Section: If he pledges the fruit of a tree that bears two harvests in a year, and the two cannot be distinguished from one another, and he pledges the first fruit until a time when the second arises in such a way that they cannot be distinguished, the pledge is invalid. This is because it is unknown at the time the debt falls due, so it is impossible to satisfy the debt from it; therefore, it is not valid, just as if it were unknown at the time of the contract, and just as if he had pledged it to him after they became indistinguishable. If he stipulates that the first must be harvested when there is fear of it mixing with the second, it is valid. If the pledged harvest is for a debt that has become due, and the second fruit is distinguishable from the first when it emerges, the pledge is valid. If there is procrastination in harvesting the first until it mixes with the second and it becomes impossible to distinguish between them, the pledge does not become invalid, because it was validly established and then mixed with something else in a way that makes separation impossible. In this case, if the pledgor allows the fruit to remain as a pledge, or if they agree on the amount of it that is pledged, it is acceptable. If they disagree, the statement of the pledgor is accepted, accompanied by his oath, regarding the amount of the pledge, because he is denying the additional amount, and the statement of the denier is upheld.

Section: If he pledges the usufruct of his house for a month, it is not valid, because the purpose of the pledgor is to satisfy the debt from its price, and the usufruct perishes by the time the right falls due. If he pledges the rent of his house for a month, it is not valid, because it is unknown and not owned.

Section: If a mukatab (an enslaved person under a contract of manumission) pledges someone who will be emancipated through him, it is not valid, because he does not possess the right to sell him. Abu Hanifa permitted it, because they do not enter into the mukataba contract with him. If the authorized slave pledges someone who would be emancipated through the master, it is not valid, because what is in his possession is owned by his master, and he has thus become free upon his master's purchase of him.

Section: If an heir pledges the deceased's estate, or sells it while the deceased has a debt upon him, it is valid according to one of the two opinions. The companions of al-Shafi'i said: It is not valid [in one of the two opinions] if the deceased has a debt that exhausts the estate, because the right of a human being has attached to it, so his pledging of it is not valid, just like pledged property. As for us, it is a disposal that coincided with his own property, and he did not attach a right to it, so it is valid, just as if...