His statement, “Suretyship is valid”: The author, may Allah have mercy on him, has previously discussed suretyship and guarantee in terms of their legal validity—that is, whether they are valid or invalid—but he has not discussed them in terms of their prescriptive ruling.

So what is the ruling on guarantee, and what is the ruling on suretyship?

We have previously stated concerning a guarantee that it is recommended for the guarantor, because it involves helping his brother, relieving his hardship, and the like. However, we qualified this by saying that the guarantor must be able to fulfil the obligation. If he is poor and, when the payment falls due, he is pursued for payment while possessing nothing, then this is a mistake and is not recommended. Rather, at the very least, it is disliked, because he has bound himself to something that was not binding upon him.

The same applies to suretyship. Suretyship, in itself, is recommended for the surety, on condition that he knows he is able to produce the person for whom he has stood surety, or to settle the debt on his behalf. But if he knows himself to be unable to do so, he should not stand surety for anyone. This is why we now find many people coming forward with complaints of enormous debts upon them, caused by their having stood surety for others. If a person knows that the one for whom he is standing surety is negligent and irresponsible, he should not stand surety for him.

Thus we say: Be careful not to stand surety, for especially in the present time, no one is trustworthy except those whom Allah wills.

As for the person for whom one stands surety and the person whose debt is guaranteed, their consent is not required, nor is their knowledge required, because no harm comes upon them. We have previously discussed in detail