at her side, because it is possible to combine both rights, thus it is not permissible to neglect either one of them. Our evidence for the first [point] is what has preceded, and for the permissibility of hiring [her], is that it is a contract of lease that is permissible with others than the husband if he gives permission for it, so it is permissible with the husband, like hiring herself for sewing or service. Their statement that the benefits are owned by him is incorrect, for if he owned the benefit of custody, he would own the right to force her to perform it, and she would not be permitted to lease herself to another without his permission, and the wage would be his. Rather, leasing herself to a stranger was prohibited without his permission because of the loss of enjoyment at certain times, and for this reason it is permitted with his permission; and when he hires her, he has given her permission to lease herself, so it is valid, just as it is valid from a stranger. As for the evidence for the obligation of prioritizing the mother, if she requests the wage of her likes, over a volunteer, it is His saying, the Almighty: {And the mothers shall breastfeed their children for two complete years, for those who wish to complete the breastfeeding. And upon the father is their provision and their clothing according to what is recognized.} And His saying, the Almighty: {Then if they breastfeed for you, give them their wages}. And because the mother is more affectionate and compassionate, and her milk is more wholesome than the milk of others, so she is more entitled to it than anyone else, just as if a stranger requested to breastfeed him for the wage of her likes. And because in the breastfeeding by another, there is a forfeiture of the mother's right to custody, and harm to the child, and it is not permissible to forfeit the right of mandatory custody and cause harm to the child for the purpose of dropping a right that God Almighty has made binding upon the father. Abu Hanifa's view leads to the forfeiture of the child's right to his mother's milk, and the forfeiture of the mother's right to breastfeed him with her milk, so that is not permissible, just as [it would be] if she volunteered to breastfeed him. As for if the mother requests more than the wage of her likes, and the father finds someone who will breastfeed him for the wage of her likes, or a volunteer, it is permissible to remove him from her; because she has forfeited her right by her excessive demand and her asking for what is not hers, so she has entered into the generality of His saying: {Then another shall breastfeed for him}. And if he does not find