Based on his saying: 'What you give him is upon me.' This is unknown (majhul); so whenever he says: 'I am a guarantor for you for the money you have against so-and-so,' or 'what he is ordered by court to pay you,' or 'what evidence proves against him,' or 'what he admits to you,' or 'what is recorded in your ledger (ruznamajak),' the guaranty is valid. Abu Hanifa and Malik held this view. Al-Thawri, al-Layth, Ibn Abi Layla, al-Shafi'i, and Ibn al-Mundhir said: It is not valid, because it is an obligation of wealth, so it is not valid as an unknown, like the price in a sale. Our evidence is the saying of Allah the Exalted: {And for him who brings it is the load of a camel, and I am its guarantor}, yet the load of a camel is not known, as the load of a camel varies according to it. Also, the generality of the Prophet's saying (peace be upon him): 'The guarantor is a debtor (al-za'imu gharim),' and because it is an obligation of a right upon the liability without an exchange, so it is valid even if unknown, like a vow (nadhr) and an admission (iqrar). Furthermore, it is valid to link it to a risk (darar) and uncertainty (khatar), which is the guaranty of indemnity (daman al-'uhda). If he says, 'Throw your goods into the sea, and I will be responsible for their guaranty,' or he says, 'Hand over your clothes to this boatman, and I will be responsible for them,' the guaranty of the unknown is valid, just like manumission (itq) and divorce (talaq). Among the rulings is the validity of guaranteeing what has not yet become obligatory, for the meaning of his saying 'What you give him' is [i.e., what he will give] in the future, as evidenced by his linking it to the one for whom a right was guaranteed after it had become obligatory upon him, which indicates that it is distinct from it. If 'what you give him' referred to the past, the meaning of the two issues would be the same, or one would be included in the other. The disagreement on this issue and the evidence for both views are the same as the one preceding it, except that they said: 'Guaranty is the joining of a liability to a liability in committing to a debt; so if there is nothing against the person on whose behalf the guaranty is made, there is no joining, and therefore it is not a guaranty.' We say: He has indeed joined his liability to the liability of the person on whose behalf the guaranty is made, in that he becomes liable for what he is liable for, and that what is established in the liability of the one he guaranteed becomes established in his liability. This is sufficient. They have accepted the guaranty of what one throws into the sea before it becomes obligatory by his saying: 'Throw your goods into the sea, and I will be responsible for their guaranty.' The companions of al-Shafi'i have also accepted in one