If he had pledged this slave to two men, and he paid one of them, the share of each of the two lenders is released from half of him. If he paid half of the debt of one of them, the share of one of them is released according to one of the two views, and in the other, half of the share of each of them is released.

Section: If two men have two slaves, and each of them permits his partner to pledge his share of one of the two slaves, and they pledge them both to a man unconditionally, it is valid. If one of them stipulates that "whenever I pay what is upon me of the debt, the pledge on the slave I pledged is released, and on the other slave, [or in] the amount of my share of the other slave," then this is a corrupt condition; because he has stipulated that a pledge for one debt be released by the payment of another debt. The pledge becomes corrupt because this condition constitutes a reduction of the pledgee's right, and every corrupt condition that diminishes the right of the pledgee renders the pledge corrupt. As for if he stipulates that nothing of the slave is to be released until he pays the entire debt, it is also corrupt, because he has stipulated that the pledge remains detained for a debt other than that for which it is a pledge; however, it does not diminish the right of the pledgee. Thus, does the pledge become corrupt because of that? There are two views.

Section: It is not valid to pledge that which cannot be validly sold, such as an Umm al-Walad (mother of a child), waqf (endowment), and pledged property; because the purpose of a pledge is to settle a debt from its price, and for that which is not permitted to be sold, this is not possible. If one pledges the already pledged item to the pledgee, it is not permissible. If the pledger says to the pledgee, "Increase me [in debt] such that the pledge you possess is a pledge for it and for the first debt," it is not permissible. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and Muhammad, and it is one of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i. Malik, Abu Yusuf, Abu Thawr, al-Muzani, and Ibn al-Mundhir said: This is permissible; because if he had added a pledge, it would be permissible, so it is the same if he adds to the debt of the pledge. Also, because if the pledgee ransoms an offending slave with the permission of the pledger to be a pledge for the first money and for what he ransomed him with, it is permissible; so it is the same here, and because it is purely security, so the increase in it is permissible like a guarantee.