Al-Quduri states the injury to the pledgee as hadar in the main text. However, *al-Ikhtiyar* and *Fath al-Qadir* record a distinction: Abu Yusuf and Muhammad recognize a compensable claim in certain cases because the pledgee is not the owner.
The reasoning attributed to Abu Hanifa concerns the circular consequences of imposing liability within the same pledged asset and secured claim. This scholastic disagreement should not be flattened into an undisputed rule.
Opening interactive controls...
Injury to the pledgee: the Hanafi disagreement
Kitab al-Rahn: Manumission, Destruction and Liability for Injury
Al-Quduri states the injury to the pledgee as hadar in the main text. However, *al-Ikhtiyar* and *Fath al-Qadir* record a distinction: Abu Yusuf and Muhammad recognize a compensable claim in certain cases because the pledgee is not the owner.
The reasoning attributed to Abu Hanifa concerns the circular consequences of imposing liability within the same pledged asset and secured claim. This scholastic disagreement should not be flattened into an undisputed rule.