This creates an element of unfairness and violates the principles of Islamic hire and rental agreements, which prohibit imposing undue burdens or obligations th

Ibn Qudāmah al-Maqdisī said: As for the private employee (al-ʾajīr al-khāṣ), who is hired for a specific period, he is not liable for damages unless he acts negligently. Ahmad (Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal), in the narration of Muhannā (bin Yahyā ash-Shāmī), was asked about a man who instructed his servant to measure grain for another person, but the weight fell from his hand and broke. He ruled: "There is no liability on him." It was asked: Isn’t he like the launderer (who is liable)? He responded: No, the launderer is a shared worker (mushtarak). It was further asked: What if a man hires another to fetch water, and the hired worker breaks the jar? Ahmad replied: There is no liability on him. Another question followed: What if a man hires someone to plow with a cow, and the plow gets broken? Ahmad ruled: There is no liability on him. This view aligns with the opinions of Mālik, Abū Ḥanīfa, and their companions. However, the apparent stance of as-Shāfiʿī differs, as he holds another opinion that all workers are liable for damages. In his Musnad, it is narrated that ʿAlī (may Allāh be pleased with him) held workers liable for damages, stating: "People will not be set right except by this." Our argument is that the worker's actions are not inherently subject to liability, so he is not held liable for what is damaged during his work, similar to cases like retribution (al-qiṣāṣ) or amputating a thief's hand (under legal punishment). As for the narration from ʿAlī, it is classified as mursal (a disconnected chain of transmission). The correct version of the report is that he held dyers (al-ṣabbāgh) and jewelers (al-ṣawwāgh) liable. Even if the narration is general, it is interpreted in light of specific cases, as general rulings are understood in context with specific ones. Furthermore, a private worker acts as an agent on behalf of the owner in utilizing his services for what he was instructed to do. Therefore, he is not held liable unless he acts negligently, akin to an agent (al-wakīl) or a business partner (al-muḍārib). However, if damages occur due to negligence, liability is obligatory. For instance, a baker who wastes fuel, bakes before the proper time, or leaves the bread too long until it burns, is liable because the damage resulted from his negligence, making him responsible like any other worker." (Al-Mughnī, 5/307). For this same reason, it is both unreasonable and contrary to Islamic principles for such market fluctuations to impact the profit of the one hiring the service. Thus, this contractual stipulation leads to the unlawful consumption of people’s wealth. Allāh, the Exalted says: ﴿وَلَا تَأۡكُلُوا۟ أَمۡوَ ٰ⁠لَكُم بَیۡنَكُم بِٱلۡبَـٰطِلِ﴾ "And do not consume one another's wealth unjustly." [2:188] As-Saʿdī (may Allāh have mercy on him) said: "Do not consume each other’s wealth unjustly," meaning, do not take the property of others. It is attributed to them because a Muslim should love for his brother what he loves for himself and respect their property as he respects his own. Taking the property of others encourages others to take your property when they are able to do so. Since there are two forms of consumption of wealth: one that is lawful and one that is unlawful, and the prohibited act is consuming wealth unjustly, Allāh specifically refers to this. This includes consuming wealth through coercion, theft, betrayal of trust in a deposit or loan, and similar acts. It also includes taking wealth in exchange for something unlawful, such as in usurious transactions or gambling, as these involve consuming wealth unjustly, because there is no lawful compensation. Additionally, it includes taking wealth through cheating in buying, selling, leasing, and similar transactions, and also includes exploiting workers and taking their wages unfairly..." (Tafsīr al-Karīm ar-Raḥmān, 144).