It differs from the case where the person for whom the suretyship was provided presents himself, because he is the principal (asl) for both of them. Therefore, when the principal is absolved of what was guaranteed on his behalf, his two derivatives (far'an) are absolved. Each one of the two sureties is not a derivative of the other, so he is not absolved by the other's absolution. For this reason, if the person for whom the suretyship was provided is absolved, both his sureties are absolved. If one of the two sureties is absolved, he alone is absolved, to the exclusion of his companion.

Section: If one person stands surety for two people, and one of them absolves him, or he produces him before one of them, he is not absolved regarding the other. This is because the contract of one person with two people is equivalent to two contracts. He has committed to producing him before each of them, so if he produces him before one of them, he is absolved regarding him, but the right of the other remains, just as if it were in two contracts, and as if he guaranteed a debt for two men and fulfilled the right of one of them.

Section: The validity of suretyship requires the consent of the surety, because the right is not initially binding upon him except by his consent. The consent of the creditor (al-makful lahu) is not considered, because it is a security for him that does not involve receiving (qabd), so it is valid without his consent, like testimony. Furthermore, it is a commitment of a right of his without compensation, so his consent is not considered in it, like a vow (nadhr). As for the consent of the person for whom the suretyship is provided (al-makful lahu - note: context implies al-makful bihi), there are two positions regarding it: one is that it is not considered, like the guarantee (daman). The second is that it is considered, which is the school of al-Shafi'i, because its purpose is to produce him; thus, if he stands surety without his permission, he is not compelled to attend with him. Moreover, he is establishing a right upon him for himself, which is his attendance with him without his consent, so it is not permissible, just as if he were to make a debt binding upon him. It differs from the guarantee, for the guarantor pays the right and does not need the one for whom the guarantee was made. On both positions, whenever the suretyship is with his permission and the surety wishes to produce him, he is compelled to attend with him, because he occupied his legal liability (dhimma) on his behalf with his permission, so it was upon him to clear it.