the increase in it is like a guarantee. As for us, it is a pledged item, so it is not permissible to pledge it for another debt, just as if he pledged it to someone other than the pledgee. As for the increase in the pledge, it is permissible because it is an increase in security, unlike our issue. As for the offending slave, it is valid to ransom him so that he may be a pledge for the ransom and the first money, because a pledge does not prevent the attachment of indemnity (arsh) to the offender, as the offense is stronger. Indeed, the one entitled to the indemnity has the right to demand the sale of the pledge and its removal from the state of being a pledge; thus, it becomes in the status of a permissible pledge before its possession. It is permissible to increase the right in a permissible pledge before it becomes binding, so it is the same when it becomes permissible due to the offense. The pledge differs from a guarantee; for it is permissible for him to guarantee for someone else. Once this is established, if he pledges it for a second right, it is a pledge for the first one exclusively. If two witnesses who believe it is corrupt testify to that, they should not testify to it. And if they believe it is valid, they should not testify that he pledged it for both rights unconditionally; rather, they should testify to the nature of the situation so that the judge may see his judgment regarding it.

Section: As for pledging the Sawad of Iraq and land endowed for the Muslims, the correct view in the school is that it is not permissible to sell it, and therefore it is not permissible to pledge it. This is explicitly stated by al-Shafi'i. As for the buildings upon it, their ruling is the same as the land. As for whatever is there that is not of its soil, or from the new trees planted there, if he singles it out for sale or pledge, is it valid? There are two narrations, both of which he stated in the context of sale. One of them: It is valid, because it is unrestricted property. The second: It is not permissible, because it is an accessory to that which is not permitted to be sold or pledged, so it is like the foundations of walls. If he pledges it along with the land, it is void regarding the land. Is it valid regarding the trees and buildings based on the narration in which it is permissible to pledge them separately? It is derived from the two narrations regarding the splitting of a transaction. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with him.

Section: It is not valid to pledge something unknown, because it is not valid to sell it. So if he said: "I have pledged to you this..."