of it, nor the amount of food and condiments (idam). In the case of ambiguity, it is referred back to the sustenance of her like. Al-Shafi'i said: It is not valid until the duration of nursing, the amount of food, its type, the amount of condiment, and its type are specified, and the amount is known and regulated by description, like items subject to a forward sale (salam), and what is permitted from it daily. The basis of the disagreement is whether providing food for a hired worker is a condition absolutely; we have already mentioned this in the chapter on leasing (ijarah) and provided evidence for it from the story of Moses (peace be upon him) and the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "May Allah have mercy on my brother Moses; he hired himself out for the food of his belly and the chastity of his private parts." This is also because the maintenance of the wife is entitled by way of compensation, and it is not specified, and the same applies here. The father is entitled to take from her what he is owed of the child's maintenance and what he requires; because it is a substitute that has been established for him in her liability, so he is entitled to fulfill it himself or through another. If he wishes, he may spend it on him directly, and if he wishes, he may take it for himself and have someone else spend on the child. If he gives her permission to spend it on the child, it is permissible. If the child dies after the nursing period has expired, his father is entitled to take what remains of the maintenance. Is it owed in one lump sum or on a day-to-day basis? There are two views regarding this: One is that it is owed in one lump sum. Al-Qadi mentioned this in al-Jami' and used as evidence the statement of Ahmad: If he enters into khul' with her for the nursing of his child, and he dies during the two years, he said: He may revert to her for what remains of that, and he did not consider the term (ajl). This is because it was only divided due to the child's need for it to be distributed; thus, when the need for distribution ceases, it is owed in its entirety. The second view is that it is not owed except on a day-to-day basis. Al-Qadi mentioned this in al-Mujarrad, and it is the correct view; because it was established as a deferred payment, so it is not owed in advance, just as if one entered into a forward sale (salam) with him for bread, taking from him a known weight every day, and the entitled party died. Also, because the right does not become due upon the death of the beneficiary, just as if the agent of the right-holder died, even if there is a disagreement regarding its entitlement upon the death of the person against whom it is held. The followers of al-Shafi'i have two views on this, similar to these two. If the woman dies, two views are derived regarding its immediate entitlement, similar to these two, based on whether the debt becomes due upon the death of the person against whom it is held or not.