been negligent or transgressed, or neither negligent nor transgressing. The disagreement on this issue will come, Allah willing.

According to the established school, a borrowed item is guaranteed in all circumstances. This is why it is valid to guarantee it—that is, to guarantee borrowed items—because they are guaranteed by the one who takes possession of them in all circumstances.

The second view is that a borrowed item is like all other trusts: it is not subject to liability unless there is transgression or negligence. A trust cannot validly be guaranteed, because it does not result in an established obligation. Therefore, guaranteeing it is invalid, since the person who takes it is not liable for it in principle; hence, the guarantor, who is secondary to him, cannot be held liable for it.

However, if one guarantees any transgression or negligence concerning it, this is valid, because if he guarantees transgression or negligence, the borrower will be liable in that case, so guaranteeing it is valid.

Thus, according to the second view, a borrowed item is not subject to liability except in the case of transgression or negligence. This means that if someone borrows a book and keeps it in his house in a secure place, then a thief comes and steals it, rain falls on it and damages it, or the place catches fire and the book burns, he is not liable, because he has neither transgressed nor been negligent. This view is the stronger one.

According to this view, is it valid to guarantee a borrowed item in such circumstances without qualification?

The answer is no. However, it is valid to guarantee transgression or negligence—for example, to say, “I guarantee it if he transgresses or is negligent.”

His statement, “and usurped property”: this is what is taken from its owner by force, without