhri and Qatada and Ayyub and Ibn Sirin, that they saw no harm in selling at the fixed price, that one say: sell this at such and such a price, and whatever exceeds is yours."
"Abd al-Razzaq informed us: al-Thawri informed us, from Jabir, from al-Sha'bi, concerning the man who says: sell this garment at such and such a price, and whatever exceeds is yours; he said: there is no harm in it."
"Abd al-Razzaq informed us: Hushaym informed us: I heard Amr ibn Dinar narrate, from Ata', from Ibn Abbas, that he saw no harm in it; and Yunus mentioned it from al-Hasan. Selling at the fixed price is that one say: sell this at such and such a price, and the surplus is yours (Musannaf of Abd al-Razzaq, 8/234)."
Al-Muwaffaq Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if he says "sell my garment at ten, and whatever exceeds is yours", it is valid; there is an explicit text upon it, and it is related from Ibn Abbas; it is the position of Ibn Sirin and Ishaq. Disapproved by al-Nakha'i, Hammad, Abu Hanifa, al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i and Ibn al-Mundhir, for it is an unknown fee that may or may not exist.
The argument of the Hanbalis: Ata' related from Ibn Abbas that he saw no harm in a man giving a man the garment or other, saying: "sell it at such a price, and whatever you gain is yours"; and no opponent of Ibn Abbas is known in his era, so that it amounts to consensus; for it is a specific object ('ayn) that grows through work upon it, most like handing over one's wealth in mudaraba.
That being established: if he sells it at a higher price, the increase is his, for he made it his; if he sells it at the fixed price, he has nothing, for the increase was set for him and there is no increase: he is like the mudarib who makes no profit. If he sells it at a lower price, it is not valid from him, for he contravened; if it is impossible (to undo), he guarantees the shortfall. With permission it is valid, and he guarantees the shortfall, as we mentioned. If he sells it on credit it is not valid, and the agent earns nothing; if he sells it on credit at a higher price, Ahmad ruled it explicitly in the narration of al-Athram (al-Sharh al-Kabir, 5/258; al-Mughni, 5/86; al-Kafi, 2/252; al-Mubdi', 4/385).
Al-Mardawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: his words: "if he said: sell my garment at ten, and whatever exceeds is yours: valid", there is an explicit text. Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "is this not like mudaraba?", and he argued by the position of Ibn Abbas, meaning that he permitted it; and it is among the singular positions (mufaradat) of the school. But if he sold it on credit at a higher price: if we say the sale is not valid, there is nothing to discuss; if we say it is valid, he earns the increase: it is stated categorically in al-Furu' and elsewhere (al-Insaf, 5/403; al-Mughni, 5/86; al-Kafi, 2/252; al-Mubdi', 4/385).
Imam al-Tahawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Hisham related from Muhammad (al-Shaybani), concerning a man who says to a man: "sell this garment at ten, and whatever exceeds is between me and you", that if he sold it at ten, he has an equivalent fee not exceeding a dirham in Abu Yusuf's view; and if he does not sell it, he has no fee. Muhammad said: he has an equivalent fee, however much it comes to, whether he sold or not (Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama', 4/134).
Imam Ibn Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked about a man who traveled with merchandise and agreed with Zayd and Amr that they help him sell it, and that whatever profit results from it, two thirds would be theirs as their fee, and the third his; they sold it to a group: do they deserve a fee like their work? The answer: yes, because of the uncertainty of the named amount. It is said in "al-Bazzaziyya", from the fifth (book): "a garment was handed to a man, and he said: sell it at ten, and whatever exceeds is between me and you". The Second Imam (al-Kardari) said: if he sells it at ten, he has no fee, even if he toils; if he sells it for more, he has an equivalent fee if he toils in that, for he worked under a corrupted hire (ijara fasida), and upon it is the fatwa; the fee is compensated by the sale, not its preliminaries, such as the seeking (of a buyer).
The author comments (Ibn Abidin): the implication is that, in the form of the question, if no profit results, they do not deserve any fee; but this is opposed by what they stated explicitly concerning mudaraba: that when it is corrupted it becomes a corrupted hire, and the mudarib has an equivalent fee even if he makes no profit; let this be considered (Tanqih al-Fatawa al-Hamidiyya, 5/400).
In "al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya" and in "al-Waqi'at" of al-Natifi (may Allah have mercy on him): if one says to a man: "sell this merchandise and a dirham is yours", or says: "buy me this merchandise and a dirham is yours", and he does so, he has an equivalent fee that does not exceed the dirham; and for the broker (dallal) and the simsar, the equivalent fee is due; and whatever they agree upon, such as "of every ten dinars, so much", is forbidden to them; likewise in "al-Dhakhira". Then: "a garment was handed to him and he said: sell it at ten, and whatever exceeds is between me and you". Abu Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if he sells it at ten or does not sell it, he has no fee, even if he toils; and if he sells it at twelve or more, he has the fee of his work, and upon it is the fatwa (al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 4/450, 451; al-Muhit al-Burhani, 8/90; al-Bada'i', 4/184).
In "al-Mudawwana al-Kubra", on the fee (ju'l) in sale, Malik is asked: "What do you think if I say to a man: sell me this garment, and a dirham is yours?" He answered: "there is no harm in it, in Malik's view." "And if he says to him: sell me this garment today, and a dirham is yours?" He answered: "there is no good in it, unless it is stipulated that whenever he wishes to give it up, he gives it up." Explanation: if he does not sell it that day, his effort is wasted in vain; if he sells it in part of the day, the work of the rest of that day falls away from him; and the ju'l is only permitted if, whenever he wishes, he may withdraw from it; that does not bind him in a garment he sells specifically; nor is a term fixed for the ju'l, a day or two, except that whenever he wishes to withdraw he withdraws. Ibn al-Qasim said in a similar case that it is permitted, and this is the substance of his relied-upon position.
He is asked: "everything in which the ju'l is permitted with you, is hire permitted in it?" The answer: "yes, if a term is fixed for the hire." "Merchandise in large quantity: the ju'l is not valid in it in Malik's view?" "No, the ju'l is not valid in it, but hire is valid in it." "Merchandise in small quantity: are hire and ju'l both valid in it in Malik's view?" "Yes." Why did Malik disapprove of a man selling numerous goods for a ju'l? Because numerous goods occupy their seller, so that he cannot buy, or sell, or work at anything else; when the goods multiply so as to occupy the man, nothing is valid except by a known hire.
Malik said: "the garment and the two garments, and the like of things that do not occupy their owner from working at something else: no harm in the ju'l, and he gives it up whenever he wishes; as for hire, he may not give it up whenever he wishes." Asked about the sale of the adolescent male slave, the beast and the slave-girl: is this work in which the ju'l is permitted? He answered yes, as Malik said; but if the beasts and slaves multiply, the ju'l is no longer valid in them.
"And if I say to a man: sell me this garment for a dinar, and a dirham is yours, is this permitted in Malik's view, though I have fixed a price for the garment?" Malik answered: "that is permitted, whether the price is fixed or not: it is the same." "And if I say: sell me these ten garments, and a dirham is yours: is this permitted or not in Malik's view?" The answer: "when the garments multiply, that does not please me; I do not see him dealing with him for their sale on a ju'l, but I see him dealing with him on hire; Malik only permitted the single garment, the two garments and a slight thing to be sold on a ju'l; when that multiplies, it is upon hire." Ibn Wahb said: and Rabi'a said likewise: if he did not fix a term for its sale, there is no good in it (al-Mudawwana al-Kubra, 11/457, 458; Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama', 4/97; al-Bayan wa-l-Tahsil, 8/482).