as if he had said to him: "I will work on it for nothing." Our scholars mentioned another view: that he is entitled to the wage of his like (ajr al-mithl); because musaqat entails compensation, so it does not lapse by his consent to waive it, like marriage, and since the compensation was not delivered to him, he is entitled to the wage of his like. Our position is that he worked on the property of another as a volunteer, so he is not entitled to compensation, just as if he had not entered into the musaqat contract. This differs from marriage for two reasons: First, the marriage contract is valid, so compensation is mandatory due to its validity, whereas this is corrupt and does not necessitate anything. Second, private parts (abd') cannot be made lawful by mere offering and permission, while labor here is made lawful by that. Furthermore, the dower in marriage must necessarily be either mandatory by the contract, by consummation, or by both. If it were mandatory by the contract, drawing an analogy to this would not be valid for two reasons: First, marriage is valid and this is corrupt. Second, the contract here [does not necessitate, and if it did necessitate] it would necessitate it before the work. There is no disagreement that this does not necessitate anything before the work. If it were mandatory by consummation, the analogy would not be valid for two reasons: First, consummation cannot be made lawful by permission and offering, unlike labor. Second, consummation, even if devoid of a contract, would necessitate [a dower], whereas this is the opposite. If it were mandatory by both, the analogy is prevented for all these reasons. As for if one of the two enters into a musaqat agreement with his partner that they both work together, the musaqat is corrupt, the fruit is shared between them according to their respective ownership, and they offset the labor if they are equal in it. If one of them has an advantage, you consider: if an advantage was stipulated for him in exchange for his work, he is entitled to the remainder of the wage of his like, and if [nothing was stipulated] for him, he has nothing except according to the view mentioned by our scholars, which we have discussed.