Sub-issue: Is it valid to take this pledge (1) by way of a juʿāla (contingent reward)?
They state: If we hold that it is invalid to take a surety for it, then taking a pledge is likewise invalid. If we allow a surety, however, there are two opinions regarding the permissibility of taking a pledge.
The distinction is that the sphere of ḍamān (suretyship) is broader. One may guarantee the ʿuhda (warranty), yet a pledge may not be taken for it (2); one may guarantee a debt that has not yet fallen due, but may not take a pledge for it; and, according to one of the two transmitted views, one may guarantee the price owed under a mukātaba contract, while taking a pledge for it is invalid.
The difference between suretyship and pledging appears in two respects:
-
Taking a pledge for the warranty, for the mukātaba price, or for a debt not yet due prevents the owner from benefiting from the pledged property: he cannot sell it, nor use it toward his manumission payments or for settling what he owes. Suretyship does not have that effect, for it neither hinders the seller’s affairs nor prevents him from profiting from his merchandise, and it imposes no hindrance on the mukātib or the borrower (3).
-
The duration (4) of a pledge is lengthy, for the collateral remains with the pledgee while its owner is barred from disposing of it, unlike the surety, because the mere existence of the debt