First approach:
One simply follows the outward wording, treating the matter as resting on a single transmission. Ibn Abī Mūsā states that Imām Aḥmad disliked a Muslim’s hiring himself to carry carrion or swine for a Christian. He adds: if the Muslim nevertheless does so, judgment is given in his favor for the wage; and if he hires himself to transport something unlawful for a fellow Muslim, the disapproval is even more severe, yet he still receives the hire. Whether that wage is lawful for him is debated on two opinions, the stronger being that it is not lawful and that he should give it away in charity. Abū’l-Ḥasan al-Āmidī reports the same, saying: when a man hires himself to carry wine, swine, or carrion, it is disapproved—Aḥmad stated this explicitly. This is a disapproval tantamount to prohibition, for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) cursed the one who conveys them.

Once this is established, judgment is nonetheless awarded for the hire, and there is no impediment to granting that hire even though the task is forbidden—just as with the fee taken by the cupper (ḥajjām). These scholars have made it clear that he is entitled to the wage even though it is prohibited to him, according to the sound view.

Second approach:
The report is re-interpreted against its apparent sense, treating the issue as based on a single narration, namely that the contract of hire is invalid. This is the position of al-Qāḍī in the Mujarrad, but it is weak; al-Qāḍī retracted it in his later works, for he compiled the Mujarrad in his early days.

Third approach:
The issue is placed on two narrations: one holds that the contract is valid and the wage is due, while both the act and the wage remain reprehensible.