and in sporting competitions (munadala). The associates of Al-Shafi'i stated in one of the two views: It is not valid to guarantee it because it does not necessarily lead to being binding, so its guaranty is not valid, like a contract of manumission for payment (kitaba). Our evidence is the statement of Allah, the Almighty: {And whoever produces it, I shall have a camel's load, and I am responsible for it}. Also, it does lead to being binding once the work is performed. It is only the work that does not become binding, whereas the wealth becomes binding upon its existence, and the guaranty is for the wealth, not the work. It is valid to guarantee the compensation (arsh) for a crime, whether it is in currency, such as the value of destroyed property, or livestock, such as blood money (diyat). The associates of Al-Shafi'i said: It is not valid to guarantee the livestock obligatory in such cases because it is unknown. The proof for the validity of guaranteeing an unknown has already passed, and because the camels obligatory as a liability are known in terms of age and number, and ignorance of the color or other remaining attributes does not cause harm; for he is only obligated for the lowest level of color or attribute, thus it becomes known. The same applies to other livestock. Furthermore, ignorance of such details did not prevent it from being obligatory due to destruction, so it does not prevent it from being obligatory due to assumption of liability. It is valid to guarantee a wife's maintenance (nafaqa), whether it is maintenance for her current day or future maintenance; because the day's maintenance is obligatory, and the future maintenance leads to obligation, and he is obligated for what the husband is obligated for according to the analogy of the school. The Qadi said: If he guarantees future maintenance, he is only obligated for the maintenance of a person in financial difficulty, because anything in excess of that lapses upon insolvency. This is the school of Al-Shafi'i based on the view in which [he said: it is valid to] guarantee it. Our evidence is that it is valid to guarantee what has not yet become obligatory, and the possibility of the excess not becoming obligatory does not prevent the validity of its guaranty, as evidenced by the fee in a reward contract (ju'ala), the dowry (sadaq) before consummation, and sold goods during the option period. As for past maintenance, if it is obligatory—either by a ruler's judgment or if we say: by its being obligatory without his judgment—it is valid to guarantee it, otherwise not. It is valid to guarantee the capital in a forward sale (salam), according to one of the two narrations. The other [narration] is that it is not valid, because it leads to receiving the subject of the forward sale from someone other than the one who entered the forward sale contract, so it is not permissible, like a transfer of debt (hawala) for it. The first [narration] is more correct; because it is a binding debt, so its guaranty is valid, like wages and the price of sold goods. It is not valid to guarantee the wealth of a manumission contract (kitaba), in