“…a muʾadhdhin who does not take a wage for his adhān.”

Those who permit such payment treat the case as analogous to other non-obligatory acts, and this is the root of the disagreement (that is, whether the adhān itself is obligatory or not).

Hiring someone to teach the Qur’an is likewise a matter of dispute: some scholars found it reprehensible, while others deemed it permissible. The permissive view likens it to all other services and adduces the report narrated by Khārijah ibn al-Ṣāmit, from his uncle, who said:

“We had just come from the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—when we passed by a clan of the Arabs. They said, ‘You have come from that man; do you have with you any remedy or incantation? We have a madman in chains.’ We replied, ‘Yes.’ They brought him, and for three days, morning and evening, I recited the Opening of the Book (Sūrat al-Fātiḥah) over him, gathering my saliva and spitting upon him. It was as though he were set free from bonds. They offered me a fee, but I said, ‘Not until I ask the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him.’ When I asked him, he said, ‘Eat it. By my life, whoever eats by means of a false incantation consumes the unlawful; you have eaten by means of a true incantation.’”

They also cite the narration from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī:

“The Companions of the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—were on campaign. They passed by a tribe of the Arabs who said, ‘Do you have among you anyone who can perform ruqyah? The chief of the tribe has been stung—or something has afflicted him.’ A man recited the Opening of the Book over him, and he was cured. The tribe gave him a flock of sheep, but he refused to accept it until he had asked the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him. The Prophet asked, ‘With what did you treat him?’ He replied, ‘With the Opening of the Book.’ The Prophet said, ‘How did you know that it is a ruqyah?’ Then he said, ‘Take them, and set aside a share for me.’”

Those who disallow taking payment for teaching the Qur’an argue that it is akin to taking payment for teaching the prayer. They say that the reward mentioned in the ḥadīth pertained to ruqyah, not to instruction in the Qur’an; and whether the ruqyah employs Qur’anic verses or something else, hiring someone for it is, in their view, permissible—like any other form of treatment. They add that ruqyah is not obligatory upon the people, whereas teaching the Qur’an is.

As for hiring breeding males of camels, cattle, and other livestock, Mālik permits a man to lease out his stud to service a specified number of females, while Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Shāfiʿī do not. Those who forbid it cite the prophetic prohibition of taking a fee for the stud’s covering, whereas the permissive camp likens the service to other usufructs—an analogy deemed weak because it sets analogy above transmitted evidence.

Hiring a dog likewise falls under this discussion, and it is impermissible according to al-Shāfiʿī.