it may not, then there are two views regarding the validity of the musaqah contract. The first is that it is valid, because it is possible that the trees will bear fruit and it is possible that they will not, and musaqah is permissible in such cases. The second is that it is invalid, because it is a contract regarding a non-existent thing whose existence is not typical, so it is not valid, like salam (forward sale) in similar circumstances. Furthermore, it involves gharar (uncertainty) that could have been avoided, so entering into a contract regarding it is not permissible, just as if he had stipulated the fruit of a specific, designated palm tree. It differs from the case where he stipulates a period in which the fruit matures, for it is typical that the trees will bear fruit, and the possibility that they will not is rare and could not have been avoided. If we say: the contract is valid, then he is entitled to his share of the fruit. If it does not bear fruit, he is entitled to nothing. If we say: it is invalid, he is entitled to the equivalent wage (ajr al-mithl), regardless of whether it bears fruit or not, because he did not consent to work without consideration, and the consideration was not delivered to him; thus, he is entitled to the compensation, as a single definitive view, unlike the case where he sets the term to a period in which it typically does not bear fruit.

Whenever the fruit emerges before the expiration of the term, he is entitled to his right from it if we deem the contract valid; if it emerges after [the term], he has no right to it. The position of al-Shafi'i regarding this is close to what we have mentioned.

Section: The option of condition (khiyar al-shart) does not apply to musaqah; because if it is non-binding (ja'iz), then a non-binding contract is self-sufficient without an option. If it is binding, then if one rescinds it, it is impossible to return the object of the contract, which is the work performed therein. As for the option of the session (khiyar al-majlis), it does not apply if it is non-binding, for the reasons previously mentioned. If it is binding, there are two views. The first is that it does not apply, because it is a contract in which the taking possession (qabd) of the consideration is not stipulated, and the option of condition does not apply to it, so the option of the session does not apply to it either, like marriage. The second is that it does apply, because it is a binding contract intended for wealth, thus resembling a sale.

Section: Whenever we state that it is non-binding (ja'iz), it does not require the setting of a term; because leaving it [to continue or end] is for both of them, and rescinding it is permissible for each of them whenever he wishes, so it does not require a term, like mudarabah. If he sets a time limit,