from captivity, he would be entitled to demand reimbursement of the ransom, even though it was not a debt. The Quran supports this view, for Allah says:

“If they breastfeed for you, give them their payment.”

He commands payment simply on account of breastfeeding, without stipulating a contract or the father’s permission. Likewise, He says:

“Mothers shall breastfeed their children for two complete years, for whoever wishes to complete the nursing period. The father must provide their food and clothing according to what is reasonable.”

He makes this obligatory upon the father without stipulating a contract or permission. An animal’s upkeep is obligatory upon its owner, while the pledgee or lessee has a right in it. If he pays the maintenance incumbent upon its owner, his claim to reimbursement is stronger than that of someone who provides for the owner’s child. Suppose the pledgor says, “I did not give you permission to pay for its upkeep.” The other may reply, “That upkeep is obligatory upon you, and I am entitled to demand it from you to preserve the pledged or leased property.”

If the person who paid for the upkeep agrees to take the benefits of the pledged property in compensation, without demanding repayment of the expenditure, he has done its owner a kindness. This is an unqualified benefit to the pledgor. The same applies if someone entrusted with another person’s animal—such as a custodian, partner, or agent—pays for its upkeep from his own funds and takes the benefits of the property in compensation. This is a kindness to its owner when the owner does not provide for its upkeep.

Among the hadiths said to depart furthest from analogical reasoning is the report in the Sunan collections, narrated by al-Hasan, from Qabīsah ibn Hurayth, from Salamah ibn al-Muhabbaq: “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ruled concerning a man who had intercourse with his wife’s slave woman