its covenant, or I have guaranteed you the covenant." The covenant in reality is the document in which the sale is recorded. This is how it has been explained by the linguists, so it is not valid to guarantee it to the buyer because it is his property. This is incorrect, however, because "covenant" (uhda) has come to mean in usage (urf) the indemnification (darak) and the guarantee of the price. Absolute speech is interpreted according to customary names rather than linguistic ones, such as "the water-carrier" (rawiya), which when used absolutely refers to the large water skin (mazada), not the camel, even though that is its literal object. As for when he guarantees to him the "release" (khalas) of the sold item, Abu Bakr said: It is void, because if it turns out to be free (a slave who is actually free) or claimed by another, he cannot effectuate its release, and it is not permissible. Ahmad said, regarding a man who sold a slave or a bondswoman and guaranteed the release to him: How can he effectuate the release if he turns out to be free? If he guarantees the covenant of the sold item and its release, it is void regarding the release. Does it hold validity regarding the covenant? There are two views based on the splitting of the transaction (tafriq al-safqa). Once the validity of the guaranty of the covenant is established, the discussion pertains to what is binding upon the guarantor. We say: The entitlement of the buyer to seek recourse for the price must either be due to an event occurring after the contract or one concurrent with it. As for the event that occurs, such as the destruction of the sold item—if it is of the type measured by volume or weight—while in the seller's possession, or through usurpation (ghasb) from his hand, or if they mutually rescind the sale (taqayulan), then the buyer seeks recourse from the seller, not the guarantor, because this entitlement was not present at the time of the contract, and he only guaranteed the entitlement present at the time of the contract. It is possible that he could seek recourse from the guarantor, because the guaranty of something not yet obligatory is permissible, and this is part of that. As for if it is due to a concurrent cause, we look: If it is due to a cause for which there is no negligence on the part of the seller, such as it being taken by right of pre-emption (shuf'a), then the buyer takes the price from the preemptor and does not seek recourse from the seller nor the guarantor. Whenever nothing is obligatory upon the person on whose behalf the guaranty is made, it is by greater reason not obligatory upon the guarantor. But if his ownership of the sold item ceases due to a concurrent cause resulting from the seller's negligence, by way of a claim by another (istihaq), freedom (of a slave), or return due to an ancient defect, he may seek recourse from the guarantor. This is the guaranty of the covenant. If he wishes to take the indemnity (arsh) for the defect, he seeks recourse from the guarantor