Hadithi ya Mtume "hapaswi kuikomboa rehani kutoka kwa mwenyewe" yaani, mwenye kushikilia rehani hastahili rehani hiyo ikiwa mwenye kuweka rehani hatoi ndani ya muda uliowekwa. Hivyo kitu kilichowekwa rehani bado ni mali ya mwenye kuweka rehani, na faida yake pia inabaki kuwa mali yake, kwa kuwa ni "ghorm" (hasara/gharama) yake, na inaingia katika kauli yake ﷺ "kwake ni faida yake (ghorm)." Zaidi ya hayo, faida ni ongezeko la thamani ya kitu kilichowekwa rehani, hivyo imetokana nacho, iwe ni faida kama kuishi katika nyumba au ni kitu kama mazao ya mti na mtoto wa ng'ombe. Ni mali ya mwenye kuweka rehani, na mkataba wa rehani haukufanyika juu yake, hivyo haijawekwa rehani kwa kuwa mkataba ni juu ya kitu chenyewe si faida yake. Kwa muda wote faida ni mali ya mwenye kuweka rehani, ni haki yake kuichukua, hivyo anaweza kukodisha nyumba iliyowekwa rehani, na kuchukua malipo yake, iwe amewakodisha mwenye kushikilia rehani au mtu mwingine. Malipo haya pia si rehani, bali yanakuwa mali ya mwenye kuweka rehani, wala hayafuati rehani kwa kuwa si miongoni mwa vitu vinavyofuata nyumba vinavyoingia katika mauzo bila kutajwa, kama funguo za nyumba. Kwa hiyo mwenye kushikilia rehani hawezi kufaidika na kitu kilichowekwa rehani kwa sababu kimewekwa rehani kwake au kiko chini ya umiliki wake; bali faida yake ni ya mwenyewe.
The Messenger’s statement “he should not unredeem the pledge from its owner” i.e. the pledgee does not deserve the pledge if the pledger does not release it in the stipulated time. So the pledged thing remains the property of the pledger and the benefit remains his property because it is his booty and it enters into his (saw) statement “for him is his booty (gharam).” Additionally the benefit is the increase in value of the pledged thing so it has resulted therefrom, whether this increase is a benefit like residing in the house or it is a thing like the produce of the tree and the cow’s child. It is the property of the pledger and the pledge contract did not take place over it, so it is not pledged since the contract is over the thing not its benefit. So long as the benefit is the pledger’s property, it is for him to take it so he can rent the pledged house, and to take its wage whether he hired it to the pledgee or another. Nor is this wage a pledge but rather it becomes the property of the pledger nor does it follow the pledge because it is not among the follower of the house which enters into the sale without mentioning like the house keys. Hence the pledgee cannot benefit from the pledged thing with the proof that it is pledged to him or it is under his possession; rather its benefit is for its owner.
Kwa kuwa manufaa ya kitu ni ya mmiliki wake, anaweza kuyatoa kama zawadi kama anavyoweza kukitoa kitu chenyewe, na anaweza kumruhusu yeyote amtakaye anufaike na kitu hicho. Isipokuwa kwamba ruhusa ya mdhamini kwa mdhamiwa (mdhaminiwa) ya kunufaika na kitu alichokiweka rehani ina masharti tofauti na ruhusa kwa mtu mwingine. Inaruhusiwa kwa mdhamini kumruhusu binadamu yeyote, isipokuwa mdhaminiwa, kunufaika na kitu kilichowekwa rehani. Kuhusu ruhusa yake kwa mdhaminiwa, ina maelezo fulani. Ikiwa rehani ni kwa ajili ya bei ya mauzo, au kodi ya nyumba, au deni lolote lisilokuwa mkopo, basi inaruhusiwa kwa mdhaminiwa kunufaika na kitu kilichowekwa rehani kwa ruhusa ya mdhamini. Hii ni kwa sababu ni mali yake, hivyo anaweza kumruhusu yeyote amtakaye kunufaika nayo, ikiwemo mdhamini mwenyewe na wengine. Hakuna dalili yoyote inayozuia hilo, kwani hakuja andiko lolote linalomtenga mdhaminiwa, hivyo hukumu inabaki ya jumla. Na kwa kuwa inaruhusiwa kwa muuzaji kuongeza bei, na kwa mwenye nyumba kuongeza kodi ikiwa malipo yameahirishwa kwa muda, inaruhusiwa pia kwake kumruhusu kunufaika na kitu hicho kama nyongeza katika bei ya kitu kilichouzwa au nyongeza katika kodi ya kitu kilichokodishwa. Hili halihesabiwi kuwa riba, kwa kuwa ufafanuzi wa riba hauhusiani nalo wala uhalisia wake, wala halimo katika vitu vya riba vilivyofungwa na andiko. Bali ni bei ya malipo yaliyoahirishwa kuwa juu kuliko bei ya papo hapo, na kukodi kwa ujira wa malipo yaliyoahirishwa kuwa juu kuliko ujira wa fedha taslimu; na hayo yote ni miongoni mwa miamala inayoruhusiwa na Sharia.
Since the thing’s benefit is for its owner, he can gift the benefit just like he can gift the thing and he can permit whoever he wishes to benefit from the thing. Except that the pledger’s permission to the pledge to benefit from the thing which he pledged differs from the permission to someone else. It is permitted for the pledger to permit any human being other than the pledgee to benefit from the pledged thing. As for his permission to the pledgee, it has some details. If the pledge is for the sale price or house rent or any debt other than the loan, it is permitted for the pledgee to benefit from the pledged thing with the permission of the pledger. This is because it is his property so he can permit whoever he wishes to benefit from it including the pledger and others. There does not exist any text preventing that as there did not come any text excluding the pledgee, so the rule remains general. And because it is permitted for the seller to increase the price and the landlord to increase the rent if it deferred for a period, it is permitted for him to permit the benefit of the thing as an increase on the price of the sold thing or an increase on the rent of the hired thing. This is not considered riba as the definition of riba does not apply upon it or its reality, nor does it enter into the usurious things limited by the text. Rather it is the deferred price higher than the immediate price and hiring for a deferred wage higher than the wage in cash, and these are all of the transactions permitted by the Shar’a.
Ama ikiwa deni ni mkopo, kama mtu mmoja kumkopesha mwingine elfu moja kwa mwaka mmoja, akamwekea rehani nyumba yake na kumruhusu anufaike na kitu kilichowekwa rehani, basi haijuzu kwa mwenye kupokea rehani katika hali hii kunufaika na kitu kilichowekwa rehani, hata kama mwenye kuweka rehani amemruhusu. Hii ni kwa sababu kuna maandiko yanayokataza hilo. Imepokewa kutoka kwa Anas (ra).
Whereas if the debt is a loan such as one person loaning another one thousand for a year, and he pledges to him his house and permits him to benefit of the pledge, it is not permitted for the pledgee in this case to benefit from the pledged thing even if the pledger permitted. This is due to the text coming prohibiting this. It has been narrated from Anas (ra)