the pledgee, for his right is attached to the essence of the property. What they mentioned as the first meaning is invalidated by the compensation for the insolvent person's crime, and the second is an interest that has no basis, so the ruling is not established through it. As for if the price exists and its return is possible, it is obligatory to return it, and its owner is solely entitled to it, because no one else's right has attached to the essence of his property. Likewise, the owner of the rightfully owned commodity takes it. Whenever the impartial third party sells the property of the insolvent person, or sells the pledge and the commodity is found to be rightfully owned by another, the liability (uhda) lies with the insolvent person; therefore, there is nothing upon the impartial third party, because he is a trustee (amin).

Section: If one rents a house or a mount by its specific essence, or anything other than them by its specific essence, and then the lessor becomes insolvent, the lessee is more entitled to the specific item he rented than the creditors until he receives his right, because his right is attached to the essence of the property, and the usufruct is owned by him during this period; thus, he is more entitled to it, as if he had purchased something from him. If the mount perishes or the house collapses before the expiration of the period, the lease is annulled, and he shares with the creditors regarding the remainder of the rent. If he rents a camel as a general liability (dhimma) or otherwise, and then the lessor becomes insolvent, the lessee is on an equal footing with the creditors, because his right did not attach to the essence. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, and we know of no disagreement regarding it. If he leases a house and then becomes insolvent, and the creditors and the insolvent person agree to the sale before the expiration of the lease period, they may do so, and they sell it while it is under lease. If they disagree, the statement of the one who demands the sale immediately is prioritized, because it is more cautious than delaying it. Once the lessee receives his due, he hands it over to the purchaser. If they agree to delay the sale until the lease period expires, they may do so, because the right belongs to them and does not depart from them.

Section: If he sells a commodity and then becomes insolvent before handing it over, the purchaser is more entitled to it than the creditors, whether it is from those items measured by volume or weight or otherwise, because the purchaser has already acquired ownership of it, and his ownership has been established in it; thus, he is more entitled to it, as if he had already taken possession of it. There is no difference between what is before the payment of the price and what is after it. If he is under a Salam (forward sale) contract and the person who paid the price (al-muslim) finds the price still existing, he is more entitled to it, because he found the essence of his property. If he does not find it, he is on an equal footing with the creditors, because he