in one of the two narrations. This is the opinion of Al-Shafi'i and most scholars. The other [narration] states: It is valid, because it is a debt owed by the manumitted person (mukattab), so it is valid to guarantee it, like other debts he owes. The first is more correct because it is not binding, nor does it necessarily lead to becoming binding, for the manumitted person has the right to declare himself incapable and refrain from paying it. If it is not binding on the principal, then it is even less so on the guarantor. It is valid to guarantee the liability of specified property (al-a'yan al-madmuna), such as usurped items (maghsub) and items held under loan ('ariyya). This is the position of Abu Hanifa and one of two views of Al-Shafi'i. In the other view, he said: It is not valid, because specified properties are not established as a liability (dhimma), and only what is established in the liability can be guaranteed. Our description of them as being under a guaranty simply means that he is liable for their value if they are destroyed, and the value is unknown. Our evidence is that they are guaranteed by whoever holds them, so their guaranty is valid, just like rights established in the liability. As for their argument that specified properties are not established in the liability, we say: The guaranty, in reality, is only a guaranty to recover and return them, and an assumption of responsibility to obtain them or their value upon their destruction. This is something that can be validly guaranteed, like the covenant of sold goods (uhdat al-mabi'); for its guaranty is valid, and in reality, it is a commitment to return the price or its equivalent if a defect appears in the sale or if it turns out to be owned by another. As for trusts (amanat), such as a deposit (wadi'a), leased property, partnership (sharika), mudaraba capital, and the item one hands over to a fuller or a tailor, if one guarantees these without there being any transgression regarding them, it is not valid to guarantee them, because they are not guaranteed by the one in whose possession they are, so likewise [they cannot be guaranteed] by his guarantor. But if one guarantees them in the event that there is a transgression regarding them, the apparent meaning of the words of Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, indicates the validity of the guaranty. For he said in the narration of Al-Athram regarding a man who accepts clothes from people, and a man said to him: "Hand the clothes over to him, and I am a guarantor." He said to him: He is a guarantor for what he handed over to him. That is, if he transgresses or they are destroyed by his action. Based on this, if they are destroyed without his negligence or action, the guarantor is not liable for anything, for the reasons we have mentioned. If they are destroyed by his action or negligence, he becomes liable for their value, and his guarantor is also liable for that, because they are guaranteed by the person in whose