the subject of the contract is what the contract is intended to secure, namely the milk. This is the view of Judge Abū Yaʿlā and others.

As for permitting this in principle, that is the position of Mālik and others. These scholars may describe hiring a wet nurse to breastfeed as subordinate to the milk, since the wet nurse is subordinate to milk that has not yet come into existence. This rests on regarding it as a contract concerning tangible property, and contracts concerning tangible property fall under the category of sales. The disagreement here is terminological: this arrangement falls within the broad meaning of sale, which encompasses tangible property and benefits, whether already in existence or not. It does not fall within the narrower meaning of sale, which is confined to existing tangible property.

They likewise disagreed over advance-payment contracts: are they a form of sale? There are two views. Can an advance-payment contract be concluded using the word “sale”? There are two positions on this within the school of Ahmad and those of others. Some who did not classify it as a sale even said that an advance-payment contract providing for immediate delivery is permissible when concluded using the word “sale”, but not the word “salam”. The correct view is that contracts are judged by their substance, not merely their wording.

The correct position is that the lease asked about is permissible. The scriptural evidence establishing the permissibility of compensated transactions, together with the analogies drawn from it, encompasses this lease, and no evidence rules it out.

The assertion that hiring a wet nurse is contrary to legal analogy is unsound. In Allah’s Book, no hiring arrangement is explicitly prescribed as part of our law other than this one, as Allah Most High says:

“If they breastfeed for you, then give them