that a guarantee is a gratuitous contract, not a contract of exchange. In gratuitous contracts, there is latitude that is not allowed in contracts of exchange. This is why a reward contract is valid even though the work involved is unknown: it resembles a gratuitous contract. Likewise, according to the stronger view, gifting an unknown item is valid because it is a donation.

His statement, “if it will become known,” indicates that if it will not become known, it is not permissible—for example, guaranteeing property destroyed by someone when he does not know what it was.

For example, a person may have destroyed a great deal of property, and when asked what it was, he says, “I do not recall; I do not know whether it was worth a million or ten riyals, and there is no way for us to determine it.” This is an unknown matter that cannot be ascertained, so it is not valid to guarantee it, because the guarantor does not know what he is required to pay. Even if the person whose property was destroyed came to him and said, “I am making a claim,” he would be told, “Specify and identify it.” Thus, this unknown matter must be one that will eventually become known.

His statement, “and borrowed items”: borrowed items are the plural of a loaned item, which is permission for someone to use a specific item and then return it.

For example, a man comes to borrow someone’s car in order to travel to Buraydah. The owner of the car says, “I want a guarantor to guarantee the car for me.” He replies, “So-and-so will guarantee it,” and this is valid.

Another example is a man who comes to borrow a book from someone. The owner says, “I want you to bring a guarantor to guarantee the book.” This is valid, because a borrowed item is guaranteed. Since it is guaranteed, it is subject to liability—that is, to the obligation of compensation. Thus, if a person borrows something and it is destroyed, the borrower is liable in every case, whether he was negligent, transgressed, or did not