to wear, and he carried soil in it, for he is liable for its depreciation and its usufructs, because it was destroyed due to his transgression. If it was destroyed without any transgression or usage on his part, such as it being destroyed due to the passage of time or a fire befalling it, then it is appropriate that he be liable for what was destroyed by fire and the like, because that is a destruction not implied by the permitted usage, so it resembles its destruction through an unpermitted act. As for what was destroyed by the passage of time, its ruling is the same as that which was destroyed by usage, because it was destroyed by being kept, which is permitted, so it resembles its destruction by a permitted act.

Section: As for the offspring of the borrowed item (ariyah), one is not liable for it in one of the two views, because it did not enter into the lending, so it did not enter into the guarantee, and there is no benefit for the borrower in it, so it resembles an item held in trust (wadi'ah). In the other view, he is liable for it, because it is the offspring of a guaranteed entity, so it is guaranteed, like the offspring of an item seized by force (maghsuba). The first view is more correct; for the offspring of an item seized by force is not guaranteed if it was not [itself] seized by force. Likewise, the offspring of the borrowed item [is not guaranteed] if it was not found with its mother. The offspring of the seized item is only guaranteed if it was [itself] seized, so there is no legal consequence to it being its offspring.

Section: Guarantee for the entity is rendered by its equivalent if it is among the things that have equivalents (mithli). If it is not of that type, he guarantees it by its value on the day of its destruction, except in the case where guarantee of the parts destroyed by permitted usage is obligatory; for in that case, he guarantees it by its value before the destruction of its parts, if its value at that time was higher. If it was lower, he guarantees it by its value on the day of its destruction, according to both views.

Section: If the entity remains, it is incumbent upon the borrower to return it to the lender or to his agent authorized to receive it, and he is then absolved of its guarantee. If he returns it to the place from which he took it, or to the owner's property without [handing it to] the owner, he is not absolved of its guarantee. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: He is absolved, because it has become like an item that has been taken possession of, for the custom in returning borrowed items is to return them to the properties of their owners, so it is considered permitted by way of custom.