We shall now address these two underlying claims: that contracts of hire are contrary to analogy, and that hiring a wet nurse and similar arrangements are contrary to analogy.

As for the first, we say: Their assertion, “A contract of hire is the sale of something nonexistent, and selling something nonexistent is contrary to analogy,” consists of two ambiguous premises involving equivocation.

When they say that a contract of hire is a sale, if they mean sale in the specific sense of a contract concerning tangible things, this is false. If they mean sale in the general sense of an exchange for consideration, whether involving a tangible thing or a benefit, then their second premise—that selling something nonexistent is impermissible—can be conceded, if at all, only with respect to tangible things, not benefits. Since the word “sale” admits both meanings, jurists have differed over whether a contract of hire may be concluded using the word “sale,” holding two views on the matter.

The correct position is that if the contracting parties understand what is intended, the contract is concluded. Whatever wording enables both parties to understand their intended agreement suffices to conclude the contract. This applies to all contracts, for the Lawgiver has imposed no fixed limits on their wording, but has mentioned them without qualification. Just as contracts may be concluded through Persian, Greek, or other non-Arabic expressions that signify them, they may also be concluded through Arabic expressions that signify them. Accordingly, divorce and manumission take effect through any wording that signifies them; the same applies to sale and other transactions. This principle also extends to marriage, for the sounder of the two scholarly views is that it may be concluded through any wording