5 – If the pledged animal is a dairy animal, the mortgagee may milk it and take from its milk an amount that equals the cost of its fodder, while scrupulously keeping to fairness.

6 – This permission to ride and milk comes directly from the Lawgiver; therefore the mortgagee need not seek the pledger’s approval, nor is a prior agreement required.

7 – So long as what he takes in milk matches the upkeep, he may proceed. Should the milk exceed the value of the maintenance, the mortgagee sells the surplus, for he now stands in the owner’s stead.

8 – If, on the other hand, the milk does not cover the expense and falls short, the mortgagee may reclaim the shortfall from the pledger—provided he intended to do so. But if he voluntarily spent more than the upkeep, he has no right of recourse.

9 – Our Hanbali scholars state: If the mortgagee spends on an animal that can neither be milked nor ridden, without the pledger’s permission when obtaining that permission was possible, he may not seek reimbursement—even if he meant to—because his spending is deemed a voluntary gift or negligence.
Ibn al-Qayyim, however, held that whoever discharges on behalf of another an obligation that is due from that person is entitled to reimbursement, citing the verse, “Is the reward for good [anything] but good?” (Q 55:60). A benefactor’s kindness must not be left unrewarded, as the Prophet ﷺ said, “If someone does you a favor, repay him” (Ahmad 5484).
Shaykh al-Islam [Ibn Taymiyyah] added: If the pledger says, “I did not cover the upkeep,” and the one who spent replies, “The expense was incumbent upon you, and I advanced it to safeguard the pledge,” that is pure justice, accords with the general welfare, and is mandated by the Book of Allah. This is the position of the scholars of Medina and the jurists of hadith, who maintain that whoever fulfills on behalf of another an obligation owed by the latter may reclaim its equivalent.

10 – Ibn al-Qayyim further observed: This ḥadith, together with the principles and fundamentals of the Sharia, shows that a pledged animal enjoys intrinsic inviolability for Allah’s sake; the owner retains the right of ownership, and the mortgagee holds the right of security. Therefore, when the animal is in his possession yet he neither rides it nor milks it,