from him, and [thus] it shall be fulfilled by someone else, just as if he had fled. We do not concede that it is possible to fulfill the benefits through him, because one cannot be secure from his abandonment [of the work], nor is his performance of it to be trusted. We do not say that [the owner] has the right to rescind the musaqah contract; rather, we say: Since it is not possible to protect it from your betrayal, appoint someone else to perform this work and withdraw your hand from it, because trustworthiness has become unattainable on your part, so the owner of the wealth is not obligated to trust you. This differs from rescinding it for a reason other than betrayal, for in that case there is no harm to the owner of the wealth, whereas here, his wealth is lost.

Section: If he is unable to perform the work due to weakness, despite his trustworthiness, someone else is joined with him, and he is not removed from his position, because the work is due from him, and there is no harm in his remaining in control of it. If he is completely unable [to perform the work], he appoints someone in his place to do the work, and the wage is [to be paid] by him in both situations, because he is obligated to fulfill the work, and this is part of his fulfilling it.

Section: If they disagree regarding the portion stipulated for the worker, the word is that of the owner of the wealth. This was mentioned by Ibn Hamid. Malik said: The word is that of the worker, if he claims what is plausible, because his claim is stronger due to his having taken possession of the orchard and the work. Al-Shafi'i said: They must both take an oath (tahalufan). This also applies if they disagree regarding which trees the musaqah contract covers. Our argument is that the owner of the wealth denies the increase that the worker claims, so the word is his, because of his [the Prophet's] peace be upon him saying: "The burden of proof is on the claimant, and the oath is on the one who denies." If one of them has evidence, it is judged accordingly. If both have evidence, there are two views regarding which one takes precedence with his evidence, based on the issue of [conflicting] evidence of the possessor and the non-possessor. If the trees belong to two people, and one of them confirms the worker's claim while the other denies it, he [the worker] takes his share from the property of the one who confirmed it. If he [the owner who confirmed it] testifies against the one who denied it, his testimony is accepted if he is a person of integrity (adl), because he does not draw a benefit to himself, nor does he repel a harm.