above all other creditors, because his right is attached to the essence (ayn) of the pledge and the liability (dhimma) of the pledgor together, whereas the rest of them have their rights attached to the liability without the essence, so his right is stronger. This is among the most significant benefits of a pledge, which is prioritizing him with his right in the event of competing creditors. We know of no disagreement regarding this. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, the proponents of opinion (as-hab al-ra'y), and others. Thus, the pledge is sold; if its price equals his right, he takes it, and if there is a surplus beyond his debt, the remainder is returned to the creditors. If any of his debt remains, he takes its price and shares with the creditors for the remainder of his debt. Then, after that, whoever finds the exact essence of his property is more entitled to it. Then the remainder is divided among the creditors according to the proportion of their debts. Even if among them is someone whose debt was established due to a crime committed by the insolvent person, he is not prioritized and is on an equal footing with the creditors, because the compensation (arsh) for his crime attaches to his liability and not his property, so it is like the rest of the debts. This is unlike the compensation for a slave's crime, for it attaches to the person (raqaba) of the slave, and therefore he was more entitled to it than one whose right is attached to mere liability. There is no difference in the entitlement to the price of the pledge and the priority regarding it whether the pledgor is alive or dead, because the prioritization of his right is based on the fact that his right is attached to the essence of the property, and this meaning does not differ between life and death; thus, the same applies to that which is established by it, such as the compensation for a crime.

Section: If he sells something, or his agent sells it and collects the price, or the impartial third party ('adl) sells the pledge and collects the price, and then it perishes, and its return becomes impossible, and the commodity is found to be rightfully owned by another (mustahaqqa), the purchaser is on an equal footing with the creditors, because his right did not attach to the essence of the property, so he is in the position of the compensation for the crime of the insolvent person. The Qadi mentioned another possibility: that he is prioritized over the creditors, because he did not consent to mere liability, so he is more entitled, like the pledgee. Furthermore, if he were not prioritized over the creditors, people would refrain from purchasing the property of an insolvent person out of fear for the loss of their wealth, thus desires for it would decrease, and its price would decrease; therefore, prioritizing the purchaser over the creditors in this regard is more beneficial for them. This is a position held by the proponents of al-Shafi'i. Our view is that this is a right that did not attach to the essence of the property, so it is not prioritized, like the person against whom the insolvent person committed a crime, and it differs from