the right to sell the house and dispose of it, because a pledge does not become binding except through possession, and no possession has taken place here. This is one of the two opinions on this issue.
The second opinion is that it becomes binding upon the party for whom it is binding merely through the contract, without possession, and that possession is only for its completion. For we agree that a pledge is established by the contract; and if that is so, Allah, may He be exalted, says:
“O you who believe, fulfil your contracts.” [al-Ma’idah 5:1]
This includes a pledge contract, whether or not the pledged property has been taken into possession.
And He, exalted is He, says:
“And fulfil every commitment, for every commitment will be questioned about.” [al-Isra’ 17:34]
For all people regard it as reprehensible for someone to pledge something, thereby giving the other party assurance, and then afterwards sell it and dissolve the pledge. Furthermore, if we were to say that it is not binding, this would open the door to every evasive schemer: he could evade the ruling by withholding possession, then, once the contract and pledge had been concluded, go and sell it. Whatever serves as a means to falsehood is itself false. This view is the preponderant one, based on the evidence mentioned.
As for His saying, exalted is He:
“And if you are on a journey and cannot find a scribe, then a pledge in possession.” [al-Baqarah 2:283]
One should read what follows it, where He says:
“But if one of you entrusts another, then let the one entrusted fulfil his trust.”
For the end of the verse indicates that when mutual trust exists between us, neither a pledge, nor witnesses, nor written documentation is required. Moreover, the apparent meaning of the verse is that a pledge is only permissible while travelling, whereas you hold it to be permissible both while travelling and while resident—and that is correct. Allah, exalted is He, mentioned possession specifically in the first case because it is not possible for him to have