His statement, “in the sale, he may sell only in the local currency”: he may not sell in another currency. For example, here the local currency is the Saudi riyal, so he may not sell in dollars, for instance. When the contract is unrestricted, it is referred back to customary practice among people, and what is customary among them is the currency in circulation. Thus, he may sell only in the local currency.

If he says, “I wish to sell it in the currency of the debt”—meaning that the pledged property secures a debt denominated in dollars, and they authorize him to sell it—should he sell it in dollars or in the local currency?

The answer is: in the local currency. This is the apparent meaning of the author’s words, because the value of dollars may rise, causing the pledgor a loss; or it may fall, in which case this would harm the pledgee. Accordingly, no consideration is given to the debt or to the currency in which the debt is denominated; rather, consideration is given to the local currency.

The correct view, however, is that he should first sell it in the currency of the debt, and then in the local currency.

Should he sell it in 500-riyal notes, 100-riyal notes, 50-riyal notes, 10-riyal notes, or 1-riyal notes?

The answer is: he may sell it in whichever denomination he wishes, because it is all the same. Yet, in my view, if the debt is large, 500-riyal notes are preferable. In any case, it must be sold in the local currency. As for whether the denomination is large or small, that is determined by what serves the interest.

His statement, “If he receives the price and it is destroyed while in his possession, then it is borne by the pledgor”: this is because the debt remains established as an obligation upon the pledgor until the pledgee receives it. At this point, the pledgee has not received the price, and so his debt has not been repaid. If it is destroyed, then the loss is borne by the pledgor.