a party to an exchange cannot provide the consideration he owes, the other party is entitled to reclaim what he provided. This includes a man’s inability to pay the dower and a husband’s inability to have intercourse. Extending the same principle also covers a man’s inability to provide the consideration in khulʿ (divorce in exchange for compensation) or in a settlement in lieu of legal retaliation.

Section

As for contracts of hire, those who regard them as contrary to analogy argue that they constitute the sale of something nonexistent: the benefits do not exist when the contract is concluded, and selling something nonexistent is impermissible. Yet the Quran expressly mentions hiring a wet nurse to breastfeed, in the words of the Most High:

“If they breastfeed for you, then give them their payment.”

Many jurists therefore say that hiring a wet nurse to breastfeed runs contrary to the analogy governing contracts of hire. Such contracts concern benefits, whereas hiring a wet nurse is a contract for milk, and milk belongs to the category of tangible property, not benefits. Remarkably, this is the only permissible contract of hire mentioned in the Quran, yet they say that it is contrary to analogy! Something can only be contrary to analogy when a revealed text establishes a ruling in one case and another text establishes the opposite ruling in a similar case. One may then say: “This runs contrary to the analogy drawn from that text.”

The Quran mentions no invalid contract of hire that would warrant saying: “Analogy requires that this contract of hire be invalid.” Rather, it mentions the permissibility of this contract, without mentioning the invalidity of any similar contract of hire. Nor does the Sunnah identify any invalid contract of hire resembling this one. Rather, the basis of their position is