Islamic Fiqh > Companies and leases > Wages and salaried work (ujra)
The worker and his wage: the prompt-payment rule, freedom of work, lawful employment contract conditions and strikes.
Contents
Updated on 06 October 2026 at 10:50 PM
This section of the encyclopedia examines the disputes between the worker, that is, the agent who runs the funds (the mudarib), and the owner of the capital in the mudaraba, the partnership in which one party provides the money and the other his labor against a share of the profit. For each case, the source gives the exact position of the four schools, the causes of the ruling, the rules of evidence and oath, and the classical references in parentheses. The excerpt opens with the close of the point on the wage, then runs through ten points, from the loss of the capital down to the general and the specific.
In one view, if the wage exceeds what the worker claimed, he is entitled only to what he claimed (al-Bayan 7/233; Rawdat al-Talibin 3/765; Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/361; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 5/278; al-Najm al-Wahhaj 5/285; al-Dibaj 2/442).
Imam Ahmad, in the other narration, put it thus: when the worker claims the customary wage plus an increase, he is deceiving people by the like of it, so the ruling follows his statement for the amount of the customary wage; if he claims more than that, the ruling follows his statement for what matches the customary wage (al-Mughni 5/45).
The jurists of the four schools agree: when the mudarib and the owner differ over the loss of the money, in whole or in part, its deterioration or its disappearance, the mudarib alleging that the capital perished, was damaged, was stolen, was drowned, or the like, and the owner denying it, the ruling follows the word of the mudarib with his oath according to all of them.
The Malikis except one view: without an oath. The reason is that the mudarib is a trustee, and the trustee is believed in what he holds; the owner accepted him as a trustee over himself, and even if he is not in fact trustworthy, he is legally so, the default being the absence of treachery.
The Malikis and the Hanbalis specify: this holds as long as no evidence or circumstantial indication stands against him. If evidence or an indication proves his lie, judgment is passed on it and he is liable. This is known by asking the merchants of those goods whether one suffers loss in such a case or not; if they answer that there is no loss, he is liable.
The Hanbalis add: if he alleges destruction by an apparent cause, he is required to produce evidence testifying to it, then to swear that the property perished by it. As for the oath, the Malikis hold three views: it falls upon the worker, and this is the preferred view; it has been said: without an oath; and it has been said: the oath is required only if he is under suspicion (al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 5/310; Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 4/532; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 6/225; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 4/435; Manh al-Jalil 7/379; Hashiyat al-Sawi 8/430; al-Mughni 5/45; Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/612; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 3/586; al-Iqna' 3/1680).
The Shafi'is: the worker is believed on his oath, this when he does not mention the cause of the loss and is not asked to state it. If he mentions a hidden cause, such as theft, he is believed on his oath. If he alleges an apparent cause, such as fire, a raid or a flood, and what he alleges is not known in that locality, his statement that it was destroyed by it is not accepted. If it is known by direct observation or by well-established notoriety, consideration is given: if the general character of the calamity is established, he is believed without an oath; if it is not, and it is possible that the mudaraba capital was untouched, he is believed with the oath (al-Bayan 7/232; Rawdat al-Talibin 3/764; Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/361; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 5/277; al-Najm al-Wahhaj 5/285; al-Dibaj 2/442).
The worker and the owner dispute the amount handed over for the mudaraba: the owner says "I handed you two thousand", the worker answers "you handed me one thousand", with no evidence. The ruling follows the word of the worker with his oath, by the consensus of the scholars, whether or not there is profit in the money according to the majority of the jurists. The reasons are: the dispute concerns what the worker received; the default is non-receipt, save what he acknowledges; the money is in the worker's hand; the owner claims the whole while the worker acknowledges only a part; and the owner demands from the other the receipt of something he denies, and the word of the denier prevails.
A weak view among the Shafi'is holds that if the money has produced profit, two courses appear: the word goes to the worker; or the two become partners, because they dispute over what they deserve of the profit, as if they differed over the amount of the stipulated profit. The sound position is the first: the dispute over the stipulated profit concerns a condition of the contract, and the two then become partners like a seller and buyer differing over the price of the goods; here, the dispute concerns receipt, and the apparent position is that of the denier, like a seller and buyer differing over the receipt of the price, where the word goes to the seller (al-Muhadhdhab 1/389; al-Hawi al-Kabir 7/350).
Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) reports the consensus: "All those whose statements we preserve from the people of knowledge agree: when a man hands another capital as a mudaraba, then they differ, the worker having brought back two thousand dirhams, the owner saying 'the capital was two thousand dirhams' and the worker 'the capital was one thousand dirhams, and the profit one thousand dirhams', the word goes to the worker to whom the money was handed, with his oath, provided the owner has no evidence" (al-Ijma' 530; al-Awsat 5/710; al-Ishraf 6/217; see Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 6/109; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 5/75; al-Mudawwana al-Kubra 12/127; al-Hawi al-Kabir 7/350; al-Bayan 7/223; al-Iqna' 3/1684, no. 3307; Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/360; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 5/276; al-Najm al-Wahhaj 5/284; al-Dibaj 2/442; al-Mughni 5/45; al-Insaf 5/450; Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/612; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 3/585).
The owner and the worker may differ over the nature of the capital, mudaraba or loan, and the case has two figures. In the first, the worker says "it was a loan" and the owner "it was a mudaraba". A thousand dirhams were handed to a man to trade with, a profit appeared, and the worker says "it was a loan, the profit is all mine" while the owner says "it was a mudaraba, the profit is shared between us". The jurists divided: does the word go to the owner of the capital or to the other, the one who took the money?
The Hanafis and the Hanbalis: the word goes to the owner, because the mudarib claims from him a transfer of ownership while he is a denier; because the property belongs to him, his word prevails on how the property left his hand; and because the authorization to dispose derives from the owner, his word prevails in stating the authorization and the power granted.
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) explains: "If he swears, we divide the profit between them, and it is possible that they become partners, and the worker receives the greater of two things: the share of profit stipulated for him or the customary wage; for if the greater is his share of the profit, the owner concedes it, since he claims the whole profit; and if the customary wage is greater, the word goes to his statement about his work with his oath, just as the word goes to the owner regarding the profit of his money. If he swears, his statement is accepted: he did not work under that condition, but worked for a purpose that did not materialize, and he is entitled to the customary wage."
If the parties produce evidence, it is the evidence of the mudarib among the Hanafis and the Hanbalis in the school, because it establishes the transfer, and the two evidences do not conflict since he may have set up a mudaraba with him and then lent to him. Among the Hanbalis, a view holds that if each produces evidence of his claim, the two evidences conflict and fall, and the profit is divided between them in halves; Imam Ahmad stated it expressly in one narration, because the principle is that the property remains the owner's and the profit follows him, yet he has already conceded half the profit to the worker, and the remainder stands on the principle (al-Mabsut 22/93; Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 6/110; Mukhtasar al-Wiqaya 2/193; Majma' al-Damanat 2/661; al-Mughni 5/46; al-Mubdi' 5/37; Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/613; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 3/587).
The Malikis and the Shafi'is: the word goes to the worker with his oath, because the owner here claims a profit that favors him, and a claimant in what favors him is not believed; the whole profit then goes to the worker and the equivalent of the loan remains a debt upon him; his statement that he returned the money to his owner is not admitted except with evidence holding him to the purport of his claim, and the rules of the loan apply to him (al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 4/437; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 5/312; Hawashi al-Sharwani 6/105).
Al-Sharwani (may Allah have mercy on him) specifies: "Know that this case is depicted with a dispute while the money remains. If the dispute arose after the loss, the taker would be acknowledging the substitute against a denier, as is apparent. If, then, the two produce their evidences, that is, when the money remains, the evidence of the taker is given precedence, because it carries an additional piece of knowledge, by analogy with what precedes" (Hawashi al-Sharwani 6/105).
Second figure: the worker says "it was a mudaraba" and the owner "it was a loan". A thousand dirhams were handed over and perished or met a similar fate; the worker says "it was a mudaraba, it perished, you have nothing against me", and the owner answers "it was a loan, you must return the like".
The Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the most explicit view of the Malikis: the word goes to the worker, for the two agree that the taking was with the owner's permission, and the owner claims from the mudarib a liability he denies; his word therefore prevails. If each produces evidence, it is that of the owner among the Hanafis, and it is the sound view among the Shafi'is, because the defendant claims the falling away of the liability while acknowledging receipt, and the evidence here carries additional knowledge. The other Shafi'i course holds the evidence of the worker preferable (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 6/110; Mukhtasar al-Wiqaya 2/193; Ibn Abidin 8/321; Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 4/534; al-Bayan 7/236; Rawdat al-Talibin 3/766; Asna al-Matalib 2/392; al-Najm al-Wahhaj 5/285; Hawashi al-Sharwani 6/105; Hashiyat 'Umayra 'ala Kanz al-Raghibin 3/144).
This Hanafi ruling applies when he has worked with the money; if he has not worked with it and it perished, the word goes to the owner. Al-Sarakhsi (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "If the money had been placed in trade, then the worker said 'you handed it to me as a mudaraba' and the owner said 'I handed it to you as a loan', the word would go to the owner, because the authorization derives from him and his word prevails in stating its description; the worker alleges that he stood in the place of the owner's deputy in the work, and the owner denies it, so his word prevails.
If they produce evidence, it is again that of the owner, for he thereby establishes the cause for which the money left his hand, namely the loan, and the obligation of liability as a debt in the worker's responsibility; his evidence is therefore more worthy of acceptance, all the more as the two evidences do not conflict: the loan reverts upon the mudaraba, as if he had handed it over as a mudaraba and then lent part of it, and the reverse is not possible, for the mudaraba does not revert upon the loan whereas the loan reverts upon the mudaraba."
If he did not work with the money and it perished, the word goes to the mudarib, for the owner claims from him the cause of liability and the mudarib denies it; the evidence is then that of the owner, to establish the liability as a debt in the mudarib's responsibility.
The difference between this case and the first is that here the two agree that the taking took place with the owner's permission, which does not oblige to make good, so that the owner's claim concerning the cause of liability remains; whereas in the first case, the worker's work in the property of another is a cause of liability, as has appeared, so that he needs an exoneration from liability, namely his standing as the owner's deputy in working with the money as a mudaraba; and this exoneration is established only by evidence.
It cannot be said that the two agreed that his work took place with the permission of the owner of the capital and his disposal, so that it would not be a cause of liability against him; for the owner alleges that he worked for himself, with his own money; if ownership is therefore not established in his favor, he is not a worker acting with the owner's permission, he who acknowledged the taking; he remains then one who works with the money without his permission, and that obliges to make good (al-Mabsut 22/93, 94; Majma' al-Damanat 2/662; Ibn Abidin 8/374).
The Malikis and the Hanbalis say: the word goes to the owner with his oath, for the worker has acknowledged holding money against him, and he alleges that there is no liability upon him in it; yet the default, for whoever holds the property of another, is liability; and because the default is to believe the owner as to how his money left his hand. If the two produce evidence, the evidence of the worker is preferred among the Hanbalis, for it carries additional knowledge; it departs from the default, and his case falls outside it (al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 5/312; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 4/437; Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 4/534; al-Mughni 5/46; al-Mubdi' 5/37; Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/613; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 3/587; Matalib Uli al-Nuha 3/541).
The owner and the worker differ over the money in the latter's hand: the owner says "it was merchandise entrusted, its profit is mine", and the worker "it was a mudaraba, the profit is between us".
The Hanafis and the Malikis: the word goes to the owner, because the mudarib draws his profit from a condition he alleges and he is a denier, so his word prevails that he stipulated nothing; and because the mudarib claims a right over the property of another, the word goes to the holder of the capital (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 6/110; Mukhtasar al-Wiqaya 2/193).
The Malikis: the word goes to the owner with his oath that it is not a mudaraba, and the worker receives the customary wage so long as it does not exceed what he claimed, with nothing added. If he declines to swear, the word goes to the worker with his oath, if he is of the sort of men whose like is employed in mudaraba.
Al-Dasuqi (may Allah have mercy on him) answers the objection: "It may be said that, if the word goes to the owner, the worker should not receive the customary wage, otherwise the effect of the owner's word prevailing disappears. The answer is that the effect is that the worker does not forfeit the share of qirad he claimed where he exceeded it, and that the worker receives the customary wage because the owner's claim implies that the worker worked for him gratuitously, which he denies, alleging a wage; he therefore receives the customary wage" (Hashiyat al-Dasuqi with al-Sharh al-Kabir 5/311).
This Maliki ruling applies when the owner says "it is merchandise without a wage". If the worker says "it is a qirad with a share of the profit" and the owner "merchandise for a wage", or conversely, the worker saying "merchandise for a wage" and the owner "a qirad", the word goes to the worker with his oath, subject to four conditions:
If one of these conditions fails, his word is not accepted even with an oath: when he is present and declines the oath, his word is not admitted, his owner swears, and pays him the wage of the merchandise. The worker is believed only as to the share of the profit; hence, if the wage equals the qirad share, there is no oath, for the two agree in meaning (Hashiyat al-Dasuqi with al-Sharh al-Kabir 5/311; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 4/435; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 6/224; Manh al-Jalil 7/378; Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 4/533; al-Mudawwana 12/126, 127).
The Hanbalis: if the owner says "it was merchandise, the profit is mine" and the worker "it was a mudaraba, the profit is ours", each of the two swears denying the claim of his opponent, for each denies what his opponent demands of him, and the word of the denier prevails; the worker then receives the customary wage and the rest belongs to the owner, for the growth of his money follows him.
It has been said that the worker receives the lesser of the two: his share of the profit or the customary wage, for he claims no more than his share of the profit and deserves nothing beyond it; and if the lesser is the customary wage, its being a mudaraba is not established, and he receives the wage of his work. Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) mentions a course among the Hanbalis: the word goes to the worker, for it is his work and his word prevails over it (al-Mughni 5/46; Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/614). No Shafi'i view was found on this question.
The owner says "it was merchandise" and the holder "it was a loan".
The Hanbalis: each of the two swears denying the claim of his opponent, for each denies what his opponent demands of him, and the word of the denier prevails; the worker receives only the wage of his work, and the rest belongs to the owner, for the growth of his money follows him (al-Mughni 5/46; Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/614; Matalib Uli al-Nuha 3/542).
The Hanafis: if the owner says "it was merchandise" and the holder "it was a loan", the owner is believed with his oath, because the holder claims from him the transfer of ownership and he denies that claim. If the two produce evidence, it is that of the holder, for it establishes the transfer, and the two evidences do not conflict since he may have given him merchandise and then lent to him (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 6/110; Mukhtasar al-Wiqaya 2/193).
The owner says "you usurped this money" and the worker "you rather handed it to me as a mudaraba and it perished". The word goes to the worker with his oath among the Malikis and the Hanafis, with details among them.
The Hanafis: if the mudarib says "you handed it to me as a mudaraba, and the money perished before I worked with it" and the owner "you took it by usurpation", there is no liability upon the mudarib, for he never acknowledged the existence of the cause that obliges to make good; he only acknowledged the handing over of the property by the owner, which does not oblige to make good; the owner, for his part, claims from him the usurpation, which is the cause of liability, and he denies it. If he worked with the property and it then perished, he makes good the money, for his work in the property of another is a cause of liability so long as his owner's authorization is not established, and it was not established because of his denial. If the two produce evidence, it is that of the mudarib in both cases, for it establishes both the handing over by the owner and the authorization to work (al-Mabsut 22/94; al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 2/335).
If the mudarib says "I took this money from you as a mudaraba and it perished before my work or after it" and the owner "you took it from me by usurpation", the word goes to the owner and the mudarib is liable, for he acknowledged the taking, which is a cause of liability, then alleged the exoneration, namely his owner's authorization; he is believed in that only with evidence.
The Malikis: if the worker says "the money is in my hand as a mudaraba or as a deposit" and the owner "you usurped it from me or stole it", the word goes to the worker with his oath, and the burden of evidence lies upon the owner to establish his allegation of usurpation or theft, for he is the claimant and the default is the absence of usurpation and theft, even if his like resembles one who would usurp or steal (al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 5/311; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 4/436; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 6/223, 224; Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 4/533).
The Shafi'is: if the worker and the owner differ over the very basis of the mudaraba, the owner saying "I handed you the money to buy for me by way of agency" and the worker "you concluded a qirad with me", the owner is believed with his oath, because the default is that work has no counterpart. If he swears, the owner takes the money and its profit, and the worker has no wage. If the two produce evidence, the apparent situation gives precedence to the evidence of the worker, for it carries additional knowledge.
Al-Shihab al-Ramli (may Allah have mercy on him) confirms it: "The owner is believed with his oath, the rule being that whoever's word prevails over the basis of a thing, his word prevails over its description as well, besides the default of the absence of the trust that exempts from liability" (Hashiyat al-Ramli on Asna al-Matalib, Sharh Rawd al-Talib 2/392; see Rawdat al-Talibin 3/766; Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/361; Hashiyat 'Umayra 'ala Kanz al-Raghibin 3/145).
The Malikis: if the owner says "it is a loan" and the worker "it is a qirad or a deposit", the word goes to the owner with his oath according to the well-known view of the school, because the default is to believe the owner as to how his money left his hand, and the worker is a claimant seeking to remove liability from himself, whether their dispute arises before or after the work. It has been said: he is believed after the work, not before.
If the owner says "I handed it to you as a qirad" and the worker "rather as a loan", the worker is believed, for the owner here claims the profit and is not believed. In sum, the word goes to whichever of the two claims the loan.
If the owner says "it is a deposit with you" and the worker "it is a qirad", if he worked with it, the worker is liable for its destruction, for he claims from his owner the authorization to put it in circulation, and the default is the absence of authorization. If it perished before the work, there is no liability upon him, for he is a trustee under both claims, the two agreeing that it was an entrustment: one claims it by way of deposit (wadi'a), the other by way of qirad. If the owner says "it is a qirad" and the worker "rather a deposit", the word goes to the worker, for his owner claims from him the profit; this when they dispute after the work, otherwise the word of his owner prevails, like their dispute over the share before the loss (al-Mudawwana al-Kubra 12/126, 127; al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 5/312; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 4/437; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 6/225; Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 4/534).
The Hanafis: if the owner says "you took it by usurpation" and the holder "you handed it to me as a deposit", the holder is liable, just as if the depositor said "I took it as a deposit" and the owner "you took it by usurpation" (Majma' al-Damanat 2/662).
The owner and the mudarib differ over the return of the capital of the mudaraba: the mudarib alleges that he returned it to the owner, who denies it. The jurists differ over whether the word of the mudarib or that of the owner is to be accepted.
The Hanafis, the Shafi'is in the soundest view and the Hanbalis in one view: the word goes to the worker with his oath, for he is a trustee; the greater part of the benefit belongs to the owner, so that the worker is like one who gives a deposit, and his benefit comes not from the money itself but from the work done with it; and the owner may take the money back from his hand whenever he wishes, so that he is like an agent without fee.
Al-Kasani illustrates it in Bada'i' al-Sana'i' (6/108): "If they divided the profit and then differed, the mudarib saying 'I had returned the capital to you before the division' and the owner 'I did not receive the capital before that', the word goes to the owner, and the mudarib returns what he took for himself as a complete capital, what the owner took of the capital being reckoned upon the latter's capital, and the capital is completed by what the mudarib returns; what thereafter remains of the mudarib's taking is divided between them in halves. It is so because the mudarib alleges that it was the capital, and the owner denies it; yet the mudarib, trustee though he is, is believed only for removing liability from himself, not for handing over to another; and because the mudarib alleges the discharge of what remains of the money and the profit, and the owner contests it, his word is not admitted as to entitlement."
He continues: "If the two produce evidence, it is that of the mudarib, for it establishes the restitution of the capital; it cannot be said that the apparent situation testifies for the mudarib in his claim of restitution of the capital, since profit comes only after restitution, being the condition of the validity of dividing the profit, for merchants have grown used to sharing the profit while the capital remains in the mudarib's hand, so that the apparent is no witness for the mudarib."
Ibn Sama'a reports in his Nawadir, from Abu Yusuf, the case of a man who handed another one thousand dirhams as a valid mudaraba, whereupon the owner began taking fifty and twenty for his upkeep while the mudarib worked with that upkeep and traded at a profit what he bought and sold. At the settlement, the two reckon upon a capital of one thousand dirhams on the day they settle, and the profit is divided between them in halves; what the owner took for his upkeep does not count as a deduction from the capital, but the two reckon a capital of one thousand from the whole of the money, and what remains of it is divided between them in halves. For if the amount taken from the capital were reckoned as capital, the mudaraba would be annulled, since the owner's reclaiming of his capital entails the annulment of the mudaraba, and they did not intend its annulment; the capital is therefore set within what remains, so that it be not annulled should there be profit.
If there is no profit, the mudarib has nothing, for the condition has been validly stipulated and he is entitled only to what was stipulated, the profit, which did not come about.
The Shafi'is state the rule: every trustee who claims restitution from the one who entrusted him is believed on his oath, except the pledgee and the lessee.
The Hanbalis in the school and the Shafi'is in the view opposed to the soundest: the word goes to the owner with his oath when there is no evidence, for the worker took the money for his own benefit and his word about its return is not accepted, like the borrower in gratuitous loan; because the owner denies and the word of the denier prevails; and because the mudarib took the capital only for his own benefit, not for that of the owner (al-Bayan 7/233; al-Muhadhdhab 1/396; Rawdat al-Talibin 3/764; Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/361; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 5/278; al-Najm al-Wahhaj 5/285; al-Dibaj 2/442; al-Mughni 5/45; al-Kafi 2/282; al-Insaf 5/455; Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/613; Majma' al-Damanat 2/662).
The Malikis: the word goes to the worker who asserts that he returned the money of the mudaraba to his owner with its profit, where he had received it without evidence; otherwise, if he had received it with evidence, there must, on the well-known view, be evidence witnessing his return, for the rule is that whatever was taken under witnessing is not released from except under witnessing. The evidence must be intended for documentation: it is that which the giver has witnessed against the receiver out of fear of denial. If the receiver witnessed it without the owner's presence, or if the owner witnessed it without fear of denial, it is as if the receipt had been without evidence; and the apparent view is that the word of the giver is accepted when he asserts that he witnessed it for fear of denial. He must then swear to his claim of restitution, even if he is not under suspicion, by unanimous agreement.
This applies when the worker claims the return of the capital and the profit, or of the capital and the owner's share of the profit, where there was profit. If he claims the return of the capital alone, without the profit, where there was profit, the views are as follows:
In sum, the apparent meaning of the Mudawwana is non-acceptance in the two cases; al-Lakhmi upholds acceptance in both; and al-Qabisi upholds acceptance in one case and non-acceptance in the other (al-Mudawwana al-Kubra 12/117; al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 5/310; Mawahib al-Jalil 7/352, 353; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 4/435; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 6/223, 224; Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 4/532).
The Hanafis: if the owner and the mudarib differ over the general and the specific, the word goes to the claimant of the general, when one alleges the mudaraba in all trades, in all places, or with all persons, and the other one kind of goods among the kinds, one place among the places, one person among the persons; for the word of the claimant of the general accords with the purpose of the contract, the purpose being profit, and that purpose is best served by the general.
Likewise, if they differ over the unqualified and the qualified, the word goes to the claimant of the unqualified, even if the owner says "I authorized you to trade in wheat, to the exclusion of all else", and the mudarib answers "you did not designate for me a particular trade": the word goes to the mudarib with his oath, for the unqualified is closer to the purpose of the contract, as we have shown.
Al-Hasan ibn Ziyad (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the word goes to the owner in both cases; it has been said that this is the view of Zufar. The reason is that the authorization derives from the owner, and his word therefore prevails in that. If evidence stands between them, it is that of the claimant of the general in the claim of the general against the specific, for it establishes an addition; and in the claim of the qualified against the unqualified, the evidence of the claimant of the qualified, for it establishes the addition, while the evidence of the unqualified remains without effect.
If they agree upon the specific but differ as to which: the owner says "I handed you the money as a mudaraba in cloth" and the mudarib "in foodstuffs", the word goes to the owner according to all, for preference by the purpose of the contract is impossible here, the two being equal in that respect; preference is therefore given by the authorization, which derives from the owner. If the two produce evidence, it is that of the mudarib, for his establishes while the owner's negates, the owner needing no proof and the mudarib needing proof to remove liability from himself; the evidence establishing the addition is therefore preferable.
They said of the two evidences that conflict over the description of the authorization when both are dated: the later is preferable, for the second condition annuls the first, and recourse to it is preferable (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 6/109; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 7/172; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 8/322).
Bada'i al-Sana'i by al-Kasani · Hanafi school
Allah removed all blame from the one who nurses her child, and what is meant thereby is nursing for a wage. Its proof is His words, the Most High: "when you settle what you have given, then according to fair usage" (al-Baqara, 233), it was said: that is, the wage you accepted; and His words: "if they nurse for you, give them their wages" (at-Talaq, 6), and this is an explicit text, and it occurs in the divorced women.
As for the Sunna, what Muhammad reported in the foundational work from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri and Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with them) from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Let not a man outbid his brother's hiring, nor court over his brother's proposal; do not practice najash, do not sell by casting stones, and whoever.