free. And if they did not intentionally cause the collision, or if it was something that does not usually cause death, then the blood money for the free individuals is incumbent upon the tribe (aqila) of the persons in charge, and the value of the slaves is upon their own wealth. If the two persons in charge were slaves, the liability attaches to their persons (raqaba); if they both perished, the liability lapses. As for when there is no negligence, there is no liability upon anyone (6). If there were deposits and speculative partnerships (mudaraba) (7) in the ships, they are not guaranteed, because the trustee is not liable unless negligence or hostility occurs on his part. If the ships were rented, they are also a trust, and there is no liability for them. If there was wealth in them that they were carrying for a fee to another country, there is no liability, because the loss occurred due to an unavoidable circumstance.

Section: If one of the ships was stationary and the other was moving, there is no liability upon the stationary one, and upon the moving one is the liability for the stationary one if he was negligent, and there is no liability upon him if he was not negligent, according to what we have previously established.

Section: If there was fear of the ship sinking, and one of the passengers threw his goods overboard to lighten it so that it would be saved from sinking, no one is liable for it, because he destroyed his own property by his own choice for the sake of his own welfare and the welfare of others. If he threw someone else's goods overboard without their command, he alone is liable for it. If he said to another, "Throw your goods overboard," and he accepted that from him, he is not liable for it, because he did not commit himself to guarantee it. But if he said, "Throw it overboard, and I am the guarantor for it," or "I am responsible for its value," then he is liable for it, because he destroyed his wealth in exchange for compensation for a specific interest, so the compensation became due to him from the one who committed to it, just as if he had said, "Free your slave and I am responsible for his price." If he said, "Throw it overboard, and I and the passengers of the ship are responsible for it," and he threw it overboard, there are two views. One of them is that he alone is liable for it. This is the explicit statement of al-Shafi'i, and it is what Abu Bakr mentioned, because he committed himself to guarantee the whole of it, so he is held to what he committed. The judge said: If it was a joint guarantee, such as if he said, "We guarantee it for you," or said, "Each one of us is responsible for his share or a quarter of your goods," then he is only liable for his own share of the guarantee. This is the opinion of some of al-Shafi'i's companions, because he only guaranteed his own share, and he was merely informing about the others regarding the guarantee, but they remained silent, and their silence does not constitute a guarantee. If he committed to guaranteeing everything and informed each one of them of the same, he is liable for the whole, because he guaranteed the whole. If he said, "Throw it overboard on the condition that I and the passengers of the ship guarantee it for you," and they had authorized me to do that, then he threw it overboard, and then they denied the authorization, then he is the guarantor for the whole of it. If he said, "I will throw my goods overboard, will you guarantee it for me?" and he said, "Yes," then he threw it overboard, he is liable for it to him. If he said, "Throw your goods overboard, and I am responsible for half of it, and my brother is responsible for what remains," and he threw it overboard, he is only liable for half alone, and there is nothing upon the other, because he did not guarantee it.

Section: If he pierces a ship and it sinks with what is in it, and it was done intentionally—which is that which usually causes it to sink and kills those in it due to their being in the deep sea or due to their inability to swim—then retaliation (qisas) is upon him if he killed someone whose killing warrants retaliation, and he is liable for the ship with what is in it of wealth and souls. If it was by mistake, then the liability for the slaves is upon him, and the blood money for the free individuals is upon his tribe. If it was intentional error (amd al-khata'), such as if he took the ship to repair a place and removed a plank, or to fix a nail and drilled a hole, then this is intentional error. The judge mentioned this, and it is the school of al-Shafi'i. The correct view is that this is purely an error, because he intended a lawful act but it led to destruction which he did not intend, so it is like if he shot at game and hit a human. But if he intended to remove the plank in a place where it usually does not destroy it, and it did destroy it, then it is intentional error, and it has what it has. And God knows best.