Zufar’s objection, recorded in Hanafi commentary, is that treating a perished pledge as settlement resembles substituting an unlike countervalue where substitution is restricted. He therefore disputes the arrangement.
The response associated with Abu Hanifah and his two disciples is that financial liability may support constructive satisfaction in terms of value. The event is analyzed under the rules of pledge liability, not as an ordinary freely negotiated substitution.
This is a historical juristic disagreement rather than a universal consensus.
Opening interactive controls...
Zufar’s objection and the Hanafi response
Kitab al-Rahn: Salam, Sarf, Third-party Custody and Fungible Collateral
Zufar’s objection, recorded in Hanafi commentary, is that treating a perished pledge as settlement resembles substituting an unlike countervalue where substitution is restricted. He therefore disputes the arrangement.
The response associated with Abu Hanifah and his two disciples is that financial liability may support constructive satisfaction in terms of value. The event is analyzed under the rules of pledge liability, not as an ordinary freely negotiated substitution.
This is a historical juristic disagreement rather than a universal consensus.