it is permissible; because there is no harm in specifying [a term], and we have already explained the permissibility of that in mudarabah, and musaqah is like it. It is rescinded by the death of either of them, his insanity, or placing him under interdiction due to prodigality, just as we said regarding mudarabah. So if the worker or the owner of the wealth dies, the musaqah contract is rescinded, and the ruling regarding it is the same as if one of them had rescinded it, based on what we have previously established. But if we hold that it is binding, the contract is not rescinded, and the heir stands in the place of the deceased from among the two; because it is a binding contract, so it resembles a lease. However, if the deceased was the worker and his heir refuses to stand in his place, he cannot be compelled; because the heir is not obligated to fulfill the rights owed by the person he inherits except for what can be paid from his estate, and the work is not something that can be fulfilled in that manner. Based on this, the judge shall hire someone from the estate to perform the work. If there is no estate, or it is impossible to hire [a replacement] from it, the owner of the wealth may rescind the contract; because it has become impossible to fulfill the object of the contract, so rescission is established, just as when it becomes impossible to [receive] the price of a sold object before taking possession of it. Then, if the fruit has already appeared, what is needed from the worker's share is sold to pay for the wage of what remains of the work, and someone is hired to perform that. If it is necessary to sell all of it, it is sold. Then, the situation must be one of two: either the fruit has reached the stage of becoming suitable [for harvest/consumption], or it has not. If it has reached the stage of becoming suitable, the owner is given the choice between buying and selling; if he buys the worker's share, it is permissible. If he chooses to sell his own share as well, he sells it, and the judge sells the worker's share. If he refuses to buy or sell, the judge sells the worker's share alone, and for the work that remains for the worker, someone is hired to perform it, and the surplus goes to his heirs. If it has not yet reached the stage of becoming suitable, the owner is also given a choice. If it is sold to a third party, it is not permissible except with the condition of cutting [the fruit immediately]. Selling the worker's share alone is not permissible, because it is impossible to cut it without also cutting the owner's share, so the possibility of cutting it is contingent upon cutting the property of another. And is it permissible