Is it permissible to take collateral for an established right concerning specific, non-fungible assets or specific usufructs?

Primary text

It is not permissible to take collateral for a right that is tied to a specific object (*ayn*) rather than the debtor's liability (*dhimmah*), such as a specific sale price, specific rent in a lease, or a specific contracted service like leasing a defined house, slave, or camel for a known duration or for carrying a specific load to a known destination. This is because the right attaches to the asset itself, and it cannot be collected from the collateral, as the usufruct of one object cannot be satisfied by another, and the lease is voided if the specific asset perishes.