the garment, for the number of stitches is unknown. As for his statement that its location is not fixed, we say: It is approximate, so that does not prevent its validity, just like the location of sewing on the hem of a garment. The fee is the responsibility of the one against whom retaliation is taken. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i and Abu Thawr. Abu Hanifah and Malik said: It is the responsibility of the one who implements it, because it is not fixed, so there is no duty upon the one against whom retaliation is taken except to make himself available, just as if he purchased the fruit of his palm trees. Our argument is that it is a fee that becomes due for the fulfillment of a right, so it is the responsibility of the one who is fulfilling it, like the fee for a weigh-master or a measurer. What they mentioned is incorrect; for the cutting is owed by him, unlike the fruit, as evidenced by the fact that if he made himself available for the cutting and he did not cut, and someone else cut it, the right of the owner of the retaliation does not lapse. If availability were equivalent to delivery, his right would have lapsed, as in the case of fruit.

Section: It is permissible to hire a man to guide him along a road; for the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and Abu Bakr hired Abdullah ibn Urayqit as an expert guide—the one skilled in guidance—to show them the road to Medina. It is permissible to hire a weigh-master or a measurer for a known task or for a known duration. Malik, al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, and the scholars of opinion held this view, and we know of no opponent regarding it. It has been narrated in the hadith of Suwayd ibn Qays: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) came to us, and a man bought trousers from us, and there was a man there who was weighing for a fee, and the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Weigh and give extra." Narrated by Abu Dawud. It is permissible to hire a man to accompany a debtor whose accompaniment is due. Ahmad was asked about this and said: There is no harm; he has preoccupied him. He said in another place: Something other than this is more pleasing to me. He disliked it; because it leads to litigation and involves hardship for a Muslim, and one is not safe from him being an oppressor, so he would be helping him in his oppression. However, it is permissible in general; because the appearance is that he is in the right, as it is apparent that a judge does not rule except with truth, and for this reason, we permitted an agent to perform it.