The companions of Al-Shafiʿi have a disagreement similar to what we have mentioned. Our view is that he has delivered what he was conditioned to deliver in one place to another place, so he is not cleared, just as if he produced the object of the delivery (al-musallam fihi) in a place other than this location which he had stipulated. This is because he has delivered him in a location where he cannot establish proof due to the absence of his witnesses or other reasons, and he might flee from him, and he would not be able to apprehend him. This differs from the case where he produces him before the term, for there he accelerated the right before its term, thus granting him good, so if there is no harm in it, its acceptance is mandatory. If the suretyship occurs as an absolute (unrestricted) contract, it is mandatory to deliver him in the place of the contract, just like in a forward sale (salam). If he delivers him elsewhere, it is like delivering him in a place other than the one he specified. If the person guaranteed is imprisoned with someone other than the judge, he is not obligated to deliver him while imprisoned, because that imprisonment prevents him from realizing his right. If he is imprisoned by the judge, and he delivers him to him while imprisoned, he is obligated to accept the delivery, because the judge's imprisonment does not prevent him from realizing his right. When the judge demands his production, he brings him to his session, rules between them, then returns him to prison. If a right to the beneficiary of the suretyship becomes due against him, he shall imprison him for the first right and the right of the beneficiary of the suretyship.

Section: If he guarantees him until an unknown term, the suretyship is not valid. Al-Shafiʿi also stated this, because there is no time at which he is entitled to demand him, and the same applies to legal guarantee (daman). If he sets it until the harvest, the shearing, or the distribution (of the stipend), it is derived based on the two opinions, like the term in a sale. The preferred view is its validity here, because it is a charitable act without exchange, for which he set a term that does not prevent the realization of its intended purpose; therefore, it is valid.