the supply to the food used in expiation, and for clothing to the least amount of similar clothing. Ahmad said: If they dispute over food, it shall be decreed for him as one mudd per day. He based this on the outward meaning of what Allah the Almighty commanded regarding the feeding of the poor, which the Sunnah interpreted as a mudd for every poor person. Also, because the food is unspecified in both places, whatever one of them is interpreted by, the other is likewise interpreted by. He may not feed the worker anything other than foods that agree with him, because there is harm in that, and he would not be able to fulfill what is obligatory for him from it.

Section: If the worker stipulates clothing and specified, described maintenance, as is described in a salam contract, that is permissible according to everyone. If he does not stipulate food or clothing, then his maintenance and clothing are upon himself. The same applies to a wet nurse. Ibn al-Mundhir said: I do not know of any difference of opinion regarding what I have mentioned. If he stipulates for the worker the food and clothing of someone else in a described manner, it is permissible, because it is known, similar to if he had stipulated specific dirhams. That belongs to the worker; if he wishes, he eats it, and if he wishes, he leaves it. If it is not described, it is not permissible, because it is unknown. It was tolerated in the case where [it was stipulated for the worker] due to the need for it, and custom (urf) has occurred accordingly; therefore, it is not binding to tolerate it without that. If he hires an animal for its fodder, or for a named wage and its fodder, it is not permissible, because it is unknown and has no custom to which one can return. We do not know anyone who said it is permissible, unless he stipulates it described, in which case it is permissible.

Section: If the worker does not need the employer's food due to having his own food, or that of someone else, or is unable to eat due to illness or otherwise, his maintenance does not lapse, and he has the right to demand it, because it is compensation; thus, it does not lapse due to his being in a state of sufficiency, just like dirhams. If he needs medicine for his illness, the employer is not obligated to provide it, because he did not stipulate providing food for him except while he is healthy. However, he is obligated to him for the amount of the food of a healthy person, with which the worker buys what is suitable for himself; because the contract did not cover what exceeds the food of a healthy person, he is not obligated to provide it, just like the excess in amount.