Section: If the pledge is corrupt and the pledgee takes possession of it, he shall not be held liable for it, because he took possession of it by virtue of it being a pledge, and every contract whose valid form is not guaranteed—or is guaranteed—its corrupt form is treated the same. If it was temporary, or if he stipulated that it would become the property of the pledgee after the expiration of its term, it becomes guaranteed after that point, because it is possessed by virtue of a corrupt sale, and the ruling of corrupt contracts is the same as that of valid ones regarding liability. If it were land and he planted on it before the expiration of the term, it is like the planting of a usurper, because it is planting (24) without permission. If he planted it after the term, and he had stipulated that the pledge would become his, then he has planted with permission, because the sale, even if corrupt, contains permission for disposal. Thus, the pledger is given the choice between three things: to confirm the planting for him, to take it for its value, or to compel him to remove it and compensate him for what has diminished.

794 - Issue: He said: (The pledgee shall not benefit from the pledge in any way, except for that which is ridden or milked, so he may ride and milk it to the extent (1) of its fodder).

The discussion of this issue involves two states (2): the first is that which does not require maintenance, such as a house, personal property, and the like. It is not permissible for the pledgee to benefit from it without the pledger's permission under any circumstances. We know of no disagreement regarding this, because the pledge is the property of the pledger, and thus its growth and benefits are his, so no one else may take them without his permission. If the pledger gives the pledgee permission to benefit from it without compensation, and the pledge debt is from a loan, it is not permissible, because this results in a loan that draws a benefit, and that is forbidden. Ahmad said: I dislike the lending of houses, and it is pure usury. Meaning: if the house is a pledge for a loan and the pledgee benefits from it. But if the pledge is for the price of something sold, or the rent of a house, or a debt other than a loan, and the pledger gives him permission to benefit from it, that is permissible. This was narrated from al-Hasan and Ibn Sirin, and Ishaq held the same view. As for if the benefit is with compensation, such as if the pledgee rents the house from the pledger for its equivalent rent (3) without favoritism, it is permissible in a loan.