location and its designation, or by its measurement, such as if he said: "You will plant this area with wheat and this with barley," or "You will plant two mudds of wheat and two mudds of barley," or "You will plant a qafiz of wheat and two qafizs of barley." It is permissible; because each of these is a way to knowledge [of the amount], so it is sufficient.

Section: If he enters into a musaqat agreement with him on the condition that if he waters it by irrigation, he receives one third, and if he waters it with effort, he receives one half, it is not valid; because the labor is unknown, the share is unknown, and it is in the sense of "two sales in one sale." It is derived that it could be valid, by analogy to the issue of lease (ijara). If he says: "You shall have two fifths if there is a loss for you, and if there is no loss for you, you shall have one fourth," it is not valid. Ahmad explicitly stated this, and said: "This is two conditions in one condition," and he disliked it. This is in the sense of the preceding issue, and what was derived for it is derived here. If he enters into a musaqat agreement with him in this orchard for one third, on the condition that he enters into a musaqat agreement with him in another orchard for a known portion, it is not valid; because he stipulated a contract within a contract, so it becomes in the sense of "two sales in one sale," like his saying: "I have sold you my garment on the condition that you sell me your garment." It is invalid for two reasons: First, that he stipulated another contract within the contract, and the benefit resulting from that is unknown, so it is as if he stipulated the consideration in exchange for a known and an unknown thing. Second, the other contract is not binding upon him by the condition, so the condition falls, and if it falls, it becomes necessary to return the portion which he left from the consideration for its sake, and that is unknown, so the whole becomes unknown.

Section: If one of the two partners enters into a musaqat agreement with his partner and grants him more from the fruit than his [own] share—for example, if the original ownership between them was half and half, and he granted him two thirds of the fruit—it is valid, and the one sixth is his share from the musaqat, so it is as if he said: "I have entered into a musaqat agreement with you regarding my share for one third." If he enters into a musaqat agreement with him on the condition that the fruit be shared equally between them, or that the worker gets one third, it is a corrupt musaqat; because the worker is already entitled to half of it by his ownership, so he has not granted him anything in exchange for his work. And if he stipulates one third for him, he has stipulated that the one who is not the worker takes one third from the worker's share and employs him without compensation. Thus, it is not valid. When he works on the trees based on this, the fruit is shared between them equally by virtue of ownership, and the worker is not entitled to anything for his work; because he has acted voluntarily by his acceptance of the work without compensation, so he resembles...