When is it permissible for the imam to take a wage for his leading of the prayer, and when is it permissible for the Quran teacher to take a wage for his teaching?

The questioner : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah, and upon his family and his Companions, and whoever follows them. The questions presented in this session are many, and very many indeed. Some of them may take up a great deal of time, or the time may not be sufficient for a long answer. Therefore, perhaps our Shaykh will answer some of the questions that have been answered before, if we have time to present them, with a brief and concise answer. As for some of the questions, I think that many, or perhaps all of them, have been answered in different sessions. But it seems that the brothers who are asking these questions that have been answered before may not have attended such sessions previously, and so the question is repeated. So we begin with some of the lighter questions.
The first question: When is it permissible for the imam to take a wage for his leading of the prayer? And when is it permissible for the Quran teacher to take a wage for his teaching?

The Shaykh : This is a brief answer. This is what a brief answer should be.

The questioner : No, this has been answered before.

The Shaykh : If we take a middle path.

The questioner : There is no harm.

The Shaykh: May Allah will it.

The questioner : If you wish, you can be brief, take a middle path, or be lengthy.

The Shaykh : So the answer, very briefly, and then perhaps some detail that is necessary will follow. It is not permissible to take a wage for leading the prayer or for teaching in any way whatsoever. This is because taking such a wage contradicts sincerity to Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in worship. This is the sincerity that we were commanded to have in more than one verse in the Noble Qur'an, such as His saying (Mighty and Majestic): And there are many, very many texts in the Book and the Sunnah. For now, this Qur'anic text is sufficient for us: But it is necessary to distinguish between the wage given to a Muslim in exchange for a worship he performs, and the wage given to this Muslim in exchange for a worldly task he undertakes. The wage for worship is forbidden, strictly forbidden. But this is one thing, and here lies the precision in the matter: that a person is given a compensation, a salary, a pension, or anything else, and he does not take it as a wage in exchange for the worship he performed, but rather in another sense. It is permissible to realize this meaning practically. For this distinction and other reasons, the well-known hadith came, which you are all familiar with, if Allah wills, in the two Sahihs, from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: So if a mujahid goes out intending, behind his jihad, something of the matters of this world, as came in this hadith, then this intention corrupts his deed for him, because he did not go out for jihad in the path of Allah, but rather he went out, as you heard, for a worldly thing he might obtain or a woman he might marry. Even though you know that in the Islamic system, if the Muslim army obtains spoils of war from the enemy, the commander of the army distributes those spoils, or at least some of them, among the soldiers who gained them. This does not contradict their fighting and jihad in the path of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He), if the original reason for their going out was pure for the face of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). So what they are given afterwards from the spoils is not called a wage for them, but rather a gift, a grant, and a reward that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) made for these winners. And so, if a salary is arranged for the mu'adhdhin, or the imam, or the teacher, and he takes it, it is not as a wage for performing that worship. So this taking is permissible. But if he imagines in his mind that this wage is his right, as if he performed a worldly task as we mentioned before, then this is the source of the error and the source of the deficiency in sincerity in that worship he performed. For this reason, the scholars, following some authentic hadiths, distinguish between two men: one who satisfies his desire through a lawful path, and the other who satisfies his desire through a forbidden path. They both shared in satisfying their desires, but they differed completely in the outcome of their matter and their desire. The first one, who satisfied his desire through a prescribed path, has no sin upon him, but rather he has a reward, as came in some authentic hadiths. The other, however, is sinful, as is clear to all.
Some of the commentators mention the hadith of intention mentioned earlier as an example of two men: one who traveled for his interests, and when he returned to his house at night and went to his bed, thinking his wife was in it, he had intercourse with her. And when it became clear in the morning, the woman was not his wife, but another woman, perhaps a relative of his wife, due to circumstances that arose during the man's absence. So his wife went to her family's house, and his sister or neighbor came and stayed in his house. This is not considered zina (unlawful sexual intercourse), because deeds are by intentions. He came to his house and lay with his bed, so he has no sin upon him.
The other man is one who is accustomed to committing fornication. So when the night darkened, he went out looking for a target. When he entered the dark room and had intercourse with the woman there, and the light was lit, the woman was his wife. Because when he went out, she also went out with the same intention: he went out for fornication, and she went out for fornication, and then fornication brought them together on one bed, and each was unaware of the other. So they are equal in sin, even though originally they were a married couple. But each of them, because his intention was zina, is considered a fornicator, and not one who satisfied his desire with his wife, even though in reality he satisfied his desire with his wife. The deed is one, but the intention differed. From this standpoint, it is obligatory upon everyone who is afflicted with a religious duty and has a wage arranged for him, whether this arrangement is from the state or from an individual, that this arrangement of money for the man does not change his intention and his sincerity in obeying his Lord (Mighty and Majestic). This is what can be said now.