The borrower may not, in turn, lend the borrowed article to anyone else, for the one who has merely been allowed to use something is not thereby authorized to grant that permission to another, and doing so would expose the item to possible loss.

The jurists have differed over whether the borrower is liable if the object is ruined while in his possession through a use other than that for which it was lent. One group holds that he must indemnify the owner in every case—whether or not he overstepped the limits—citing the general wording of the Prophet’s ﷺ saying: “The hand is liable for whatever it takes until it gives it back.” They point to situations such as the riding animal dying, the garment catching fire, or the borrowed item being stolen.

A second group maintains that no indemnity is due so long as he did not transgress, because liability arises only when one goes beyond what is permitted. This view is apparently the stronger opinion, for the borrower received the item with the owner’s consent; it therefore remains a trust in his hand, like a deposited article.

That said, the borrower is duty-bound to safeguard the article, care for it diligently, and hasten to return it once his need for it is over. He must not be negligent with it or expose it to ruin, for it is a trust with him and its owner has shown him kindness—“Is there any reward for good other than good?” ⦗Quran 55:60⦘