Hadith 3433

(2) The statement: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) passed by a camel whose back had reached its belly, etc.: The master must provide maintenance for his slave and slave woman. If he refrains, and they have earnings, they earn and spend. If they have no earnings, such as a disabled slave or a slave woman not typically hired, the master is compelled to sell them, as they are entitled to maintenance. Selling fulfills their right and preserves the master’s right through compensation, unlike a wife’s maintenance. The difference between a wife’s maintenance and a slave’s is that if the master refrains from providing maintenance and they have no earnings, he is compelled to sell the slave. If a husband is unable to provide maintenance for his wife, he is not compelled to divorce, as compelling the sale transfers the master’s ownership to compensation, the price, while not doing so forfeits the slave’s right to maintenance without compensation, as a slave’s maintenance never becomes a debt on the master. In marriage, compelling separation forfeits the husband’s ownership without compensation, while not doing so forfeits the wife’s right temporarily, as her maintenance becomes a debt on the husband by the judge’s ruling, making it a delay. A slave’s maintenance does not become a debt, so it is a forfeiture. Unlike other animals, as they are not entitled to maintenance, so he is not compelled to provide for them, but he is commanded to do so in his relationship with Allah, as he forbade torturing animals, and this involves it, and it involves wasting wealth, and this involves it. In summary: A person is not compelled to spend on his property except for slaves. For animals, the fatwa is to spend on them in his relationship with Allah. For non-animals, like houses, real estate, and crops, there is no fatwa to spend, but if it involves wasting wealth, refraining from spending is disliked. The author of Al-Hidayah mentioned that he forbade torturing animals, as in Abu Dawud’s narration: "Do not torture Allah’s creation," and forbade wasting wealth, as in the Sahihayn that he forbade wasting wealth and excessive asking. Abu Yusuf said he is compelled to provide maintenance for animals, which is Ash-Shafi’i’s view, and they analogized to slaves. The most correct view is what we said, non-compulsion, as compelling the master to provide for his property is a form of judicial ruling requiring an entitled recipient, which exists in slaves, as they are entitled to rights against the master and others generally. A slave with kitaba has rights against the master, even though enslaved. Non-slaves have no rights against the master, so they cannot be the subject of a ruling, making the condition for a ruling absent, thus the ruling is absent. This Hadith does not indicate compulsion, and previous evidence negates it according to our madhhab. [Fath Al-Qadir, Al-Inayah, and Al-Marqah, excerpted from them] It is stated in Ad-Durr Al-Mukhtar and Radd Al-Muhtar: He is commanded, either to sell or provide maintenance for his animals, religiously, not judicially, according to the apparent madhhab, due to the prohibition of torturing animals and wasting wealth. In the second view, he is compelled, preferred by At-Tahawi and Al-Kamal, who said: The truth is with the majority, as endorsed in Al-Bahr, An-Nahr, and Al-Minh. The three Imams said so, and he is not compelled for non-animals, like houses, real estate, and crops, though wasting wealth is disliked unless he has a partner, in which case he is compelled if division is not possible, like a riverbank, canal repair, well, waterwheel, defective ship, or wall, unless it can be divided from its foundation, and each builds a barrier on his share.