it is incumbent upon whoever has it in their possession, whether the pledgee or the neutral third party, to hand it over to him if possible. If he does not do so, he becomes a guarantor, like a depositor who refuses to return a deposit when requested. If his refusal is due to an excuse, such as there being a frightening road between him and the owner, a locked door that he cannot open, fearing the loss of the Jumu'ah prayer or congregational prayer, the loss of a prayer, being ill, suffering from severe hunger, or the like, and he delays delivery for that reason, then it is destroyed, there is no guarantee upon him; because he was not negligent, and thus he is like a depositor.

Section: If the pledgee takes possession of the pledge and finds that it is someone else's rightfully held property, he is obligated to return it to its owner, and the pledge is invalid from its inception. If he keeps it while knowing it is usurped property until it is destroyed in his hand, the liability is established upon him, and the owner has the option to hold either of them liable. If he holds the pledgee liable, he has no recourse against anyone because of that, and if he holds the pledgor liable, he has recourse against him. If he does not know it was usurped until it is destroyed through his negligence, the ruling is the same; because the liability is established upon him. If it is destroyed without his negligence, there are three perspectives: One is that he is liable, and the liability is established upon him, because the property of another was destroyed while in his wrongful possession, so the liability is established upon him, as if he had known. The second is that there is no liability upon him, because he took possession of it as a trust without his knowledge, so he is not liable, like a deposit. According to this view, the owner has recourse against the usurper only. The third perspective is that the owner has the option to hold either of them liable, and the liability is established upon the usurper. If he holds the usurper liable, he has no recourse against anyone, and if he holds the pledgee liable, he has recourse against the usurper because he misled him, so he has recourse against him, like one who is misled regarding the status of a slave woman being free.

798- Issue: He said: (And if they differ regarding the value, the statement is that of the pledgee along with his oath, and if they differ regarding the amount of the debt, the statement is that of the pledgor along with his oath, when neither of them has evidence for what he says.)

This means: If they differ regarding the value of the pledge, if it is destroyed in a state where the pledgee is required to guarantee it,