were required to undertake this himself and then seek reimbursement from the pledgor, it would lead to disputes and discord: every day he would come to the pledgor and say, “Give me the maintenance costs for this,” and that would cause hardship.

It is therefore part of the wisdom of the Sacred Law that a pledged riding animal may be ridden in return for its maintenance, and a pledged dairy animal may be milked in return for its maintenance.

As for anything else, the pledgee has no right whatsoever to benefit from it. He may not live in the house, use the car, read the book, or write with the pen; rather, he must leave it for its owner. This is because the basic principle regarding another person’s property is that it is inviolable and may not be used without right. Moreover, it does not require maintenance. This case alone has been exempted because necessity calls for it.

His statement, “without permission,” means: without the pledgor’s permission, since the permission of the Lawgiver suffices—the permission of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, when he said: “A riding animal may be ridden, and the milk of a dairy animal may be drunk.” (1) It is well known that the permission of the Lawgiver takes precedence over every other permission. Thus, if the Lawgiver has not permitted something but the owner has permitted it, that permission is not legally effective; whereas if the Lawgiver has permitted something, it is legally effective even if the owner has not permitted it. Here, the author, may Allah have mercy on him, explicitly stated: “without permission.”

His statement: “If he spends on the pledge without the pledgor’s permission when it was possible to obtain it, he may not recover it; but if that was not possible, he may recover it.”

His statement, “If he spends,” refers to the pledgee; that is, if the pledgee spends on the pledged property without the pledgor’s permission.