They said: 'No.' He then stepped back and it was asked: 'Will you not pray (6) over him?' He said: 'What good is my prayer when his soul is held hostage? Let one of you stand and guarantee it.' Abu Qatada stood and said: 'They are upon me, O Messenger of Allah.' So the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) prayed over him. The Muslims have reached a consensus on the permissibility of guaranty in general. They only differed on some subsidiary issues, which we will mention, if Allah the Exalted wills. Once this is established, it is said: damin, kafil, qabil, hamil, za'im, and sabir are all synonyms. Guaranty requires a guarantor (damin), a person on whose behalf the guaranty is made (madmun 'anhu), and a person to whom the guaranty is made (madmun lahu). The consent of the guarantor is essential; if he is coerced into the guaranty, it is not valid. The consent of the person on whose behalf the guaranty is made is not considered; we know of no disagreement regarding this, because if the debt were paid on his behalf without his permission or consent, it would be valid, and likewise if it is guaranteed on his behalf. The consent of the person to whom the guaranty is made is not considered. Abu Hanifa and Muhammad said: It is considered because it is the establishment of property for a human, so it cannot be established except with his consent or the consent of someone acting on his behalf, like sale and purchase. From the companions of al-Shafi'i, there are two views like this. Our evidence is that Abu Qatada guaranteed without the consent of the person on whose behalf the guaranty was made, yet the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) permitted it. Similarly, it is narrated from Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). Furthermore, it is a form of security (wathiqa) that does not require taking possession (qabd), so it resembles testimony (shahada). Also, it is a guaranty of debt, so it resembles the guaranty by some heirs of a deceased person's debt for an absent party, which they have accepted.

Section: It is not required that the guarantor knows them both. The Qadi said: Knowing them both is required, so that he may know whether the person on whose behalf the guaranty is made is worthy of having a favor done for him or not, and so that he knows the person to whom the guaranty is made in order to fulfill it to him. He mentioned another view: that it is required to know the person to whom the guaranty is made for that reason, but knowing the person on whose behalf the guaranty is made is not required because there is no transaction between him and the guarantor. The companions of al-Shafi'i have three views similar to these (8). Our evidence is the hadith of Ali and Abu Qatada, for they both gave a guaranty for someone they did not know, on behalf of someone they did not know. Moreover, it is a voluntary act (tabarru') by committing to a debt, so the identity of the person for whom he volunteers is not considered, similar to a vow (nadhr).

Section: Al-Khiraqi’s issue has indicated several rulings, among them the validity of guaranteeing an unknown [amount];