each of them regarding the tools of his profession. Accordingly, the owner of the garment takes an oath: "I did not permit you to cut it into a qaba'." This suffices because the permission is negated by it, and he becomes a cutter of something for which permission was not granted. If the qaba' is sewn with threads belonging to its owner, the tailor does not have the right to rip it open, and the owner has the right to take it back sewn without compensation; because he performed a task on the property of another that was devoid of any essence owned by him, so he had no right to remove it, just as if he had moved the property of another from one place to another; he would not have the right to return it if its owner is content with leaving it there. If the threads belong to the tailor, he has the right to remove them; because they are the essence of his property, and he is not obligated to accept their value; because they are his property, and his property is not made to perish by his taking it for which there is a sanctity. If they agree to compensate him for it, it is permissible; because the right belongs to both of them. If the owner of the garment says: "I will tighten every thread with a thread so that when he pulls it, the thread of the owner of the garment returns to its place," the tailor is not obligated to respond to that; because it is an exploitation of his property. The ruling on the dyer regarding the removal of the dye if he desires it, and other than that of his rulings, is the same as the ruling on the dye of a usurper, as has passed in its chapter. The position that is stronger in my view is that the statement is that of the owner of the garment, for the reasons we mentioned regarding their evidence.

Section: Everyone who is hired for work on an object, the situation does not escape one of two cases: Either he performs it while it is in the hand of the employee, such as a dyer dyeing in his shop, and a tailor in his shop, in which case he is not absolved of the work until he delivers it to the hirer, and he is not entitled to the wage until he delivers it completed; because the contract is concluded for a duration, so he is not absolved of it as long as he has not delivered it to the contractor, like sold food that is not absolved before its delivery to the buyer. However, if he performs the work on the hirer's property, such as the hirer bringing him to his house to sew in it or dye in it, then he is absolved of the work and is entitled to his wage simply by doing the work; because it is in the hirer's possession, so he becomes the deliverer of the work bit by bit. If he hired a man to build a wall for him in his house, or dig a well in it, he would be absolved of the work and entitled to his wage simply by doing the work. If the well or the wall were in the desert, he would not be absolved simply by doing the work. If it collapsed...