recourse; because he paid without his command, it resembles the case where he volunteered it. The third: if it is impossible to have recourse against the person whose liability was guaranteed, and he pays what is against him, he has recourse; otherwise he does not; because he volunteered in paying. Our position is that when he permits the suretyship, this implies his permission for the performance; because the suretyship necessitates performance upon him, so he has recourse against him, just as if he had expressly permitted the performance. The third condition: he guaranteed without his command, and paid by his command, he has the right to recourse as well. The manifest [opinion] of the Shafi'i school is that he does not have recourse; because his command to pay is directed toward what became obligatory by his suretyship. [Our position: that he performed his debt by his command, so he has recourse against him, just as if he were not a surety, or as if he had guaranteed by his command. As for their statement that his permission for the performance is directed toward what became obligatory by his suretyship], we say: what is obligatory by his suretyship is only the performance of his debt, and it is not something else; so whenever he performs it on his behalf with his permission, it becomes incumbent upon him to give him its replacement. The fourth condition: he guaranteed without his command, and paid without his command, there are two accounts regarding this; one of them is that he has recourse for what he performed. This is the opinion of Malik, Abdullah ibn al-Hasan, and Ishaq. The second is that he has no recourse for anything. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi'i, and Ibn al-Mundhir, based on the hadith of Ali and Abu Qatada, for if they had been entitled to have recourse against the deceased, the debt would have become theirs, and the liability of the deceased would have been occupied by their debt, as it was occupied by the debt of the person whose liability was guaranteed; yet the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not pray over him. Furthermore, he volunteered that, resembling the case where he fed his livestock or fed his servants without his command. The basis for the first [account] is that it is a performance that absolves an obligatory debt, so it is [like] the suretyship of the one against whom it is due, such as the judge when he pays it on his behalf upon his refusal. As for Ali and Abu Qatada, they volunteered the payment and the suretyship, for they paid his debt with the intention of absolving his liability so that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) would pray over him, with their knowledge that he had not left behind