is regarded as having possession of the goods because they are on the backs of his beasts of burden, even if he is not accompanying them and has handed them over to the hirer. The goods are thus like a pledge in his possession until he receives his hire, whereupon their owner takes possession of them and he recovers his beasts. The same applies to a ship. Al-ʿUtbiyya makes it clear that he has a preferential right to the goods only while they remain aboard his ship or on the backs of his beasts. Ahmad ibn Khālid—may Allah have mercy on him—interpreted the passage in al-Mudawwana as meaning that he retains a preferential right to the goods in all circumstances, even after their owner has taken possession of them and they have been unloaded from the beasts. He based this on the rationale given there: that the goods reached their destination only by being carried on his beasts. This interpretation, however, is far-fetched in substance and inconsistent with legal analogy.

Section

There is thus no disagreement within our school that the seller has a preferential right to goods remaining in his possession in cases of both death and insolvency; that he has a preferential right to goods he has delivered and subsequently finds still in existence in insolvency, but not in death; and that he stands on an equal footing with the other creditors in cases of both death and insolvency when the goods are neither in his possession nor found with the buyer, still in existence and individually identifiable. Any disagreement found in particular cases does not contradict the classification we have established and explained. Rather, disagreement arose because scholars differed over which category those cases belonged to. Those who regard the property as remaining in the claimant’s possession accord him a preferential right to it in cases of both death and insolvency. Those who regard it as having left his possession, while still remaining in existence, accord him a preferential right to it in insolvency but not in death. Those who regard it as having left his possession and no longer remaining in existence with the buyer place him on an equal footing with the other creditors in cases of both death and insolvency.

An example is the case of someone hired to irrigate an orchard, who waters it until it bears fruit, after which its owner becomes insolvent. Al-Mudawwana states that the worker has a preferential right to the fruit in insolvency but not in death. Asbagh, however, transmitted that he has a preferential right in cases of both death and insolvency. The more evident view is that he stands on an equal footing with the other creditors in both cases. There is likewise disagreement concerning someone who leases land, sows it, and then becomes insolvent. Explaining the reasoning behind each of these opinions and relating it to the principle I have mentioned belongs elsewhere. Allah is the One who grants success.