for the woman unless she requires more than one servant, he must provide for more than one. Abu Thawr said something similar: if the husband can afford it, he should assign two servants. Our argument is that one servant is sufficient for her personal needs, and any increase is desired for the protection of her possessions or for adornment, and he is not obligated to provide that. Once this is established, the servant must be someone whom she is permitted to be seen by, either a woman or a male relative who is a mahram (unmarriageable kin), because the servant accompanies the person served in most situations, and thus they cannot be safe from being seen. As for whether it is permissible for the servant to be a person of the Book (dhimmi), there are two opinions. The correct one is its permissibility, because employing them is lawful, and we have previously mentioned that the correct position is the permissibility of being seen by them. The second opinion is that it is not permissible, because there is disagreement regarding the permissibility of being seen by them, they are looked upon with aversion by the soul, and they do not cleanse themselves from impurities. The husband is not obligated to transfer ownership of a servant to her, because the objective is the service; if this is achieved without transfer of ownership, it is permissible, just as it is permissible for him to lodge them in a rented house, and he is not obligated to transfer ownership of a house to her. If he does transfer ownership of the servant to her, he has done a good deed. If he provides her with someone who adheres to serving her without transferring ownership, it is permissible, whether the servant belongs to him or he hired them, and whether the servant is free or a slave. If the servant is her own, and she is satisfied with their service to her, and the husband pays for the servant's maintenance, it is permissible. If she requests the wage of her servant from him and he agrees, it is permissible. If he says: "I will not give you the wage for this, but I will bring you another servant," he has the right to do so if he brings her someone who is suitable for her. If she says: "I will serve myself and take the servant's wage," the husband is not obligated to accept that, because the wage is his responsibility, so the designation of the servant is his right, and because providing a servant maintains her availability for his rights, provides her with comfort, and elevates her status, and this would be lost if she served herself. If the husband says: "I will serve you myself," she is not obligated to accept it, because she would feel embarrassed by him, and it is demeaning for her to have her husband as her servant. There is another opinion stating that she is obligated to accept it, because sufficiency is achieved through him.