the contract of pledge, so it is not required, and his pledge is not valid, just as if he had stipulated that he should not sell it. The Qadi mentioned two points of view regarding this, similar to the two opinions [of the school]. Our position is that custom dictates this, because the owner would not expose his property to damage and loss. Therefore, when its preservation is contingent upon its sale, the absolute contract is construed as including it, just as in the drying of that which can be dried, providing for animals, and securing that which requires securing. As for when he stipulates that it may not be sold, then it is not valid, because he has stipulated something that entails its spoilage and the frustration of the objective; this is similar to one who stipulates that he should not dry that which can be dried, or not provide for the animal. When what we have mentioned is established, if he stipulates to the mortgagee that he may sell it, or grants him permission to sell it after the contract, or they agree that the pledgor or someone else may sell it, he shall sell it. If that is not possible, the judge shall sell it and make its price a pledge, and he shall not satisfy the debt from its price, because he has no authority to hasten the payment of the debt before it is due. The same ruling applies if one pledges clothes and fears they will be ruined, or an animal and fears it will die. Ahmad said regarding a person who pledges clothes he fears will spoil, such as wool: He goes to the authority, who then commands him to sell them.

Section: It is valid to pledge grape juice (asir), because its sale is permissible, and its exposure to ceasing to be property does not prevent the validity of its pledge, just like a sick person or one who has committed a crime. Then, if it transforms into a state where it does not cease to be property, such as vinegar, the pledge remains in its state. If it becomes wine, the binding nature of the contract ceases, and it becomes mandatory to pour it out. If it is poured out, the contract concerning it is voided, and the mortgagee has no option, because the destruction occurred while in his possession. If it returns to being vinegar, the binding nature returns by virtue of the preceding contract, just as if the mortgagee's possession of the pledge had ceased and then returned to him. If it transforms into wine before the mortgagee takes possession of it, the pledge is void and does not return upon its becoming vinegar again, because it is a weak contract due to the lack of possession, similar to the conversion to Islam of one of two spouses before consummation. The Qadi mentioned that if the grape juice transforms into wine after possession, the pledge is void, then if it returns to being vinegar, it returns as the property of its owner, pledged by the previous contract; because it