adequate security for his right unless he takes possession of it. He is travelling and has no scribe available, so he cannot secure his right except through a pledged item taken into possession. For if he does not take possession of it, the debtor may deny having made the pledge. Likewise, a pledge was prescribed in order to prevent dispute and mutual denial between the seller and purchaser.

Accordingly, we say that the verse contains no indication that possession is a condition; rather, it indicates that possession completes the security, since Allah, exalted is He, mentioned it in a particular situation: “And if you are on a journey and cannot find a scribe, then a pledge in possession.” He then followed this with His saying: “But if one of you entrusts another, then let the one entrusted fulfil his trust.” [al-Baqarah 2:283]

As for the hadith, “A pledged riding animal may be ridden in return for its maintenance, and the milk of a milch animal may be drunk in return for its maintenance” (1), then yes, we apply it when possession has taken place. But does this prove that possession is a condition for the pledge to be binding?

The answer is no. The same applies to the case of the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, pledging his armour to a Jew (2). The correct view is that the pledge becomes binding upon the mere conclusion of the contract. This has been the practice of people since ancient times, although it differs from the established position of the school. Thus, one finds a farmer borrowing from someone and pledging his farm while remaining on the farm; likewise, a car owner borrows from someone and pledges his car while the car remains in his possession. Everyone understands that the pledgor cannot dispose of this pledged property, that the pledge is binding, and that he has no right to rescind it.