for the lender, his testimony is accepted, because he neither attracts any benefit nor repels any harm thereby. If he says: "You gave me permission to pledge it for ten," and he says: "Rather, for five," the statement is that of the owner, because he is a denier of the excess. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). If the debt was deferred and he paid it while it was prompt with his permission, he has recourse for it while it is prompt. If he paid it without his permission, the judge said: He also has recourse for it immediately, because he has the right to demand the redemption of his slave immediately.

Section: If one borrows a slave from a man to pledge him for one hundred, and then pledges him to two men, it is valid, because specifying whom he pledges to is not a condition; the same applies to the one with whom he pledges. Furthermore, pledging him to two men is less harmful than pledging him to one man, because a portion of him is redeemed through the payment of a portion of the debt, unlike the case if it were a pledge to one person. Based on this, if one of them pays what is owed of the debt, his share of the pledge is released, because the contract of one person with two is in reality two contracts. If one borrows a slave from two men and pledges him to one person for one hundred, and he pays him half of it on behalf of one of the shares, there are two views regarding it: One of them is that nothing is released from the pledge because it is a single contract, from a single pledger, with a single pledgee, so it resembles the case if the slave belonged to one person. The second is that half of the slave is released, because each of the two only gave permission for the pledge of his share for fifty, so it cannot be a pledge for more than that, just as if he had been explicit with him about that, saying: "Pledge my share for fifty, do not exceed it." According to this view, if the pledgee was aware of that, he has no option. If he was not aware of that and the pledge was a condition of a sale, it is possible that he has the option, because he entered into it on the basis that every part of the pledge is security for the entire debt, and that has slipped away from him; [and it is also possible that he has no option, because the entire pledge was surrendered to him for the entire debt, and he entered into it on that basis].