its price. As for us, we rely on what Ibn Abi Dhi'b narrated from al-Zuhri, from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: "The pledge shall not be closed (i.e., forfeited); to its owner belongs its gain, and upon him lies its liability." It was narrated by al-Athram from Ahmad ibn Abd Allah ibn Yunus from Ibn Abi Dhi'b, and it was narrated by al-Shafi'i from Ibn Abi Fudayk from Ibn Abi Dhi'b, and its wording is: "The pledge belongs to its owner who pledged it." The rest of it is the same. He said: Ibn al-Musayyib linked it to Abu Hurayrah, from the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, with the same meaning or a similar one, from the hadith of [Ibn] Abi Unaysah. This is because it is a security for the debt, so it is not guaranteed, just as it is not guaranteed for an amount exceeding the debt, and like the guarantor or the witness. Also, because it is an item taken by a single contract, part of which is a trust, so the whole of it is a trust, like a deposit. According to Malik's view: that which real estate is not guaranteed by, gold is not guaranteed by, like a deposit. As for the hadith of Ata, it is Mursal (interrupted), and the statement of Ata contradicts it. Al-Daraqutni said: Isma'il ibn Umayyah narrates it, and he was a liar; it is also said: Mus'ab ibn Thabit narrates it, and he was weak. It is possible that he meant: "Your right is gone" regarding the security, evidenced by the fact that he did not ask about the amount of the debt or the value of the horse. The hadith of Anas, if it were authentic, would likely mean it is detained for what is in it. As for the object seized in settlement, it has become the property of the one who seized it, and he is entitled to its growth and gain, so its liability and loss are upon him, unlike the pledge; and sale before taking possession is forbidden.

Section: If he settles the entire debt, or he (the creditor) releases him from the debt, the pledge remains a trust in his hand. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifah said: If he settles it, it becomes guaranteed, and if he releases him or gifts it to him, it does not become guaranteed by way of Istihsan (juristic preference). This is a contradiction; because the possession was guaranteed from him, it did not cease, and he did not release him from it. According to us, it was a trust, and it remains as it was, and he is not obligated to return it, because he is holding it with the permission of its owner, and he does not have exclusive benefit from it, so it is like a deposit, unlike a loan (ariyah), for he has exclusive benefit from it, and unlike the case if the wind blew a garment into his house, where he is obligated to return it to its owner, because its owner did not authorize him to hold it. However, if its owner asks him in this state to hand it over to him,