along with its load, the possession is valid, because the possession has occurred in both of them, and thus it exists in the pledge from both of them.

Section: If he pledges an undivided share of something that is not movable, he shall vacate it for him, whether the partner is present or not. If it is movable, such as a jewel of which he pledges half, its possession is by grasping it, and it is impossible to grasp it except with the partner's consent. If the partner consents, he takes it. If the partner refuses, and the mortgagee and pledger agree that it remains in the hand of the partner, it is permissible, and he acts on his behalf in the possession. If the partner and the mortgagee dispute, the judge shall appoint a just person in whose hand it will remain for both of them. If the pledger hands it over to the mortgagee without the partner's consent, and he takes it, if we say: 'The continuity of possession is a condition,' then that taking does not suffice him. If we say: 'It is not a condition,' then possession has been achieved, because the pledge has come into his hand along with the transgression regarding the other [share], similar to if he pledged to him a garment and handed it over along with a garment belonging to someone else, and he took both together. If he pledged a garment to him, and it became confused with another one for him, and he handed one of them over to him, possession is not established, because he does not know that he has given him the pledge. If it is clarified that it is the pledge, the validity of the delivery is clarified. If he hands both garments over to him together, possession is achieved, because he has received the pledge with certainty.

Section: If he pledges a house to him, and he vacates it for him while they are both inside it, then the pledger leaves, the possession is valid. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Hanifah said: 'It is not valid until he vacates it for him after he has left it,' because as long as he was in the house, his hand was upon it, so the vacating did not occur. Our argument is that vacating is valid by his verbal statement along with the possibility of using it and the absence of any obstacle, so it is similar to if they were both outside it. What he mentioned is not valid; do you not see that the mortgagee leaving it does not remove his hand from it, and his entry into another's house does not establish his hand upon it? And because by his leaving it, he has verified his statement, so there is no meaning to repeating the vacating.