is binding. We say: A loan is not binding from the side of the borrower, for the owner of the slave has the right to demand its redemption before the debt falls due. Furthermore, a loan may be binding, as evidenced by the case where one lends a wall to build upon, or land to bury in, or to plant therein something that is not harvested as fodder (qasil). Since this is established, it is valid to pledge it for whatever amount one wishes, until whenever one wishes, to whomever one wishes; because the permission encompasses everything by its generality. The master has the right to demand that the pledger redeem the pledge, whether it is prompt or deferred, at the place of the right or before it falls due, because a loan is not binding. When the right falls due and he does not collect it, the pledgee has the right to sell the pledge and satisfy the debt from its price. The lender then has recourse against the pledger for the guarantee, which is the value of the borrowed object, or its equivalent if it is among those things having equivalents. He does not have recourse for the amount for which it was sold, regardless of whether it was sold for less than its value or more, according to one of the two views. The correct view is that if it is sold for less than its value, he has recourse for its value, because a loan is guaranteed, so he guarantees the shortfall in its price; and if it is sold for more, he has recourse for the amount for which it was sold, because the slave is the property of the lender, so its entire price belongs to him. The same applies if the pledgee waives his right against the pledger; the entire price returns to its owner. When he pays the pledger's debt with it, he has recourse against him for it. It does not follow from the obligation to guarantee the shortfall that the increase should not belong to the owner of the slave, just as if it were remaining in its original state. If the pledge is destroyed, the pledger guarantees it by its value, whether it was destroyed through negligence or without negligence. Ahmad has explicitly stated this, and that is because a loan is guaranteed.

Section: If the lender redeems the pledge and pays the debt owed by him with the permission of the pledger, he has recourse against him. If he pays it voluntarily, he has no recourse for anything. If he pays it without his permission while intending to have recourse, does he have recourse? There are two narrations on this, based on the case where one pays another's debt without his permission. Recourse is considered stronger here because he has the right to demand the redemption of his slave, and the payment of his debt is his redemption. If they differ regarding the permission, the statement is that of the pledger along with his oath, because he is the denier. If the pledgee testifies