visible fruit, it does not enter into the pledge, just as it does not enter into a sale; but if it is not visible, it enters. Al-Shafi'i said: Fruit does not enter into a pledge under any circumstances. Abu Hanifa said: It enters in all cases, because the pledge in his view is not valid on the roots without the fruit, and he intended a valid contract, so the fruit enters due to the necessity of validity. We say: The pollinated fruit does not enter into a sale, despite its strength and [the sale's] removal of the seller's ownership, so the pledge, with its relative weakness, is even more deserving [of excluding it]. And against Al-Shafi'i: It is a contract on the tree, so it entails the unpollinated fruit, like a sale. The existing wool and milk enter into the pledge, just as they enter into a sale, as does the fetus and other [accessory] components of what was sold; because it is a contract occurring upon the entity, so these accessories enter into it, like a sale. If the pledge was a house and it became ruined, its debris remains a pledge, because it is part of its components, even if it was pledged before it was ruined. If he pledged land to him, and trees grew in it, it is part of the pledge, whether it grew by the action of the pledger or by the action of someone else, because it is part of its growth.

Section: The pledger may not benefit from the pledge through use, sexual intercourse, residence, or otherwise. He does not possess the right to dispose of it through leasing, [or lending], or other such acts, without the consent of the pledgee. Al-Thawri and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y) held this view. Malik, Ibn Abi Layla, Al-Shafi'i, and Ibn al-Mundhir said: The pledger may lease or lend it for a period whose expiration does not extend beyond the due date of the debt. Is he permitted to reside in it himself? There is a disagreement among them regarding this. If the pledge is a slave, he may satisfy its benefits through someone else. Is he permitted to do so himself? There is disagreement. He does not have the right to lease a garment or anything that diminishes through use. They based this on the view that the benefits belong to the pledger and do not enter into the pledge, nor does the pledgee’s right attach to them. The discussion on this has already preceded. This is also because it is an entity held in detention, so the owner may not benefit from it, like goods held by the seller pending the payment of their price. Or we say: it is a type of benefit, so the pledger does not possess it, like that which diminishes the value of the pledge. Once this is established, if the two parties to the pledge do not agree on [its] benefit, [it is not permissible to benefit from it], and