and partnership (sharikah) and mudaraba. As for what occurred from the Prophet - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - it was an informational statement regarding the nature of the loan for use ('ariyah) and its legal ruling. This is distinct from cases where one permits destruction, for destruction is an action that can be validly permitted, and its legal ruling lapses because it does not constitute a cause for guarantee when it is permitted. However, waiving the guarantee in this case is a negation of the legal ruling despite the presence of its cause, which is not within the owner's authority, nor does he possess the right to permit it.

Section: If he utilizes the item and returns it in its [original] condition, he is not liable for anything, because the usufructs are permitted to be consumed, thus their compensation is not obligatory. If a portion of its constituent parts that are not consumed by usage is destroyed, he is liable for them, because that which has its entirety guaranteed has its parts guaranteed, like property seized by force (maghsub). As for the parts that are consumed by usage—such as the pile (khaml) of a towel or a velvet fabric, or the lining of a garment that he wears—there are two views: One of them is that compensation is obligatory; because these are parts of a guaranteed entity, they are [themselves] guaranteed, just as if they had been seized by force; and because they are parts that would require compensation if the entity were destroyed before its usage, they are compensated when they are destroyed individually, like all other parts. The second view is that he is not liable for them. This is the view of al-Shafi'i; because permission for usage implies it [the consumption of the parts], therefore its guarantee is not obligatory, like usufructs, and as if he had explicitly permitted its destruction. This is distinct from when the entity is destroyed before its usage, because it is impossible to distinguish them from the entity. Moreover, he only permitted its destruction for the purpose of utilization; so if it is destroyed before that, it has been destroyed in a manner other than what was permitted, thus he is liable for it, just as if he had leased the borrowed entity, for he would be liable for its usufructs. If we hold that he is not liable for the parts, and the entity is destroyed after their disappearance due to usage, it is valued at the time of destruction, because the destroyed parts were not guaranteed, due to their destruction being permitted, so it is not permissible to have them valued against him. If we hold that compensation for the parts is obligatory, the entity is valued before the destruction of its parts. If the entity is destroyed before the disappearance of its parts, he is liable for all of it including its parts. The same applies if the parts are destroyed by a usage that was not permitted, such as if he lends him a garment