its benefit is wasted to no purpose. Justice, sound analogy, and the welfare of the pledger, the mortgagee, and the animal alike therefore dictate that the mortgagee avail himself of the animal’s riding and milking, offsetting those benefits with the cost of its fodder. When the mortgagee has taken those benefits and compensated for them through his expenditure, both interests—and both rights—are satisfied.

11 – The ḥadith points to the obligation of exercising justice in everything that lies within a person’s authority and management.

12 – It further shows that the upkeep and benefit of a pledged item rest with the pledger; they become the mortgagee’s responsibility only when the pledge yields an advantage that he actually enjoys, and then only to the extent of that advantage.

13 – It also teaches that usufructs should be used and not left to go to waste, for wasting assets is condemned by the Law.

Disagreement among the scholars:

The ḥadith serves as evidence that the pledge remains in the hands of the mortgagee for the entire term of the mortgage, in keeping with the verse, “then a pawn that is taken into possession” (Q 2:283).

Is physical receipt (qabḍ) a condition for the mortgage to become binding, or not?

The well-known view of the [Hanbali] school is that it is indeed a condition; the mortgage is not binding until the pledge is delivered. This is also the position of the majority of scholars, including Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Shāfiʿī.

A second report from Aḥmad holds that receipt is not a condition for binding force; the mortgage becomes binding as soon as the contract is concluded.

Al-Inṣāf states: “According to him, receipt is not required in the case of a specified item; it becomes binding through the contract itself—this is his explicit statement.”

Al-Qāḍī said: “This is the view of our colleagues.”

Al-Takhliṣ adds: “This is the more famous of the two reports, and it is the adopted position according to Ibn ʿAqīl.”