and others, because he did not benefit from the loan, but rather from the leasing. If he showed him favoritism in that, its ruling is the same as the ruling of benefiting without compensation; it is not permissible in a loan, and it is permissible in other than it. Whenever the pledgee leases or borrows it, the apparent view of Ahmad's words is that it leaves its status as a pledge. So, whenever the lease or the loan expires, the pledge returns to its status. Ahmad said, in the narration of al-Hasan ibn Thawab [from Ahmad] (4): If the pledge is a house, and the pledgee says: "Dwell in it for its rent, and it is a security for my right," it shifts and becomes a debt, and it moves away from being a pledge. Likewise, if he leases it to the pledger, Ahmad said, in the narration of Ibn Mansur: If he takes a house as a pledge, then leases it to its owner, it departs from the pledge, and when it returns to him, it becomes a pledge. The preferred view is that it does not leave the pledge if the pledgee leases or borrows it, because possession is continuous, and there is no contradiction between the two contracts. Ahmad's words in the narration of al-Hasan ibn Thawab are interpreted as meaning that he gave the pledger permission to dwell in it, as in the narration of Ibn Mansur, because it departed from the hand of the pledgee, so the binding nature ceased due to the cessation of possession, unlike when the pledgee himself dwells in it. Whenever the pledgee borrows the pledge, it becomes guaranteed by him. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: There is no liability upon him. The basis for this is on the loan (borrowing), for it is guaranteed according to us, and not guaranteed according to him.

Section: If he stipulates in the pledge that the pledgee shall benefit from it, the condition is corrupt, because it contradicts the requirements of the pledge. From Ahmad, it is that it is permissible in the sold item. Al-Qadi said: Its meaning is that he says: "I sold you this garment for a dinar, on the condition that you pledge to me (5) your slave to serve me for a month." It becomes a sale and a lease, so it is valid. If he is vague, the condition is void due to the uncertainty of its price. Malik said: There is no harm in stipulating the benefit of the pledge in the sale for a term regarding houses and lands, but he disliked it in livestock and clothing, and he disliked it in a loan. Our position is that he stipulated in the pledge what contradicts it, so it is not valid, just as if he had stipulated it in a loan.