his share, or a quarter of your goods, then he is not liable except for the portion of the guarantee that concerns him. This is the view of some of al-Shafi'i's companions; for he did not guarantee anything but his own share, and he merely informed the others regarding the guarantee, but they remained silent, and their silence does not constitute a guarantee. If he committed to guaranteeing everything and informed each one of them of the same, he is liable for the whole, [because he guaranteed the whole] (10). If he said, "Throw it overboard on the condition that I and the passengers of the ship guarantee it for you, for they have authorized me to do that," and then he threw it overboard, and then they denied the authorization, then he is the guarantor for the whole of it. If he said, "I will throw my goods overboard, and will you guarantee it for me?" and he said, "Yes," then he threw it overboard, he is liable for it to him. If he said, "Throw your goods overboard, and I am responsible for half of it, and my brother is responsible for what remains," and he threw it overboard, he is only liable for half alone, and there is nothing upon the other, because he did not guarantee it.

Section: If he pierces a ship and it sinks with what is in it, and it was done intentionally—which is that which usually causes it to sink and kills those in it due to their being in the deep sea or due to their inability to swim—then retaliation (qisas) is upon him if he killed someone whose killing warrants retaliation, and he is liable for the ship with what is in it of wealth and souls. If it was by mistake, then the liability for the slaves is upon him, and the blood money for the free individuals is upon his tribe (aqila). If it was intentional error (amd al-khata'), such as if he took (11) the ship to repair a place and removed a plank, or to fix a nail and drilled a hole, then this is intentional error. The judge mentioned this, and it is (12) the school of al-Shafi'i. The correct view is that this is purely an error, because he intended a lawful act but it led to destruction which he did not intend, so it is like if he shot at game and hit a human. But if he intended to remove the plank in a place where it usually does not destroy it, and it did destroy it, then it is intentional error, and it has what it has. And God knows best.