buying it by the owner? There are two views regarding this. The ruling is the same if the musaqah is rescinded upon the death of the worker, because we hold that it is permissible [to initiate the contract] but the heir refuses to perform the work. If the owner of the wealth chooses to maintain the musaqah, it is not rescinded—if we hold that it is binding—and he requests permission from the judge to spend on the fruit, and he shall be reimbursed for what he spent. If he is unable to request permission from the judge, and he spends [the money] intending to be reimbursed, and he has witnesses to the expenditure with the condition of reimbursement, then he is reimbursed for what he spent. This is one of the two views held by the companions of Al-Shafi'i, because he is in a state of necessity. If he is able to request permission from the judge but spends it with the intention of reimbursement without requesting [the judge's] permission, then is he entitled to reimbursement? There are two views, based on the issue of when one settles a debt [of another] without his permission. If he spends [the money] as a donation, he is not entitled to any reimbursement, just as if he had performed charity voluntarily. The ruling regarding spending on the fruit after the contract has been rescinded, if selling it is impossible, is exactly the same as the ruling here.

Section: If the worker flees, the owner of the wealth has the right to rescind the contract, because it is a permissible (non-binding) contract. If we hold that it is binding, its ruling is the same as if [the worker] had died and his heir refused to stand in his place. However, if the judge cannot find assets for him and it is possible to take a loan against him from the public treasury (bayt al-mal) or elsewhere, he does so. If he cannot do this, and he finds someone to work for a wage deferred until the time the fruit matures, he does so. If he finds no one, the owner of the wealth may rescind the contract. As for the deceased, no loan is taken against him, because he no longer has a legal capacity (dhimma).

Section: The worker is a trustee (amin), and his word is accepted regarding what he claims of [product] destruction, and what is claimed against him regarding betrayal; because the owner of the wealth trusted him by handing over his wealth, so he is like the mudarib (speculative partner). If he is suspected, he must take an oath. If his betrayal is proven through admission, evidence, or his refusal to swear an oath, he is joined by someone to supervise him. If it is not possible to protect [the wealth], someone is hired from his [the worker's] wealth to perform his work. This is the opinion of Al-Shafi'i. The companions of Malik said: Someone else is not to be appointed in his place; rather, [the wealth] is protected from him, because his moral corruption (fisq) does not prevent the fulfillment of the intended benefits from him, so it resembles the case where he is morally corrupt but has not committed betrayal. Our argument is that it has become impossible to fulfill the intended benefits