contradicts the requirement of the contract. Those who assigned it to both argued that it takes place after the fruit has matured and the transaction has concluded, so it is similar to transporting it to one's home. Our evidence is that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) handed over Khaybar to the Jews on the condition that they work on it using their own resources. Furthermore, this is a form of labor, so it is the worker's responsibility, just like drying in the sun. What they mentioned is invalidated by [the rule of] drying in the sun, and it differs from transporting to the home, because that occurs after the division [of the harvest] and the expiration of the contract, so it resembles a warehouse.

Section: If it is stipulated that the orchard owner's servants work with him, it is like stipulating the work of the orchard owner himself, because their work is like his own, for the servant's hand is like his master's hand. Abu al-Khattab said: There are two views regarding this. The first is as we have mentioned. The second is that it is permissible because his servants are his property, so it is permissible to make them subordinate to his property, like the ox of the water wheel, and just as it is permissible in qirad (profit-sharing) for the owner to give the worker an animal to carry goods on. As for the orchard owner himself, he cannot be made a subordinate. This is the opinion of Malik, al-Shafi'i, and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan. If he stipulates servants to work with him, their maintenance is based on whatever they stipulate regarding it. If they make the contract absolute and do not mention their maintenance, then it is the responsibility of the orchard owner. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. Malik said: Their maintenance is the responsibility of the musaqi (worker), and it should not be stipulated as the responsibility of the orchard owner, because the labor is the responsibility of the musaqi, so the provisions of those who perform it are his responsibility, like the provisions of his own servants. Our evidence is that they are the property of the orchard owner, so their maintenance is his responsibility in the case of an absolute contract, as if he had hired them. If he stipulates it to be the worker's responsibility, it is permissible, and it is not required that it be specified/estimated. This is also the view of al-Shafi'i. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan said: It is required to specify it, because he stipulated a condition upon him that is not originally his obligation, so it must be known, like all other conditions. Our evidence is that if it were required to specify it, it would be required to mention its attributes, but mentioning its attributes is not required. Thus, specifying it is not required. It is necessary to identify the servants whose work is stipulated, either by sight or by a description through which they are known, just as in a lease contract.