of the previous contract. Ahmad said, in a narration by Ibn Mansur: If he pledges a house, then its owner rents it out, it leaves the pledge; if it returns to him, it becomes a pledge again. He also said regarding one who pledges a slave-girl, then asks the mortgagee to send her to him to bake for them, and he sends her, and he has intercourse with her: it transfers out of the pledge; if he did not have intercourse with her, then there is nothing. Abu Bakr said: It is not a pledge in that state, and if he returns her, she reverts to the pledge. Among those who made the continuation of possession obligatory are Malik and Abu Hanifa. This is according to the correct opinion. As for the one who said: Initial possession is not a condition, then it is more appropriate for him to say: Continuation is not stipulated; because every condition considered in continuation is considered in the beginning, and sometimes that which is not considered in continuation is considered in the beginning. Abu al-Khattab said: If we say: Possession is a condition for the beginning, it is a condition for continuation. Al-Shafi'i said: The continuation of possession is not a condition, because it is a contract in which possession is considered at its beginning, so its continuation is not stipulated, like a gift. As for our evidence, it is the saying of Allah the Exalted: "Then let there be pledges in possession" (wa rihanun maqbudah). Because it is one of the two states of the pledge, so possession in it is a condition, just like the beginning. It differs from a gift, because possession at its beginning establishes ownership, so once it is established, it is independent of possession a second time; whereas the pledge is intended for security by selling it and satisfying one's debt from its price. If it is not in his hand, he is not able to sell it, and no security is obtained. If the mortgagee's hand is removed without a right, such as by usurpation, theft, the slave running away, the loss of property, or the like, the binding nature of the pledge does not cease, because his hand is established legally, so it is as if it did not cease.

Section: The mortgagee does not have the right to take possession of the pledge except with the permission of the pledger, because it is not binding upon him to hand it over, so his permission in its taking is considered, like the giver of a gift. If the mortgagee transgresses and takes possession of it without permission, its ruling is not established, and it is in the position of one who has not taken possession. If the pledger gives permission for possession, then revokes the permission before it, the ruling of the permission ceases. If he revokes the permission after he has taken possession, his revocation does not have an effect; because