Shurayh, Malik, Al-Thawri, Al-Layth, and Abu Hanifa. Al-Shafiʿi said in some of his statements: Suretyship for a body is weak. His companions differed; some of them said: It is valid by a single opinion, and he only meant that it is weak in analogy, even if it is established by consensus and tradition (athar). Others said: There are two opinions regarding it; one of them is that it is not valid, because it is a suretyship for a specific entity (ʿayn), so it is not valid, like suretyship for a face or the body of witnesses. We have the saying of Allah the Almighty: "He said, 'Never will I send him with you until you give me a binding oath by Allah that you will bring him back to me, unless you should be surrounded by enemies'" (1). And because whatever is obligatory to deliver by contract must also be obligatory to deliver by a contract of suretyship, like wealth. Once this is established, whenever it becomes impossible for the guarantor to bring the guaranteed person while he is still alive, or he refuses to bring him, he is bound by what is upon him. Most of them said: He is not liable for the debt. We have the generality of his (peace be upon him) saying: "The guarantor is a debtor (gharim)" (2). And because it is one of the two types of suretyship, therefore liability (ghurm) is obligatory through it, like suretyship for wealth.

Section: If he says: I am a guarantor for such-and-such, or for his person, or for his body, or for his face, then he is a guarantor for him. If he stands surety for his head or his liver (3), or a part without which life cannot remain, or for an undivided part of him, such as his third or his fourth, the suretyship is valid; because he cannot bring such a part except by bringing the whole of him. If he stands surety for a limb that allows life to continue after its loss, such as his hand or his leg, there are two views regarding it; one of them is that the suretyship is valid. This is the opinion of Abu al-Khattab, and one of the two views of the companions of Al-Shafiʿi; because he cannot bring these limbs in their specific state except by bringing the whole body, so it resembles suretyship for his face and his head. Also, it is a ruling related to the whole, so its ruling is established if it is attributed to a part, like divorce and emancipation (of a slave). The second view is that it is not valid; because it is possible to bring it without the whole while the body remains. Al-Qadi said: Suretyship for a part of the body is not valid, and it is not valid except for the entirety of it; because that which is not divisible (sari) is not valid when a specific limb is singled out for it, like sale and leasing.