Section: The second case concerns that which requires maintenance. The ruling on the pledgee’s utilization of it, with or without compensation, by the permission of the pledger, is like the category preceding it. If he gives him permission to spend on it and benefit from it to the extent of that expenditure, it is permissible, for it is a type of exchange. As for when there is no permission, the pledge is divided into two categories: that which is milked or ridden, and others. As for that which is milked or ridden, the pledgee may spend on it, ride it, and milk it to the extent of his expenditure, exercising fairness in that. Ahmad affirmed this in the narration of Muhammad ibn al-Hakam and Ahmad ibn al-Qasim, and it was chosen by al-Khiraqi, and it is the view of Ishaq. This applies regardless of whether he spends due to the pledger’s inability to maintain it—due to his absence or refusal to spend—or while having the ability to obtain the expenditure from the pledger and having sought his permission. There is another narration from Ahmad that he shall not be credited for what he spent, and he is considered a volunteer, and he does not benefit from the pledge at all. This is the view of Abu Hanifa, Malik, and al-Shafi’i, based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The pledge is from its pledger; its gain is for him, and its liability is upon him" (6). Also, because it is the property of another who did not grant him permission to benefit from it or spend on it, he has no right to do so, unlike non-pledged items. Our position is what was narrated by al-Bukhari, Abu Dawud, and al-Tirmidhi from Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "The pledge (7) may be ridden for its maintenance when it is pledged, and the milk of the udder may be drunk for its maintenance when it is pledged, and the one who rides and drinks is responsible for the maintenance." Thus, he made its benefit equal to its maintenance, and this is the point of dispute. If it is said: "The meaning is that the pledger spends and benefits," we say: This is not correct for two reasons: First, it has been narrated in some wordings: "If the animal is pledged, the pledgee is responsible for its fodder, and the milk of the udder may be drunk, and the one who drinks and rides is responsible for its maintenance." Thus, it designated the one who spends as the pledgee, making him the one who benefits. Second, 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. As for 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.