the Quran, to teach her, making it her bridal gift. (1)

If someone were to ask: How can you permit it when it is an act of worship?

We reply: Yes, we permit it even though it is an act of worship, because our permitting it is due to the benefit received by the one hiring. Thus, if we were to hire someone merely to recite the Quran, the hire would be unlawful and invalid. Teaching, however, is different, because the teacher exerts himself and instructs the ignorant person until he comes to know; he also reviews with him what he has memorized of the Quran, ensuring that he retains it. Thus, it involves permissible work performed for another person. Therefore, the stronger view is that payment for teaching the Quran is permissible. We have mentioned three proofs: one textual proof and two practical proofs.

Second: Knowledge of the wage. A worker or wet nurse may be hired in return for their food and clothing. If someone enters a public bathhouse or a ship, or gives his garment to a launderer or tailor without making a contract, this is valid at the customary rate of payment.

His statement, “Second: knowledge of the wage,” means that the second condition is that the wage must be known. The evidence for this is the same evidence requiring knowledge of the benefit, because it is one of the two objects of the contract and must therefore be known.

Thus, if he says, “I have hired this house from you in exchange for some of the dirhams in my hand,” the hire is invalid, because the dirhams in his hand are unknown, and the portion of them is likewise unknown. Even if the dirhams in his hand were known—for example, if he had ten thousand riyals with him and said, “In exchange for some of the dirhams in my hand”—the wage would still be invalid.

Likewise, if he says, “I have hired this house from you in exchange for what this mare gives birth to,” it is also invalid, because the wage is unknown.