expelled them from the land and drove them out of Khaybar, and if there had been a fixed term, it would not have been permissible to drive them out. It is a contract for a part of the growth of the property, thus it is permissible, like mudarabah (profit-sharing); or it is a contract for the property in return for a part of its growth, resembling mudarabah, and differing from ijarah (lease) because ijarah is a sale, so it is binding like the sale of tangible assets, and because its consideration is specified and known, so it resembles a sale. Their analogy is invalidated by mudarabah, which is more similar to musaqah than to ijarah, so analogy [of musaqah] to it is more appropriate. As for their argument that it leads to the property owner rescinding it after the fruit has matured, we say: when the fruit appears, it appears on their joint property, so the worker's right to it is not forfeited by rescission or otherwise, just as if he were to rescind the mudarabah after the profit has appeared. Therefore, it does not require setting a fixed term; and for that reason, neither the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) nor his Caliphs, may Allah be pleased with them, set a known term for the people of Khaybar when they contracted with them. Moreover, it is a permissible (non-binding) contract, so it does not require a fixed term, like mudarabah and other permissible contracts. Whenever one of them rescinds it after the fruit appears, it remains between them according to their stipulation, and the worker must complete the work, just as the mudarabah agent is required to sell the goods if the mudarabah is rescinded after the profit appears. If the worker rescinds it before that, he has no claim to anything because he consented to the forfeiture of his right; he is therefore like the mudarabah agent who rescinds before the profit appears, or the ju'alah (commission-based contract) agent who rescinds before completing his work. If the property owner rescinds before the fruit appears, he owes the worker the equivalent wage (ajr al-mithl) because he prevented him from completing the work by which he would be entitled to the consideration, thus it resembles the case where the principal rescinds before the completion of the ju'alah work. It differs from the property owner in mudarabah if he rescinds it before the profit appears, because the work in this case typically leads to the appearance of the fruit; were it not for the rescission, the fruit would have appeared, and he would have owned his share of it, and he has cut that off by his rescission, so it resembles the rescission of ju'alah, unlike mudarabah, as it is not known that it will lead to profit. Also, when fruit appears on the trees, the work performed on it initially is among the causes of its appearance, whereas when profit appears in mudarabah, the initial work may have had no effect on it at all. As for if we say: It is a binding contract, then it is not valid except for a known term.