Issue: Pledging fruit before it appears, or crops before they are planted, is not valid. This is inferred from his statement, “except for fruit and green crops.” Before it appears, fruit is nonexistent, whereas a pledge is security for a debt in the form of a specific asset—and here there is no asset.

Accordingly, if a farmer comes to a merchant and says, “I want to plough this land and plant it, so I would like you to lend me money,” and the merchant says, “Yes, I will lend you ten thousand riyals, but on condition that you pledge to me the crops you will plant in this land,” this is not valid, because the crops do not yet exist. How, then, can he pledge something nonexistent? Yet people commonly do otherwise: they pledge such crops in consideration of what they are expected to become.

If someone were to ask: Why do we not substitute pledging the tree for pledging its fruit, since the tree exists; and pledging the land for pledging the crops, since the land exists?

We say: The land may belong to someone other than the debtor, with the debtor merely being the cultivator. Likewise, the trees may belong to someone other than the debtor. The debtor may be a farmer who owns nothing but the fruit, while the trees belong to the landowner, so this is not possible. But if it is possible—such that the debtor owns both the principal asset and its produce—we say: There is no problem; pledge the tree, and the fruit will be included in it; or pledge the land, and the crops will be included in it. But if he owns neither the land nor the trees, this is not valid. Nevertheless, as we have mentioned, people today commonly act otherwise: the farmer comes and says to the merchant, “I wish to plough this land, and I want you to advance me a loan, and I will pledge the crops to you.” The merchant then gives him what he requests.