the pledgee, and thus he is the one who benefits. The second [point is] that his statement "for its maintenance" indicates that the benefit is the compensation for the expenditure, and that is indeed the right of the pledgee. As for the pledger, his spending and benefiting are not by way of compensation of one for the other. Furthermore, the maintenance of an animal is obligatory, and the pledgee has a right; it has become possible for him to satisfy his right from the growth of the pledge and by acting as a representative for the owner regarding what is obligatory upon him and satisfying that from its benefits. This is therefore permissible, just as it is permissible for a woman to take her sustenance from her husband's wealth when he refuses, without his permission, and to act as his representative in spending on herself. Regarding the Hadith, we say: The growth belongs to the pledger, but the pledgee has the authority to direct it toward its maintenance due to the establishment of his possession over it and his authority. This applies to one who spent with the intention of seeking reimbursement; as for one who spent as a volunteer without the intention of seeking reimbursement, he does not benefit from it, according to one narration.

Section: As for that which is not milked or ridden, it is of two types: animals and non-animals. As for animals, such as a male slave, a female slave, and the like, does the pledgee have the right to spend on it and use it to the extent of its maintenance? The manifest view of the school is that it is not permissible. Al-Khiraqi mentioned this, and Ahmad affirmed it in the narration of al-Athram. He said: I heard Abu Abd Allah being asked about a man who pledges a slave and then uses him, and he said: Nothing of a pledge may be utilized, except for the hadith of Abu Hurayra specifically concerning that which is ridden, milked, and provided with fodder. I said to him: What if the milk and the riding are worth more? He said: No, only to the extent [of the maintenance]. Hanbal narrated from Ahmad that he also has the right to use the slave—and Abu Thawr held this view—if the owner refuses to spend on him. Abu Bakr said: Hanbal differed from the group, and the practice is that nothing of a pledge is to be utilized, except that which the Law has singled out. For analogy dictates that nothing of it should be utilized; we have abandoned this in the case of the mount and the milked animal due to the tradition (athar), so in all other cases, it remains in accordance with the requirement of analogy. The second type is non-animals, such as a house that has fallen into disrepair, if the pledgee renovates it, he shall not be reimbursed for anything, according to one narration. He does not have the right to utilize it to the extent of his expenditure, for its renovation is not obligatory upon the pledger, and so someone else has no right to act as his representative in that which is not incumbent upon him. If he does so, he is a volunteer, unlike in the case of an animal, for it is incumbent upon its owner to spend on it, due to its sanctity (hurmah) in (8) itself.