The wage becomes due to him, even if the objective is 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. If his eye recovers during the duration, the hiring contract is annulled for the remainder of the duration, because the work has become impossible, so it is similar to what happens if an overwhelming event prevents him from it, and likewise if he dies. If he refuses to have the kohl applied while the illness remains, the oculist is entitled to the wage upon the passing of the duration, as if he hired him for a day for construction and did not utilize him for it. As for if he stipulates the recovery as a condition, then it is a reward (ja'alah), so he is not entitled to anything until the recovery is found, whether it is found soon or late. If he recovers without his kohl, or the kohl becomes impossible due to his death or other impediments from the side of the hirer, then he is entitled to his fair wage (ajr al-mithl), just as if the worker performed the work in a reward contract and then the contract was rescinded. If he refuses for a reason from the side of the oculist or someone other than the one offering the reward, then he gets nothing. If the one offering the reward rescinds the reward contract after the oculist has worked, then he owes him the wage for his work; if the oculist rescinds it, he gets nothing, because it is a reward contract, and what we mentioned regarding it is established.

Section: It is permissible to hire a physician to treat him. The discussion regarding this is exactly the same as the discussion regarding the oculist, except that it is not permissible to stipulate that the medicine be provided by the physician, because that was only permitted in the case of the oculist contrary to the principle, due to the need for it and established custom, and that meaning is not found here, so the ruling regarding it is established in accordance with the principle. And Allah knows best.

Section: It is permissible to hire someone to extract his tooth, because it is a permissible and intended benefit, so it is permissible to hire for the act of doing it, like circumcision. If he errs and extracts a tooth other than what he was ordered to extract, he is liable for it, because it is from his transgression. If the tooth recovers before its extraction, the hiring contract is annulled, because its extraction is not permissible. If it does not recover, but the hirer refuses to have it extracted, he is not compelled to do so, because destroying a part of a human is prohibited in principle, and it is only permitted when its remaining becomes a harm, and that is delegated to every individual regarding himself,