Abu Sa'id’s hadith regarding the ruqyah was merely a reward (ja'alah), so something similar is permissible here. Once this is established, if the kohl is provided by the patient, it is permissible, because the tools of the work are provided by the hirer, just like bricks in construction, mud, and fired bricks, and the like. If he stipulates that the kohl be provided by him (the oculist), it is permissible. The Qadi said: It is possible that it is not permissible, because physical objects are not owned through a contract of hiring (ijarah), so it is not valid to stipulate it upon the worker, like the bricks of a wall. Our position is that the custom is established with this, and it is difficult for the patient to obtain it, and he may be completely unable to do so, therefore it is permissible, just as the dye is provided by the dyer, milk in suckling, and ink and pens by the scribe. What they mentioned is invalidated by these principles. It differs from the bricks of the wall because the custom is for the hirer to obtain them, and that is not difficult, unlike our issue. The followers of Malik said: It is permissible to hire him to build a wall for him with the bricks being from him, because he stipulated what completes the craft for which he contracted. So, if it is permissible and well-known, it is valid, just as if he hired him to dye a garment with the dye being from him. Our position is that the contract of hiring is a contract on the benefit, so if he stipulates the sale of the physical object in it, it becomes like two sales in one. It differs from the dye, and the case we mentioned where it was permitted, in that there is a compelling need for it, because obtaining the dye is difficult for the owner of the garment, and sometimes the dye is only obtained through great expense which is not required for dyeing this garment, so it was permitted due to the pressing need, unlike our issue.

Section: If he hires him for a duration, and he applies kohl to his eye during it, and his eye does not recover, he is entitled to the wage. The group (of scholars) held this view. It was narrated from Malik that he is not entitled to a wage until his eye recovers, but his companions did not narrate this, and it is invalid, because the hirer has fulfilled the work for which the contract was concluded, so the wage became due to him, even if the objective was not achieved, just as if he hired him to build a wall for a day, or to sew a shirt, and he did not complete it in that time.