or the wall after its construction and before its delivery, he is not absolved of the work. Ahmad stated this in the narration of Ibn Mansur. For if he says: 'Use one thousand bricks in such and such,' and he performs the work, then it falls down, he is entitled to the wage. As for the private employee, he is entitled to his wage upon the passage of the duration, whether what he worked on was destroyed or not. Ahmad stated this, saying: 'If he hires him for a day, and he works, and what he worked on falls down at night, he is entitled to the wage.' That is because he is only obligated to deliver himself and perform the work he is hired for, and that has been found from him, unlike the common employee. If he hires an employee to build a wall for him that is ten cubits long, and he builds part of it, then it falls down, he is not entitled to anything until he completes it, whether it was on the hirer's property or elsewhere; because entitlement is conditional upon its completion, and that has not been found. Ahmad said: 'If it is said to him: Raise a wall of such and such height, he must fulfill it; if it falls, he is responsible for the completion.' Likewise, if he hires him to dig a well for him ten cubits deep, and he digs five of it, and soil from its sides collapses into it, he is not entitled to anything until he completes its digging.

910 - Issue: He said: (And if it is destroyed while in a secure place, there is no guarantee [liability] upon him, and he has no wage for what he worked on it).

There is a difference of opinion in the narration from Ahmad regarding the common employee if the object is destroyed while in his secure place, without any transgression or negligence on his part. It is narrated from him that he is not liable. Ahmad stated this in the narration of Ibn Mansur. This is the opinion of Tawus, 'Ata', Abu Hanifah, Zufar, and the opinion of al-Shafi'i. It is also narrated from Ahmad that if its destruction was by something he could withstand, he is liable, but if it was by drowning or an overwhelming enemy, there is no liability. Ahmad said in the narration of Abu Talib: 'If his hand committed it, or it was lost from among his goods, he is liable, and if it was an enemy or drowning, there is no liability.' Abu Yusuf said something similar. The correct view in the madhhab is the first one. This narration is susceptible to the interpretation that he only obligated liability upon him if it was destroyed specifically from among his goods because he is under suspicion. This is why he said regarding the trust (wadi'ah), in one narration: 'It is guaranteed if it went missing from among his property; as for other than that, there is no liability upon him,' because his limiting the guarantee to when it is destroyed from among his goods indicates that...