its possession is feasible, the pledge does not become binding until he returns and gives permission, and then a period passes during which it is feasible to take possession of it.

Section: If he pledges to him guaranteed wealth (al-madmun), such as usurped property (al-maghsub), a loan (al-ariyah), or property taken via a corrupt sale or during the inspection phase (al-sawm), it is valid, and the guarantee (daman) ceases. This is the opinion of Malik and Abu Hanifah. Al-Shafi'i said: 'The guarantee does not cease, and the ruling of the pledge is established regarding it, while the ruling that was previously established remains in effect, because there is no contradiction between the two.' The evidence for this is that if he commits aggression against the pledge, it becomes guaranteed as if it were usurped, yet it remains a pledge as it was. Thus, the same applies to its initiation, as it is one of the states of the pledge. Our view is that he has been given permission to retain it as a pledge, and no act of aggression has renewed on his part regarding it, so he does not guarantee it, just as if he had taken possession of it from him, then he [the owner] made him take possession of it, or [the owner] absolved him of its guarantee. Their statement that 'there is no contradiction between them' is denied; for the hand of the usurper is an aggressive hand that must be removed, whereas the hand of the mortgagee is a rightful hand that the Law has granted him, and the hand of the mortgagee is a hand of trust (amanah), whereas the hand of the usurper, the borrower, and the like is a hand of guarantee (daman), and these two are contradictory. Furthermore, the cause necessitating the guarantee has ceased, so the guarantee ceases due to its cessation, just as if he had returned it to its owner. This is because the cause of the guarantee was usurpation, a loan, or the like, and he is no longer a usurper or a borrower; the ruling does not remain when its cause has ceased and a cause has occurred whose ruling contradicts the former. As for when he commits aggression in the pledge, he is bound by the guarantee due to his aggression, not because he is a usurper or a borrower. Here, the cause of the guarantee has ceased, and nothing has occurred that would necessitate it; thus, it is not established.

Section: It is permissible to appoint an agent to take possession of the pledge, and the possession of his agent stands in place of his own possession regarding the binding nature of the pledge and its other rulings. If the mortgagee appoints the pledger as an agent to take possession of the pledge for him on his own behalf, it is not valid, and that does not constitute taking possession. This is because the pledge is a security to recover the debt from it when it is impossible to recover it from the pledger, and if it is in the hand of the pledger, the meaning of security is not achieved. We have mentioned in the chapter on sale that if the buyer gives the seller a sack and says: 'Measure my right for me in this,' and he does so, that constitutes taking possession. Therefore, it is derived here that it is the same.