is the view preferred by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, and it is correct. It makes no difference whether he leases the animal and brings it to his own premises, or leases it while it remains with its owner. Leasing an animal for its milk takes one of two forms:

Either he leases it, brings it to his home, and provides for it himself;

or he leases it while it remains with its owner, who bears its maintenance. All of this is permissible according to the correct view. But according to the school, what should a person do if he has guests and wants to obtain milk for them? He must buy it. Milk may not be sold while still in the udder; rather, they say to him: Milk the animal, and once you have milked it, buy the milk if you need it. The point is that, even if we were to close the door on leasing an animal for its milk, there remain other permissible avenues, praise be to Allah.

His statement: “The water collected in a well and the water of the land are included incidentally.” Thus, if one person leases from another a well from which to water his camels or his crops, this is permissible, even though the object of the contract in this case is water, which is a tangible entity made up of discrete parts.

So how do they answer their own statement that a lease contract must concern a benefit? They say: This is included incidentally, because the object of the contract is the well; as for the water, it is not itself the object of the contract.

A thing may be established as subsidiary to another,
Though, if independent, it would not be allowed. (1)

But this is incorrect, because what is intended is the water. Their statement that “the water of the well is included incidentally” is, in truth, the reverse of the matter: the water is the primary object, for if the well contained no water, no one would lease it.