he is traveling and cannot find a scribe, he has a greater need for a pledge. Thus, those who maintained that a pledge is valid only while traveling contradicted themselves: they said that it is valid during travel even when a scribe is available, although Allah says, “And if you are on a journey and cannot find a scribe…” The correct view—as the author indicated—is that it is permissible without restriction.

His statement, “It is valid with respect to every tangible asset that may be sold,” means that whatever may not be sold may not be pledged, except for the cases to come: pledging fruit before its ripeness has become apparent, and crops before their grain has hardened. Pledging them is permissible, even though selling them in this state is not permissible.

Thus, the rule is: “Every tangible asset that may be sold may be pledged; whatever may not be sold may not be pledged.”

The first example: A man wishes to borrow money, and the lender says to him, “I will not lend to you unless you pledge your child to me.” He replies, “That is fine; I will pledge my child to you.” This is not valid, because a child may not be sold.

The second example: A Bedouin has livestock and a dog that guards it. He comes to someone and says, “I want you to lend me one thousand riyals.” The other says, “I will not lend to you except against collateral.” He says, “I will pledge my dog to you.” This is not valid, because a dog may not be sold. If it cannot be sold, then what use is it? It provides no security. If an asset may not be sold, there is absolutely no benefit in pledging it, because when the debt falls due and the creditor wishes to sell the pledged property in order to recover his due, the pledge cannot be sold, and so he gains no benefit from it.

The third example: A man has a house endowed to him and to his descendants. He wishes to borrow from another person, who says, “There must be collateral.” He says, “I will pledge to you”