a third party. But if the one imposing the further encumbrance is the original encumbrancer and he agrees to it, then what is there to prevent it? This is why people have acted on the permissibility of increasing the debt—that is, contrary to the school’s position. A farmer, for instance, comes to a merchant here, borrows from him, and says, “I pledge this farm to you as security for this debt.” Then he borrows from him a second time and says, “This debt is included under the first pledge.” The judges rule that this is valid.

His statement: “If someone pledges an item to two people and repays one of them”: the pledged item belongs to one person, who has pledged it to two people. If he repays one of them, the pledge is released with respect to that person’s share, but not with respect to the other’s share.

For example, Zayd borrows one hundred thousand from Amr and Bakr, each of whom lends him fifty thousand. He then says, “This house is pledged as security for your two debts.” If he subsequently repays Amr, is the pledge released with respect to Amr’s share?

The answer is yes. Only half of the house remains pledged, while the other half is no longer pledged. This is the meaning of his statement: “If someone pledges an item to two people and repays one of them.”

His statement: “Or if two people pledge an item and payment is received from one of them”: the pledged property is jointly owned.

For example, this house is jointly owned by Zayd and Amr. The two men borrow from someone and pledge the jointly owned house to him. If he receives payment from one of them, is the pledge released with respect to that person’s share?

The author says: “It is released with respect to his share,” because the transaction comprises two contracts. Thus, when the pledge is released in one of the two contracts, the other pledge remains.