Lessons drawn from the two hadiths

1. Hadith 672 is evidence that selling surplus water is forbidden and that one is obliged to give the excess to anyone who needs it.

2. The water whose surplus must be given away includes that which seeps up from a well, gushes from a spring, flows in a running river, or collects in a valley’s watering place—even when these are located on privately owned land—so long as the amount exceeds the owner’s personal need and the entry of those who come to draw it does not cause him undue harm.
   Al-Sharḥ al-Kabīr states: “Rivers that spring up in land owned by no one can under no circumstances be owned. As for water that originates on one’s property—such as a well—the shaft of the well belongs to the landowner, while the water itself, according to the predominant opinion, is not owned. A second view holds that it is owned. The disagreement applies only before the water is actually taken; once it has been collected, there is no doubt that the one who possesses it owns it.”

3. Water stored in skins, vessels, tanks, or reservoirs is private property; it may not be taken without the owner’s permission, and he is obliged to give it only to someone in dire necessity.

4. Al-Iqnāʿ and its commentary state: “If someone digs a well in unclaimed land for the benefit of passers-by, then people share equally in its water, and the one who dug it is like any of them with respect to irrigation, cultivation, and drinking, because he did not reserve it for himself or for anyone else. If he dug it merely to make personal use of its water, he does not thereby gain ownership of it, for he intends to move on and leave it to whoever camps after him. By contrast, one who digs with the intention of acquiring ownership has the strongest right to its water for as long as he remains there, by virtue of his precedence, yet he must still give away the surplus. After he departs, the water is for the general body of Muslim wayfarers; should he return, he has a prior claim over others.”

5. Hadith 673 shows that selling a male animal’s stud service is prohibited and that it must be provided free of charge. Taking payment for such seminal fluid is considered base and ignoble; this is a matter in which benevolence and mutual help among people should prevail. This is the view held by the majority of scholars.