Is it a condition for a pledge that the pledgee takes possession of the pledged item, or not?

The Shaykh : Here is a question: Is it a condition for a pledge that the pledgee takes possession of the pledged item, or is the pledge valid without the pledgee taking possession? There is scholarly disagreement on this. Some scholars said: The pledge is not binding except by taking possession, meaning the pledgee taking possession of the pledged item. They stated that if he pledges something and it remains in the hand of the pledgor, the pledge is not binding, and the pledgor may dispose of it as he wishes. We give an example for this: A person borrowed ten thousand from me and pledged his car to me. I said to him, "Keep the car with you and benefit from it. If the due date arrives and you do not repay me, we will sell the car, and I will take the loan from it." Is this pledge binding? Yes, or not binding? What is your opinion now? Is it binding or not binding?
The student: Not binding.

The Shaykh : Good. There are two well-known opinions among the scholars. Some scholars say: Taking possession of the pledge is not a condition for it to be binding, meaning the pledge is binding even if the pledgee does not take possession of it. Other scholars say: Taking possession of the pledge is a condition for it to be binding, and if the pledgee does not take possession of it, the pledgor may dispose of it however he wishes, even if the pledgee’s right is lost. According to the first opinion, the car is a pledge even if it is in the hand of its owner, and it is not permissible for him to dispose of it; rather, it is pledged. Even if he sells it, the sale is not valid. According to the second opinion: The pledge is not binding, and the owner of the car may sell it and dispose of it, because the pledge is not binding except by taking possession. If someone asks, "What is the evidence that taking possession is a condition for the pledge to be binding?" We say: The proponents of this opinion cited as evidence the saying of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He: As for the evidence of those who said it is binding without taking possession, it is the saying of the Exalted: Here the contract is complete, and a necessary consequence of fulfilling the contract is that the pledge is binding. The last opinion, namely that it is not a condition for binding, is the stronger position because its evidence is stronger, and this is the practice of people today. The pledge remains in the hand of the pledgor, and people see it as a binding pledge in which the pledgor cannot dispose of it in a way that harms the pledgee. If someone asks, "What is the answer to the verse?" We say: The answer to the verse is that Allah the Exalted intended to complete the security for the creditor. Therefore, He mentioned this issue in the case where one is traveling and does not find a scribe. It is known that if people are traveling and do not find a scribe, it is not possible to complete the security unless the pledgee takes possession of the pledge. Thus, there is no evidence in the verse that taking possession of the pledge is a condition for binding in all cases.