the issue of guarantee: if it entails harm, the guarantor should not undertake it.

His statement, “with respect to every item subject to liability”: Are the items for which liability is borne themselves the subject of suretyship?

The answer is no. Rather, what is subject to suretyship is the person in possession of an item subject to liability. This is why the author’s wording, may Allah have mercy on him, is deficient—that is, he has abridged the matter in a way that is misleading. For one who reads this wording will understand that the item itself is what is covered by suretyship, whereas this is not the case. Rather, the person who possesses the item is the one for whom suretyship is undertaken.

Thus, with regard to every item subject to liability, it is valid to stand surety for the person in whose possession it is.

An item subject to liability is one for which liability is borne in all circumstances, whether there was negligence or not. For example, stolen property in the possession of the thief is an item subject to liability; usurped property in the possession of the usurper is an item subject to liability; and goods sold by measure, weight, or the like before they have been taken into possession are likewise items for which the seller is liable. Thus, for every item for which liability is borne in all circumstances, it is valid to stand surety for the person in whose possession it is.

As for an item lent for use, according to the view adopted by the author, it is an item subject to liability, and it is valid to stand surety for the person in whose possession it is. According to the correct view, however, it is not among the items subject to liability; rather, it is a trust. If it is damaged or destroyed, we then consider whether the borrower is liable or not.

His statement, “and for the person who owes a debt”: This is because obligations owed to others are either