Ruling on Taking Payment for Teaching Quranic Exegesis or Tajweed

**Ruling on Taking Payment for Teaching Quranic Exegesis or Tajweed**

✏️ *Shaykh Al-Albani, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked:*

❓ **Question**: Regarding the prohibition of taking payment for the Quran or teaching the Quran, I want to clarify about teaching the Quran. Does it also include teaching Quranic exegesis or teaching Quranic Tajweed?

**Shaykh's Response**:

✅ **Answer**: All acts of worship should not be performed for a wage, all acts of worship. This includes what is stated in the general text, which encompasses every act of worship and every religious act. As Allah says:

{وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مُخْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ} [البينة: 5]

"And they were not commanded except to worship Allah, [being] sincere to Him in religion" (Al-Bayyinah: 5).

Similarly, Allah says:

{فَمَنْ كَانَ يَرْجُوا لِقَاءَ رَبِّهِ فَلْيَعْمَلْ عَمَلًا صَالِحًا وَلا يُشْرِكْ بِعِبَادَةِ رَبِّهِ أَحَدًا} [الكهف: 110]

"So whoever hopes for the meeting with his Lord - let him do righteous work and not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone" (Al-Kahf: 110).

The first verse explicitly addresses the issue: {وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مُخْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ} [البينة: 5].

As for the other verse, it requires some explanation from the scholars of tafsir. Allah says: {فَمَنْ كَانَ يَرْجُوا لِقَاءَ رَبِّهِ فَلْيَعْمَلْ عَمَلًا صَالِحًا} [الكهف: 110], meaning the righteous deed is what conforms to the Sunnah. If it contradicts the Sunnah, it is not considered a righteous deed. This is supported by many hadiths, such as the well-known hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim from Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, who said: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

"Whoever introduces into this matter of ours (Islam) that which is not part of it, it will be rejected."

There are many well-known hadiths on this topic. Therefore, Allah's words: {فَلْيَعْمَلْ عَمَلًا صَالِحًا} [الكهف: 110] mean to act according to the Sunnah. {وَلا يُشْرِكْ بِعِبَادَةِ رَبِّهِ أَحَدًا} [الكهف: 110] means not seeking the reward for that act of worship from anyone other than Allah, may He be glorified. The hadiths that command sincerity in intention for worship are also numerous and well-known.

So, this Quranic text, after its explanation along with the first text, both indicate that an act of worship is not truly an act of worship except under two conditions:

**The first condition**: That it be performed according to the Sunnah.

**The second condition**: That it be performed sincerely for the sake of Allah, blessed and exalted. These general texts encompass all acts of worship.

As for the Quran, there are specific texts, among the most famous and authentic being his statement, peace and blessings be upon him:

"Maintain this Quran and beautify your voices with it before there come people who will hasten it and not delay it."

Meaning, they seek its rewards hastily for worldly gains and do not seek the delayed reward in the Hereafter.

Therefore, a Muslim should not seek any reward for an act of worship except from Allah, blessed and exalted. Hence, this matter is not limited to merely reciting the Quran, particularly in the condition some reciters have reached today, where the truth of the Prophet’s prediction, mentioned earlier, is realized in them: "Before there come people who will hasten it and not delay it."

So, the issue is broader and more extensive. There is no difference between those who recite the Quran only for recitation and take a wage, and those who teach the Quran and take a wage, and those who interpret the Quran and take a wage, and those who teach hadith and take a wage, and those who lead prayers and give the call to prayer, and serve in the mosque. All these are acts of worship, and no Muslim should seek a reward for them except from Allah, blessed and exalted.

When this truth is known, which is a fact that should not be disputed, and I almost said there is no disagreement about it, then I remembered a single point of disagreement, namely regarding the Quran. Some schools of thought followed today say that it is permissible to take a wage for the Quran, and they have a valid argument in terms of narration but not in terms of reasoning. It is valid in terms of narration because it is in Sahih al-Bukhari. However, it is not valid in terms of reasoning, i.e., it is not correct to use this narration as evidence against the overwhelming evidence that taking a wage for any act of worship, particularly the Quran, is not permissible. That hadith is:

"The most deserving thing for which you take a wage is the Book of Allah."

This hadith is in Sahih al-Bukhari, as we mentioned.

And we say that it is not permissible to use it as evidence in reasoning despite its authenticity in narration, because this hadith has a context that came along with the narration itself. It is in Sahih al-Bukhari, as we mentioned, from the narration of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, may Allah be pleased with him:

"He was on an expedition with a group of the Prophet’s companions, peace be upon him, and they passed by a tribe from the Arab tribes. They asked them to host them, but they refused. They camped near them. Allah decreed that a scorpion stung the tribe’s leader. They sent someone to the companions and asked if they had anything for the sting. One of the companions offered to treat him on the condition of receiving a flock of sheep. He recited Al-Fatihah over the sting and the leader was healed. The companion brought the flock to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and out of caution, he asked if it was permissible. The Prophet, peace be upon him, said, ‘The most deserving thing for which you take a wage is the Book of Allah.’”

Here, the scholars differed. The majority understood the hadith in light of its context, while the Shafi'is took the hadith without linking it to its context. This is the reason for the disagreement.

It should be known to every student of knowledge that it is essential for those who want to understand not only the Sunnah but also the Quran to know the reasons for the revelation of verses and the reasons for the narrations of hadith. The scholars of tafsir have mentioned that knowing the reason for the revelation of a verse helps the researcher understand half of its meaning, and the other half is derived from linguistic knowledge and related knowledge of the Sharia.

Similarly, we say: many hadiths cannot be correctly understood without linking them to their reasons. Among them is this hadith. There are also many hadiths that cannot be correctly understood without linking the narration to its reason. When the hadith:

"The most deserving thing for which you take a wage is the Book of Allah"

is separated from its context, it gives a general permissibility: "The most deserving thing for which you take a wage is the Book of Allah." Whether the wage is for recitation, teaching the Quran, or interpreting the Quran, the hadith is general. However, if we link it to its context, this generality is specified by the context. This is what the majority of scholars, especially the Hanafi scholars, leaned towards when they explained this hadith: "The most deserving thing for which you take a wage is the Book of Allah," referring to ruqyah. They added this phrase based on the context of the hadith.

And this interpretation must come from it, so as not to clash with Islamic principles in general, as we have just mentioned some verses and hadiths, and this includes the principles of Usul Fiqh (principles of Islamic jurisprudence), that when a text (nas) comes, whether it is from the Qur'an or the Sunnah, it is not permissible to take it in a general sense except by considering it within the boundaries of other texts that have been bound by evidence to specify it. This is a principle that there is no disagreement on among the scholars of Fiqh and Hadith, indeed, among all Muslim scholars.

The disagreement arises from two reasons: either because the hadith has not been entirely referred to by some, or because it has been referred to without the context that clarifies its meaning, as we are dealing with in this specific hadith. It may be beneficial to provide another example, because it relates to many things discussed today and the debates surrounding them. This is evidenced by his saying, peace be upon him: "Whoever starts a good practice in Islam will have its reward and the reward of those who act upon it until the Day of Resurrection, without reducing their rewards in the slightest," and so on until the end of the hadith. The majority of scholars today and before today over some centuries have interpreted this hadith contrary to what its reason for being mentioned indicates. They say the meaning of the hadith: "Whoever starts a good practice in Islam" means: whoever innovates a good innovation in Islam, and based on this they are forced to specify the generality of his previous saying: "Whoever introduces something new into this affair of ours which does not belong to it, it is rejected."

And they do the same with the hadith which is clearer in indicating the general condemnation of every innovation. It is his saying, peace and blessings be upon him: "Every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Fire." When they fell into interpreting the previous hadith: "Whoever starts a good practice" as whoever innovates a good innovation in Islam, they were forced to reconcile that hadith with this understanding of the hadith. I do not say: reconcile that hadith with this hadith; because in reality, there is no contradiction or conflict between them. Rather, the contradiction and conflict arose between that general hadith which is clear: "Every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Fire," and the specific understanding of "Whoever starts a good practice in Islam," meaning whoever innovates a good innovation in Islam. They then said: "Therefore, the saying 'Every innovation is misguidance' is from the general that is specified." At that point, the meaning of the hadith becomes: not every innovation is misguidance. So, what is the meaning of the hadith then that they interpreted with innovation?

The truth is that we can understand the hadith in a way that does not conflict with the mentioned generality: "Every innovation is misguidance," from the text itself first, and then we seek support for this understanding from the reason for its occurrence secondly. This is because the Prophet, peace be upon him, when he said in the hadith: "Whoever starts a good practice in Islam," described it in the first part of the hadith as good, and in the second part which I have refrained from mentioning due to its fame by saying: a bad practice. Thus, this hadith indicates to us that in Islam there is a good practice and in Islam there is a bad practice. Here arises the question: what is the way to know the good practice and the bad practice? Is it the intellect and mere opinion, or is it the Sharia? I do not think anyone would say it is the intellect and opinion, otherwise, he would align himself and I do not say we align him with the Mu'tazilites, he would align himself with the Mu'tazilites who say with the intellectual approval and disapproval. These Mu'tazilites are the ones known since they raised their heads and spread their sedition with their saying: indeed, the intellect is the judge, so what the intellect deems good is good, and what the intellect deems bad is bad. As for the response of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah rightly, it is the opposite of that: good is what the Sharia has deemed good, and bad is what the Sharia has deemed bad.

Thus, when he, peace be upon him, said: "Whoever starts a good practice in Islam," meaning legally: "and whoever starts a bad practice in Islam," meaning legally, the Sharia is the judge in us knowing that this is a good practice and this is a bad practice.

If that is the case, then there is no room for saying that the meaning of the hadith: "Whoever starts a good practice in Islam" is a good innovation. We say: this is an innovation but good! What makes you know it is good? If you come with a Sharia evidence, then it is upon the head and the eyes, and the approval is not from you but from the Sharia. Likewise, if you come with Sharia evidence on the badness of that innovation, then the Sharia is what judged it as bad, and it is not opinion.

So this hadith then from the very words "good" and "bad" we take that it is not permissible to interpret the hadith with the good and bad innovation that its basis is opinion and intellect. Then this correct understanding for this correct text is supported by returning to the reason for the occurrence of the hadith - and here is the point of witness - the hadith came in "Sahih Muslim" and "Musnad Imam Ahmad" and other collections of the Sunnah from the hadith of Jarir bin Abdullah Al-Bajali, may Allah be pleased with him, he said: "We were sitting with the Prophet, peace be upon him, when some people from the tribe of Mudar came to him, they were wearing woolen garments and were armed with swords, most of them from Mudar, in fact all of them from Mudar. When the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, saw them, his face changed, that is, his facial features changed, peace be upon him, out of sadness and grief over their poverty which was evident from their appearance. Then he, peace be upon him, gave a sermon to the companions and mentioned Allah's saying: {And spend of that with which We have provided you before death comes to one of you and he says, "My Lord, if only You would delay me for a brief term so I would give charity and be among the righteous."} (Al-Munafiqun: 10).

Then he, peace be upon him, said: A man gives charity from his dirham, his dinar, his sa' of wheat, his sa' of barley." Giving charity is a past action, but this is from the eloquence of the Arabic language, that is, to give charity, he put the past tense in place of the command form, meaning: it should happen and become past. Let one of you give charity from his dirham, his dinar, his sa' of wheat, his sa' of barley. "After the Prophet, peace be upon him, finished his sermon, a man got up to return and brought in the edge of his garment what he could afford of charity, whether it was food or dirhams or dinars, and placed it before the Prophet, peace be upon him. When his companions saw what he did, each of them got up to return with what they could afford of charity." Jarir said: "So much charity gathered before the Prophet, peace be upon him, like mountains." He said: "When the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, saw this, his face brightened as if it was gilded." They said in interpreting this comparison: "As if it was gilded" means: like silver plated with gold.

At first, when he, peace be upon him, saw them, he said: his face changed out of sadness and grief. But when his companions responded to his sermon, "When they responded to him, peace be upon him, his face brightened as if it was gilded," he said: "Whoever starts a good practice in Islam," and so on until the end of the hadith.

Then he, 'alayhissholaatu wassalaam (peace and blessings be upon him), said:

"A man should give charity with his dirham, with his dinar, with a measure of his wheat, with a measure of his barley."

"Tashoddaqo" is a past tense verb, but here it is used in a rhetorical form in the Arabic language, meaning: to give charity, thus making the past tense verb serve as an imperative verb (a command), which signals that it should be done promptly, as if it were already a past action, to urge haste in giving charity with one's dirham, dinar, a measure of wheat, or a measure of barley. After the Prophet, 'alayhissholaatu wassalaam, finished his sermon, a man stood up to go back (to fetch) and brought as much as he could in his garment, from food or his dirhams or dinars, and placed them before the Messenger, shollalloohu 'alayhi wa sallam. When the other companions saw this, they all stood up to go back (to fetch) with whatever they could for charity. Jarir said: "Then a heap of charity gathered before the Prophet, shollalloohu 'alayhi wa sallam, like a mountain. When the Messenger of Allah, shollalloohu 'alayhi wa sallam, saw this, his face shone as if gilded with gold." They said about this description: "as if gilded with gold," meaning like silver overlaid with gold. At first, when he saw them, his face changed out of sorrow and sadness, but when his companions responded to his advice, his face shone as if gilded with gold, and he said: "Whoever initiates a good practice in Islam," until the end of the hadith.

Now we say: It is not correct in any way to interpret the hadith with the first interpretation: whoever initiates a good innovation in Islam, because we will say: where is the innovation that occurred in this incident, and he, 'alayhissholaatu wassalaam, said in its context: whoever initiates a good innovation in Islam? We do not see anything of this sort at all. Rather, we find that the Prophet, shollalloohu 'alayhi wa sallam, addressed them, commanding them to give charity, reminding them of a verse in the Noble Qur'an that had previously been revealed to him: "Spend from what We have provided for you" [Al-Munafiqun: 10], and he emphasized that with part of his hadith: "A man should give charity with his dirham, with his dinar, with a measure of his wheat, with a measure of his barley." Therefore, there is only charity here, and charity is an act of worship, sometimes obligatory and sometimes voluntary.

So: It is not permissible to say: the meaning of the hadith is whoever innovates, because there is no innovation here. However, if we return to the word "sanna" in Arabic, we find something new in this incident, but it is not an innovation. The new thing is the action of this man who first stood up, went to his house, and returned with what he could as charity. His other companions followed his example, thus he initiated a good deed for them, but he did not initiate an innovation. He initiated charity, and charity had already been commanded as mentioned earlier. I might have extended this discussion a bit, but I see that this explanation is necessary for every student of knowledge to understand the legal texts correctly so that they do not contradict each other. Therefore, his statement, 'alayhissholaatu wassalaam, which some scholars have taken at face value, allowing the taking of wages for the Qur'an absolutely, should not be understood in this unrestricted way. Rather, it should be tied to the context of ruqyah (spiritual healing), so that taking wages mentioned in the hadith is not for merely reciting or teaching the Qur'an, but specifically for ruqyah with the Qur'an.

And finally, what confirms this, and I will suffice with this: A man taught his companion the Qur'an during the time of the Prophet, shollalloohu 'alayhi wa sallam, and he was given a bow as a gift. But they returned to the hadith of Abu Sa'id, asking why Abu Sa'id refrained from benefiting from the wage he received from the tribal leader, and why this other man refrained when he was given a bow, until he asked the Prophet, 'alayhissholaatu wassalaam, why they refrained. Because they were truly knowledgeable in jurisprudence, and they understood the previous verse: "And they were not commanded except to worship Allah, devoting the religion sincerely to Him" [Al-Bayyina: 5]. So, Abu Sa'id recited the Qur'an and saw that it was related to ruqyah, and this other man taught his companion the Qur'an, fearing that it might undermine sincerity in worshiping Allah, 'azza wa jall. Therefore, Abu Sa'id refrained from benefiting from the wage he received for ruqyah until the Prophet, 'alayhissholaatu wassalaam, said what you heard. As for this other man who taught his companion the Qur'an, when he came to the Prophet, shollalloohu 'alayhi wa sallam, and mentioned to him that he taught him, then he was given a bow, the Prophet said: "If you take it, you will be garlanded with a fire on the Day of Resurrection."

Therefore: teaching the Qur'an based on this hadith and the other hadith: "they hasten it and do not delay it" is not permissible at all. I will suffice with this previous explanation, that teaching and reciting the Qur'an should not involve taking wages, as with all acts of worship. But here is a note that must be mentioned briefly: a wage as you know is a right in return for a work performed by a person, this type of taking called linguistically and legally as a wage, is what is forbidden legally. However, if there is a type of money given to those who engage in some religious functions, whether from the state or some wealthy individuals who feel it is their duty to provide support and help to some poor, or even strong individuals who devote themselves to serving Islam by doing some work in service of Islam, so the state gives them, it is not permissible for the state to call this a wage.

Nor is it permissible for those who receive this to take it as a wage, but they take it in another sense, such as a gift or a reward, as in the early generations when Islam was strong, and jihad in the way of Allah was established and widespread, and spoils of war filled the state treasuries. The state would distribute allowances to people, even those who were not employees. So this is the way out for those who were imams, muezzins, preachers, or teachers in schools, and their knowledge was religious legal knowledge. It is not permissible for them to take a wage for it. They should take it without the sense of a wage, as mentioned in the conclusive evidence that requires every Muslim to make their worship sincere for the sake of Allah, the Exalted.

[Nasiruddin Al-Albani, Collection of the Legacy of Al-Allamah Al-Albani in Fiqh, vol. 13, pp. 390-399]