Is the ruling regarding the invalidity of hypothecating an undivided share applicable to cases where the intent is not permanent retention?

Primary text

The primary intent of hypothecation is not permanent retention but rather securing the debt through the collateral's price when recovery from the debtor fails. An undivided share is capable of fulfilling this specific purpose. Furthermore, the argument for invalidity is refuted by the fact that hypothecation by a murderer, an apostate, a wrongfully usurped item, or the property of another without permission (where no guardianship exists) is considered valid by those who oppose the validity of mortgaging an undivided share.