the second borrower. Thus, we now have three parties: a lender, a first borrower, and a second borrower. “If it is damaged while with the second borrower, its value is established as his liability,” meaning that its value is due from the second borrower, because it was damaged while in his possession. He is the direct cause, whereas the borrower who lent it out is an indirect cause—if it is correct to describe him as such. But since the second borrower is the direct cause, the liability rests upon him. He is liable for its value.

As for liability for its use, it rests upon the first borrower for the period during which it remained with the second borrower, due to the author’s statement: “while its rental value is due from the one who lent it to him.” Thus, if it remained, for example, for ten days, and an item of this kind is rented for five riyals per day, how much is the rental payment? Fifty riyals, for which the first borrower is liable.

Thus, there are now two matters: the item itself is guaranteed by the second borrower, while the benefit of the borrowed item is guaranteed by the first borrower.

The second borrower is liable for the item itself because it was damaged while in his possession, without authorization from Islamic law or from the owner. For, as we have said, lending it out is unlawful; therefore, its remaining in his possession without authorization from the Lawgiver or the owner entails his liability for it.

The first borrower is liable for its benefit because he owns the right to use the borrowed item personally, but does not own its benefit. Therefore, his disposing of that benefit by lending it out is unauthorized, and he is consequently liable for it.

In summary, it is unlawful for the first borrower to lend it out. If he does so, he is liable for its benefit from the time he lends it out, whether it is damaged or remains intact;