and others. Hence, whenever the pledger refuses to place the pledge in the mortgagee’s possession, he is compelled to do so, just as in a sale; and if the mortgagee later returns the pledge to the pledger on loan or for any other reason and then demands it back, the pledger must hand it over.

Shaykh ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ḥasan commented: As for the Almighty’s words, “then a pawn that is taken into possession” (Q 2:283), this is only a description of what usually occurs; circumstances often make actual possession impracticable.

Benefit:
The hadith shows that the usufruct of a pledged item should not be suspended; it ought to be put to use and its upkeep provided. This does not conflict with the principle that “every loan that brings a benefit is usury (riba),” for by consensus the cost of maintaining a pledge lies with its owner, and its offspring and earnings likewise belong to him—except for the two benefits singled out by this hadith. These two are exempted both by the text itself and by the condition that justice be observed, meaning that the benefit obtained from riding or milking must equal the cost of fodder. Thus the arrangement is far removed from a loan that yields profit. Even so, none of the jurists acted on this hadith except Imam Aḥmad; the other three imams did not adopt it and offered replies that have been refuted.

Among their objections were the claim of abrogation and the assertion that the preposition bāʾ in the phrase “bi-nafaqati-hi” (“in return for its upkeep”) does not denote exchange but accompaniment—meaning that the beast is to be ridden while we continue to feed it. Hence the mortgage neither prevents the pledger from benefiting from the pledged animal nor relieves him of its expenses.

The correct view is what the explicit wording and outward sense of the hadith itself convey, as understood by the hadith specialists—among them Imam Aḥmad.