Islamic Fiqh > Companies and leases > Ijara (leasing) > Complement: the wage for teaching the Quran and the hadiths
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 6:57 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
This part concludes the study of the pillars of the hire contract (ijara) with the questions where a wage touches acts of worship: jihad, pilgrimage, the adhan and iqama, the imamate in prayer, and then the duties owed to the deceased. It then deals with the condition the contract neither requires nor admits, what is owed under a corrupt hire, the rented object as a trust in the hands of the lessee, and the stipulation of liability on the lessee. The positions of the four schools are reported with their classical references.
The preceding discussion of teaching closes as follows: it concerns the learner and what is taught him, and likewise the repeated lesson in what becomes apparent; the like should apply to hiring for judicial office (qada), as with teaching: having some of the Quran or the hadiths recited to one (Nihayat al-Muhtaj 5/334; al-Ramli's gloss on Asna al-Matalib 2/410).
Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in Rawdat al-Talibin: they made an unrestricted statement on the invalidity of hiring for teaching.
From Shaykh Abu Bakr al-Tusi comes the hesitation to give an answer on hiring for repeating a lesson.
The Imam said: if he designates a person or a group to teach them a specific issue or specific issues, it is permitted; what they stated unrestricted is understood as hiring someone who takes up teaching without specifying who teaches or what is taught, because it resembles jihad in being the fulfillment of a collective obligation (fard kifaya) established by the prevalence of its practice. Likewise, hiring a recitation master (muqri) in this form is prohibited. He said: it may possibly be permitted (Rawdat al-Talibin 4/18-19).
The jurists differed on the ruling of hiring for jihad: is it permitted or not? And is it permitted to offer a task-price (ju'l) for it or not?
The Hanafis, the Shafi'is and Ahmad in one narration hold that taking a wage for jihad is not permitted, because once the battle occurs the action becomes obligatory for the hired man and therefore binds him.
The Hanafis, however, permit taking the task-price, because the promised payment is not a hire but assistance on the journey, which is recommended, and jihad is waged with wealth and person together. Allah the Most High says:
"And that you strive in the way of Allah with your wealth and your lives"
Surah As-Saff, 11
And He, glory to Him, says:
"Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives"
Surah At-Tawba, 111
People's circumstances differ: some can fulfill the obligation by both means; others can wage jihad with their person thanks to a healthy body, but cannot go out because of poverty; another cannot go out nor fight with his person because of illness or affliction, yet can fight with his wealth, equipping with his wealth one who goes out to fight with his person, so that the one who goes out is a fighter with his person and the one who stays behind, giving his wealth, is a fighter with his wealth. The believers are like a building, each part strengthening the other. For this reason Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) disliked that the holder of wealth make it part of his household goods, for the giver was commanded to wage jihad with it; this concerns his preparation for it and his spending on the way for himself, which takes two forms:
The recipient is entitled to keep some of the task-price for the upkeep of his dependents in all cases, for going out is possible for him only by that: it therefore counts, in meaning, among the works of jihad.
When the one who stays says to the one who goes: "Take this wealth and fight with it," that is not a hire for jihad. But if he says: "Take it so that you fight with it on my behalf," that is a hire for jihad, which is not permitted (al-Mabsut 10/19-20; al-Jawhara al-Nira 3/361; Sharh Mushkil al-Athar 8/316-317; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 5/79; Ibn Abidin 4/128).
The Shafi'is say: hiring a Muslim for jihad is not valid, whether the imam or someone else hires him, on the more correct view. Al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "It is not permitted to go out fighting for a task-price taken from a man's wealth, and the price is returned if one has fought with it; hire comes only from the ruler, for then one fights with something of his right." Al-Mawardi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: this is correct: no one among the people in general may fight on behalf of another, with or without a task-price, for three reasons:
If it is objected: if he performs pilgrimage for himself, he may perform it for another with or without a task-price; why then, if he fights for himself, may he not fight for another with or without a task-price? It is answered: because the obligation of pilgrimage does not repeat, substitution is valid in it; but if the obligation of pilgrimage were to repeat every year, as when one says: "If Allah heals my illness, it is due to Allah that I perform pilgrimage every year," substitution would no longer be valid from him, the obligation remaining upon him, like jihad. Once the invalidity of substitution in jihad is established, the fighter must return the task-price, and it becomes a debt upon him if he has consumed it.
As for the ruler's task-price when he grants it to the fighters from the public treasury, it is permitted for two reasons. The first: he grants it for jihad on behalf of the community as a whole, not for substitution for himself; were it for substitution, it would not be valid. The second: he grants it from wealth that is rightfully theirs; if they are among those provisioned from the fay', they have a right in the wealth of the fay'; if they are among the volunteering bedouins and recipients of alms, they have a right in the share of Allah's path within the alms wealth. For this reason, if they turn back from war for an impediment, what they took is not recovered from them, for it is rightfully theirs.
But there is no harm in a person giving wealth with which he does good to the fighter, the pilgrim and the doer of good, as assistance to him, so that the giver has the reward of his giving and the worker the reward of his work, for he substitutes therein for himself, not for the giver of the wealth (al-Hawi al-Kabir 14/128-129).
As for the dhimmi, the imam may hire him for that according to the school, but his hire by anyone other than the imam is not valid on the more correct view (Rawdat al-Talibin 4/18; Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/398; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 5/331-332; al-Najm al-Wahhaj 5/353; Kanz al-Raghibin 3/184).
As for the Hanbalis, Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: when the prince hires people to fight alongside the Muslims for their benefit without allotting them a share of booty, and they are given what they were hired for, Ahmad expressly stated this in the narration of a group. In the narration of Abdullah and Hanbal: regarding the imam who hires people to enter the enemy's land with them, he allots them no share but pays them what they were hired for. Al-Qadi said: this is understood of hiring one upon whom jihad is not obligatory, such as slaves and disbelievers; as for free Muslim men, their hire for jihad is not valid, for fighting becomes obligatory upon whoever belongs to its people once it occurs; once the obligation binds him, he may not perform it on behalf of another, like one bound by the obligatory pilgrimage who may not perform it for another; this is the school of al-Shafi'i.
It may also be understood from the apparent meaning of Ahmad's and al-Khiraqi's words as the validity of hire for fighting for one upon whom it is not binding, because of what Abu Dawud narrates with his chain from Abdullah ibn Amr: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
The fighter has his reward, the giver has his reward, and the reward of the fighter.Narrated by Abu Dawud (2526) and Ahmad (6624)
And Sa'id ibn Mansur narrates from Jubayr ibn Nufayr that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
Those of my community who go out fighting, take a task-price and fortify themselves with it against their enemy are like the mother of Musa, who nursed her child and took her wage.Narrated by Sa'id ibn Mansur in his Sunan
Added to this: jihad is an act not restricted to the doer being among the people of nearness (ahl al-qurba), so hire for it is valid, like building mosques; or jihad is not obligatory upon the doer, who may then hire himself for it, like the slave. It differs from pilgrimage in that it is not an individual obligation, that need calls to it, and that forbidding the task-price for it would paralyze it and deprive the Muslims of a benefit they need and of a support expected of them: it should therefore be permitted, unlike pilgrimage.
This established: if we hold the first view, the hire is corrupt, the wage is owed by way of return, and he has his share, since he fought without a wage. If we hold its validity, the apparent meaning of Ahmad's and al-Khiraqi's words (may Allah have mercy on them both) is that he has no share, for his fighting is a substitution, as if done by another, so he deserves nothing.
Abu Dawud narrates with his chain from Ya'la ibn Munabbih:
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) announced the campaign while I was an old man with no servant. I looked for a hired man to serve in my place and fixed his share of booty as his wage. I found a man; when departure drew near he came to me and said: I do not know what the shares are or what mine amounts to, so specify something for me, whether the share exists or not. I specified three dinars for him. When his booty arrived I wanted to give him his share and mentioned the dinars; I went to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and related his case to him. He said: "I find nothing for him in this campaign, in this world or the hereafter, except the dinars he had specified."Narrated by Abu Dawud (2527)
It may also be that a share is allotted to him: this is the choice of al-Khallal, who said: a group narrated from Ahmad that the hired man has the share if he fights, and a group narrated from him that everyone who witnesses the fighting has the share. He said: this is what is relied upon of Abu Abdillah's [Ahmad's] statement.
The basis of that is the preceding hadith of Abdullah ibn Umar and that of Jubayr ibn Nufayr, together with Umar's statement (may Allah be pleased with him): "The booty belongs to the one who witnesses the battle" (narrated by Abd al-Razzaq (9689), Sa'id ibn Mansur in his Sunan (2791), and Ibn Abi Shayba in his Musannaf (33225, 33226) from Umar; the hafiz Ibn Hajar said in Fath al-Bari (6/224): its chain is authentic). For he is present at the battle among the people of fighting, so a share is allotted to him like anyone other than the hired man. As for those given from their right in the fay', they have their shares because that is a right Allah (glorified be He) established for them so that they fight, not as compensation for their jihad: the benefit of their jihad is for them, not for others. Likewise those given from the alms, namely those who are given when they set out eagerly for the campaign: it is given them as assistance, not compensation. That is why, when payment is made to the fighters to fortify and support themselves with it, there is reward in it and it is not compensation. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
Whoever equips a fighter will have a reward like his.Cited in al-Mughni (9/243-244), al-Kafi (3/303-304), al-Sharh al-Kabir (10/519-520) and Sharh al-Zarkashi (2/174)
Al-Zarkashi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the place of disagreement concerns the one hired for jihad; as for the fighters who are given from the fay', they have the share, for that is a right Allah (glorified be He) established for them so that they fight, not compensation for jihad; likewise the one given from the alms; and likewise, if a giver provides the fighters with what they fortify themselves with, he has his reward and it is not compensation (Sharh al-Zarkashi 2/174).
The Malikis say: the task-price set by a person staying behind for one who goes out to jihad in his place is permitted if both belong to the same diwan (registry). If the Commander of the Believers designates a group for jihad in Allah's path and one of them wishes to set a task-price for whoever goes out in his place, that is permitted if giver and goer belong to the same diwan; understood by implication is the prohibition if they do not; and if it occurs and the substitute goes out, the share of booty should belong to the one who goes out and the task-price is returned.
In al-Tawdih, Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Mudawwana: because they are bound to guard the frontiers, and sometimes the allotment is paid out to them and sometimes not; and I do not like that one set a task-price for someone not enrolled with them in the diwan to fight in his place. Malik also disliked, for the one in the cause, the hire of his horse by one doing ribat or fighting in his place; hiring oneself is even more severely disliked. It is as if Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) indicated that the basis is the prohibition of this hire, out of ignorance, and that it is permitted when the two belong to the same diwan, for each of the two has what the other has, so it is not a true hire. End of quotation.
Al-Ilish (may Allah have mercy on him) said in Minah al-Jalil: it is also required that the going out subject to the task-price be a single occasion, as a safeguard against agreeing with him that whenever going out becomes obligatory upon him he goes out in substitution, which is not permitted because of the strength of deception. And the imam must not designate the giver by person but by attribute, saying for example: the companions of so-and-so, or the people of the summer or winter rotation, he being among them; substitution is then allowed him. If he designates him by person, such as Zayd, the apparent meaning of the Mudawwana is its permissibility.
Al-Tunisi said: it is only permitted with the imam's authorization. The army of Egypt is of one diwan and the army of Syria of another single diwan, so an Egyptian may not substitute for a Syrian nor the reverse; substitution holds if he fears having to go out, and the share of booty belongs to the one who stays, not the one who goes out. Al-Sqalli said: on this some of our shaykhs gave a fatwa concerning villagers. Ibn Arafa said: the more apparent is that it lies between the two.
It is recommended for the one going out not to intend the task-price in his fighting: it would be disliked (makruh), so said Abu al-Hasan. In support of his words: "because they are bound to guard the frontiers"; by it he repelled two misconceptions. The first: that this is an exchange for jihad, so how could it be permitted? He refuted it by his saying "because they are bound to guard the frontiers," for each of the two fills the post of the other, like the imam: when one is relieved in prayer, only one of those present with him is appointed. The second: one might say: how was the task-price permitted in the campaigns when it involves gharar (uncertainty), since one does not know whether the allotment will be paid to him or not, and if paid, whether it will be little or much? He refuted it by Malik's saying: sometimes the allotment is paid out and sometimes not, meaning the allotment actually paid is not taken into account; what is truly relied upon is what the one who stays gives the one who goes out; if the enrolled allotment is not counted, being merely accessory, there is no gharar. End of quotation (Minah al-Jalil 3/161-162; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 3/19).
The jurists differed on the ruling of hiring for pilgrimage: may a man hire someone to perform it on his behalf or not? The Hanafis and the Hanbalis according to the school hold that hire for pilgrimage is not valid: if a man hires a man to perform pilgrimage for him or for a deceased person, it is not valid, for pilgrimage is a bodily act of worship, so substitution in it must not be valid, like prayer and fasting; and because it is a worship whose performance becomes obligatory upon entering its state, so neither hire nor substitution in it should be valid, like jihad.
For pilgrimage is a means of drawing near to Allah, and it is not valid for anyone other than the one drawing near by it to perform it. There is consensus that it is not permitted to hire a dhimmi to perform pilgrimage on behalf of a Muslim, for it is a means of drawing near specific to the Muslim.
The Hanafis say: the basis is that everything for which a disbeliever may validly be hired, a Muslim may be hired for, and what is not so, is not. Every act of obedience exclusive to the Muslim: hire for it is void.
Hire for pilgrimage being thus impermissible, it is said: a contract never permissible has its existence equal to its non-existence; once the contract's consideration lapses, the command of hajj remains, and he owes an equivalent expenditure from his own wealth. So if one is hired for pilgrimage, paid the wage, and performs pilgrimage for a deceased person, since performing for the deceased is valid on the more correct view (contrary to the author of al-Durr al-Mukhtar), he keeps from the wage the amount of travel expenses going and returning, and the surplus is returned to the heirs, for hire for it is not permitted and it is not lawful for him to keep the surplus, unless the heirs donate it to him, being qualified to donate, or the deceased bequeathed the surplus to the pilgrim (Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama 2/228; al-Mabsut 4/158-159 and 16/37; al-Jawhara al-Nira 3/361; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 3/73; Ibn Abidin 2/601-602; Tanqih al-Fatawa al-Hamidiyya 5/418-419; al-Hindiyya 1/264; al-Mughni 3/93-94; al-Sharh al-Kabir 3/180, 3/182; Kashshaf al-Qina' 4/13; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 4/41; Manar al-Sabil 2/217).
The Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in one narration hold that a person may hire himself for pilgrimage, with disapproval among the Malikis, for every act another may voluntarily perform on behalf of another admits substitution and a valid hire contract, like building mosques and copying Qurans: it is a means of drawing near to Allah; so too the act of pilgrimage on behalf of others. Alms are a means of drawing near to Allah, and He permitted the worker a wage for his work.
The Shafi'is say: the criterion of what hire is permitted for is that every act of worship admitting substitution admits hire, and what does not, does not (Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/398; see also al-Istidhkar 4/168; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 2/296; Minah al-Jalil 2/202-203; al-Hawi al-Kabir 4/257; al-Majmu' 7/87; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 5/333; al-Najm al-Wahhaj 5/354; Kanz al-Raghibin 3/185).
The Malikis say: hiring oneself for an act done for Allah the Most High, pilgrimage or otherwise, such as recitation, leading prayer or teaching knowledge, is disliked, its validity standing despite the disapproval, as hire for the adhan is disliked. Malik said: that a man hire himself for the work of milking, cutting firewood and driving camels is dearer to me than doing an act for Allah for a wage, and this is the land of hijra; we have not been informed that anyone since the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) performed pilgrimage for anyone else, nor that it was permitted; the anomalous report (shadh) is its permissibility. It is as if he saw in it cooperation upon obedience. On both views, if it occurs it is binding, out of deference to the disagreement, and its permissibility is more comprehensible for the incapable one; and so it is (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 2/296; Minah al-Jalil 2/214).
The scholars differed on taking a wage for the adhan and the iqama: is it permitted or not? Two views.
The early Hanafis (Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad), the Shafi'is in one view, the Hanbalis according to the school (and the Zahiris) hold that taking a wage for the adhan is not permitted, because of the hadith of Uthman ibn Abi al-'As (may Allah be pleased with him): I said: O Messenger of Allah, make me the imam of my people. He said:
You are their imam. Take as a model the weakest of them, and choose as muezzin one who takes no wage for his adhan.Narrated by Abu Dawud (631), Tirmidhi (209), Nasai (672), Ibn Majah (714) and Ahmad (4/21)
Had taking a wage for the adhan been permitted, he would not have forbidden him to choose one who takes a wage. And because it is a means of drawing near for its doer, valid only from a Muslim, he did not hire him for it, like the imamate.
The Hanafis say: the basis is that everything for which a disbeliever may be hired, a Muslim may be hired for, and what is not so, is not. Every act of obedience exclusive to the Muslim: hire for it is void.
The Malikis, the Shafi'is on the more correct view, Ahmad in one narration and the later Hanafis (and the fatwa is upon them) hold that taking a wage for the adhan is permitted, for it is a known work from which sustenance may be drawn, so the wage for it is permitted like other works, whether the wage comes from the treasury, as Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) did, or from individuals on the well-known position among the Malikis; Ibn Habib forbade it from individuals for the adhan.
Al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: our scholars cited as evidence for taking the wage the hadith of Abu Mahdhura, though it calls for examination. Nasai, Ibn Majah and others narrated it:
I went out with a band of men; as we were at a point on the road, a muezzin of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) called to prayer near the Messenger of Allah. We heard the muezzin's voice while we were at some distance, and we began crying out in imitation of him, mocking him. The Messenger of Allah heard it, sent men who seated us before him, and said: which of you is he whose raised voice I heard? The people all pointed at me, and they spoke truly. He sent them all away and detained me. He said to me: rise and call to prayer. I rose, and nothing was more hateful to me than the Messenger of Allah, nor anything he commanded me. I stood before the Messenger of Allah, and the Messenger of Allah himself taught me the adhan. He said: say: Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest; I bear witness that there is no deity but Allah, I bear witness that there is no deity but Allah; I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. Then he said to me: raise your voice at: I bear witness that there is no deity but Allah, I bear witness that there is no deity but Allah; I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; come to prayer, come to prayer; come to success, come to success; Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest; there is no deity but Allah. Then he called me when I finished the adhan and gave me a pouch containing some silver. He placed his hand on my forelock, passed it over my face, then over my chest, then over my belly, until the hand of the Messenger of Allah reached my navel; then the Messenger of Allah said: may Allah bless you and bestow blessing upon you. I said: O Messenger of Allah, do you command me the adhan in Mecca? He said: yes, I have commanded you. Then everything I felt of aversion departed and all of it turned into love of the Messenger of Allah. I came to Itab ibn Usayd, the Messenger of Allah's governor in Mecca, and I called to prayer with him by the command of the Messenger of Allah.Narrated by Ibn Majah (708), Nasai (632) and Ahmad (15417), in the wording of Ibn Majah, cited by al-Qurtubi in his tafsir (6/231-232)
There is no disagreement among the scholars on the permissibility of drawing sustenance from this function, for the Muslims need it and a volunteer may not be found; if sustenance is not paid for it, it falls into disuse. The imam therefore provides for him from the fay', for he is the one charged with the public interest: it is like the sustenance of judges and fighters; and if a volunteer is found, no other is provided for, for lack of need (Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 5/124-125; Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama 4/100; Sharh Mushkil al-Athar 15/263-265; Mukhtasar al-Wiqaya 2/119; al-Jawhara al-Nira 3/360; Ibn Abidin's gloss 6/55-56; Tanqih al-Fatawa al-Hamidiyya 5/420-421; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 1/236 and 2/296; Minah al-Jalil 2/214; Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/79; al-Hawi al-Kabir 2/59-60; Rawdat al-Talibin 4/18; al-Majmu' 3/133-134; al-Bayan 2/89; Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/399; al-Najm al-Wahhaj 5/353; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 5/332; Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama by al-Bayhaqi 4/168; al-Ifsah 2/32; al-Mughni 1/249; al-Kafi 2/304; Manar al-Sabil 2/217-218).