and marriage and sharecropping (musaqat). Specifying a year or thirty is an arbitrary imposition (tahakkum) for which there is no evidence; it is no more appropriate than specifying a longer or shorter period. If he hires it for years, there is no need to prorate the wage over each year, according to the manifest view of Ahmad's statements, just as if he hires for a year, there is no need to prorate the wage of every month, by consensus. If he hires for a month, there is no need to prorate the wage of every day. This is because the benefit is like tangible assets in a sale; if the transaction includes multiple assets, one is not required to estimate the price of each individual asset, and it is the same here. Al-Shafi'i said, in one of his two opinions, the same as our view. In the other opinion, he said: It requires prorating the wage for each year, because benefits differ with the passage of years, so we cannot be sure (13) that the contract will not be dissolved, and thus he would not know what to revert to. This is invalidated by the months, for there is no requirement to prorate the wage over them, despite the possibility they mentioned.

Section: Hire is of two types. One is that he contracts it for a duration. The second is that he contracts it for a known task, such as building a wall, sewing a shirt, or carrying to a specific place. When the thing hired is something that has a task, such as an animal, both methods are permissible because it has a task by which its benefits are estimated. If it has no task, such as a house or land, it is not permissible except for a duration. When the duration is specified, it is not permissible to specify the task. This is the view of Abu Hanifah and Al-Shafi'i, because combining both increases uncertainty (gharar), as he may finish the work before the expiration of the duration. If he is used for the remainder of the duration, he has exceeded what the contract was concluded upon; if he does not work, he has abandoned work during part of the duration. It may also happen that he does not finish the work within the duration; if he completes it, he has worked outside the duration, and if he does not finish it, he has not fulfilled what the contract was concluded upon. This is uncertainty (gharar) that could have been avoided, and nothing like it is found in the location of consensus, so the contract is not permissible with it. It is reported from Ahmad regarding someone who rented an animal to a place, on the condition that he enter it in three days, but he entered in six, so he said: "He has harmed him." It was said: "Should he return the value to him?" He replied: "No, he should settle with him." This indicates the permissibility of specifying both. It is the view of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibn