the saddlebag, the house, or the pouch along with what is inside it. It is not valid, because it is unknown. If he does not say: "along with what is inside it," its pledge is valid because it is known, unless it is something that has no value, such as a worn-out saddlebag and the like. If he said: "I have pledged to you one of these two slaves," it is not valid due to the lack of specification. In general, it is required for the validity of knowledge in a pledge what is required in a sale, and likewise the capability for delivery; thus, it is not valid to pledge a runaway slave, an escaped camel, or something one does not own.

Section: If he pledges a slave or sells him, believing him to be usurped, and it turns out to be his own property—for example, if he pledged his father’s slave, and it turned out that his father had died and the slave had become his property through inheritance, or he commissioned a person to buy a slave for him from his master, and then the principal sold or pledged the slave, believing him to belong to his former master, and it turned out that his disposal occurred after the agent had purchased him for him, and the like—his disposal is valid, because it is a disposal issued by one qualified to do so and it coincided with his property; thus it is valid just as if he had known. It is possible that it is not valid, because he believed it to be void.

Section: If he pledges an item sold during the option period, it is not valid, unless the buyer pledges it and the option belongs to him alone; then his disposal is valid, and his option is rendered void. Abu Bakr mentioned this, and it is the school of al-Shafi'i. The same applies to its sale and his other dispositions. If the buyer goes bankrupt and the seller pledges the specific item of his wealth to which he has the right of reclamation [before reclaiming it], it is not valid, because he pledged what he does not own. Likewise, if a father pledges an item he had gifted to his son before revoking the gift, it is not valid for the reason we have mentioned. There are two opinions from al-Shafi'i regarding this: one of them is that it is valid, because he has the right to reclaim the item, so his disposal of it indicates his revocation of the gift. As for us, he has pledged what he does not own without the owner’s permission, and without having guardianship over him; therefore it is not valid, just as if a husband were to pledge half the dower before the consummation of the marriage.