Ruling 2236. A reward is when a person offers to give something in return for a task performed for him. For example, he says, ‘Whoever finds my lost property, I will give him £100’. The person who makes such an offer is called the ‘offeror’ (jāʿil), and the one who performs the task is called the ‘worker’ (ʿāmil). There are a number of differences between a reward and hiring/renting (ijārah). Among these differences is that with hiring/renting, once the contract has been concluded, the hired person (ajīr) must perform the specified task, and the person who hired him owes him payment. However, with a reward, even though the worker may be a specific person, he can choose not to perform the task, and until he does not perform it, the offeror does not owe him anything.

Ruling 2237. The offeror must be of the age of legal responsibility (bāligh), sane (ʿāqil), have an intention (qaṣd) to make the offer, and make it of his own volition (ikhtiyār). He must also legally (sharʿan) have disposal over his property. Therefore, the reward of a person who is foolish with finances (safīh) – i.e. someone who spends his wealth in futile ways – is not valid (ṣaḥīḥ). Similarly, the reward of someone who has been proclaimed bankrupt (mufallas) is not valid with respect to that part of his wealth over which he does not have right of disposal.

Ruling 2238. The task that the offeror wishes to be performed for him must not be unlawful (ḥarām), pointless, or an obligatory (wājib) task that must legally be performed free of charge. Therefore, if a person offers £100 to whoever drinks wine, wanders into a dark place at night without any rational purpose, or performs his obligatory prayers (ṣalāh), the reward is not valid.

Ruling 2239. It is not necessary that the property being offered be specified with all its particulars; rather, it is sufficient if it is understood by the worker, such that him taking steps to perform the task would not be considered foolish. For example, if the offeror says, ‘For whatever amount above £100 you sell this property, the extra is for you’, the reward is valid. Similarly, if he says, ‘Whoever finds my horse, I will give him half of its value or 10 kilograms of wheat’, again the reward is valid.

Ruling 2240. If the fee for the work is completely vague – for example, the offeror says, ‘Whoever finds my child, I will give him some money’, and he does not specify the amount – then, in the event that someone performs the task, the offeror must give him a fee equivalent to the value of his work in the eyes of the people.

Ruling 2241. If a worker performs the task before or after the contract is concluded with the intention of not taking any money, he does not have the right to claim any fee.

Ruling 2242. The offeror can annul the reward before the worker starts performing the task.

Ruling 2243. If the offeror wishes to annul the reward after the worker has started to perform the task, it is problematic unless he and the worker come to an agreement.

Ruling 2244. The worker can choose to leave the task unfinished. However, if leaving the task unfinished would cause harm to the offeror or someone for whom the task is being performed, he must complete it. For example, if someone says, ‘Whoever operates on my eye, I will give him such and such amount’, and a surgeon starts operating on his eye, in the event that were he to leave the operation unfinished it would lead to the offeror having a defective eye, he must complete the operation.

Ruling 2245. If the worker leaves the task unfinished, he cannot claim any fee if the offeror had offered the fee for completing the task; for example, he said, ‘Whoever stitches my clothes, I will give him £100’. However, if he had intended to give an amount of money proportional to the amount of work completed, then he must give the worker the fee for the amount of work he has done.