in the case of a sale, and the wage in the case of a lease. The second view is that its leasing is permissible. This is the school of Al-Shafi'i, because it is a permissible benefit for which lending (i'arah) is permitted, so leasing (ijarah) is also permitted, like all other books. As for other books whose sale is permitted, their leasing is also permitted. The implication of the school of Abu Hanifah is that their leasing is not permitted, because he justified the prohibition of leasing the Mushaf by stating that it involves nothing more than looking at it, and leasing is not permitted for such a purpose, evidenced by the fact that one cannot rent a ceiling just to look at its workmanship and decorations, or a candle just to beautify oneself with it. Our argument is that it is a permissible benefit that is needed, and for which lending is permitted, so leasing is also permitted, like all other benefits. It differs from looking at a ceiling; for there is no need for that, nor is it customary to lend it for that purpose. In our issue, there is a need for reading from books, memorizing from them, copying, listening to them, recitation, and other intended and necessary benefits.

Section: It is not permissible for a Muslim to lease himself to a Dhimmi (a non-Muslim citizen under Islamic protection) for his service. Ahmad explicitly stated this in the narration of Al-Athram, saying: If he leases himself to a Dhimmi for his service, it is not permissible, but if it is for performing a specific task, it is permissible. This is one of the two views of Al-Shafi'i. He said in the other: It is permissible, because it is permitted for him to lease himself for tasks other than service, so it is permitted for service as well, just like leasing oneself to a Muslim. Our argument is that it is a contract that involves restricting the Muslim to the disbeliever, humiliating him, and employing him; it resembles a sale. This is confirmed by the fact that a lease contract for service requires his confinement for the duration of the lease and his employment, whereas a sale does not necessarily require this. Thus, if it is prohibited in the case of a sale, then it is more appropriate to prohibit it in a lease. As for if he leases himself to him for a specific task as a liability, such as sewing a garment or fulling it, it is permissible without any disagreement that we know of; because Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, leased himself to a Jew, drawing water for him, for every bucket a date, and he informed the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) of that, and he did not disapprove of it (50). Likewise the Ansar (49). Also, it is a contract of exchange that does not involve the humiliation of the Muslim nor his employment, so it resembles trading with him. If he leases himself to him for a non-service task for a known duration, it is also permissible, according to the apparent meaning of Ahmad's words, due to his statement in the narration of Al-Athram: If it is for performing a task, it is permissible. Ahmad bin Sa'id narrated from him: There is no harm in one leasing himself to a Dhimmi. This is general in both types of leases. Some of our companions mentioned (50) that the apparent meaning of Ahmad's words is to prohibit this, and pointed to what was narrated by Al-Athram, arguing that it is a contract that involves the confinement of a Muslim, resembling a sale. The correct view is what we have mentioned, and Ahmad's words actually indicate the opposite of what they said, for he limited the prohibition to leasing for service and permitted leasing for work. This case is a lease for work. It differs from a sale, as a sale involves establishing ownership over a Muslim, and it differs from a lease for service, because that entails humiliation.

Section: Ibrahim al-Harbi narrated from Ahmad that he was asked about a man who hires a rooster to wake him for the time of prayer: It is not permissible. This is because that depends on the action of the rooster, and it is impossible to extract that from it through beating or otherwise; it might crow, and it might not, and it might crow after the time has passed.

Section: The fourth category is acts of worship (qurab) whose performer is specifically required to be among the people of worship, meaning it is a condition that he be a Muslim, such as leading prayer (imamah), the call to prayer (adhan), Hajj, and teaching the Quran. Ahmad explicitly stated this, and it is the view of 'Ata', Al-Dahhak bin Qays, Abu Hanifah, and Al-Zuhri. Al-Zuhri and Ishaq disliked teaching the Quran for a fee. 'Abd Allah bin Shaqiq said: These loaves of bread which teachers take are illicit gain (suht). Among those who disliked the fee for teaching (51) when stipulated are: Al-Hasan, Ibn Sirin, Tawus, Al-Sha'bi, and Al-Nakha'i. There is another narration from Ahmad that it is permissible, which Abu al-Khattab mentioned. Abu Talib narrated from Ahmad that he said: Teaching is more beloved to me than to act as an agent for these rulers, or to act as an agent for an ordinary man regarding a farm, or to borrow and trade, perhaps he will not be able to fulfill his debts and then meet Allah, the Exalted, with people's trusts; teaching is more beloved to me. This indicates that his prohibition of it in the place where he prohibits it is for karahah (dislike).