impure, he would not have given it to him. Furthermore, it is a permissible benefit, the performer of which is not exclusively required to be someone performing a religious act (qurbah), so it is permissible to hire for it, like construction and sewing. Furthermore, people have a need for it, and we do not find everyone volunteering for it, so it is permissible to hire for it, like nursing. The statement of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) regarding the earnings of the cupper, "Feed it to your servant," is evidence of the permissibility of his earnings, since it is not permissible to feed one's servant that which is forbidden to consume, for servants are human beings for whom it is forbidden to consume what Allah has forbidden, just as it is forbidden for free people. Restricting this to what he is given without a hiring contract is an arbitrary assertion for which there is no evidence, and calling it "impure" earnings does not necessitate prohibition; for the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) called garlic and onions "impure," while they are permissible. The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) only disliked that for the free man as a means of moral cleansing, due to the lowliness of this profession. There is no explicit text from Ahmad on the prohibition of the cupper's earnings, nor of hiring for it; rather, he only said: "We give him [the fee] as the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) gave, and we say to him as the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said." When he was asked about eating it, he forbade it and said: "Feed it to your camel and your servant." This is the meaning of his statement in all the narrations, and this is not explicit in its prohibition; rather, it contains evidence of its permissibility, as seen in the statement and action of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), as we have explained. Indeed, his giving it to the cupper is evidence of its permissibility, since he would not give him what is forbidden to him, and he, peace be upon him, taught the people and forbade them from forbidden things, so how could he give them such things and enable them to have them? His order to feed it to the servants is evidence of permissibility, so his prohibition of eating it must be interpreted as dislike (karahah), not prohibition. The same applies to the statement of Imam Ahmad, for he did not deviate from the statement and action of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace); he only intended to follow him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), as did the rest of the Imams who disliked it.