as well; because if the entirety of the price becomes binding upon him, a portion of it becomes binding upon him if that is rightfully claimed from the person on whose behalf the guaranty is made. This is regardless of whether the entire sold item or only a portion of it is shown to be rightfully claimed by another, because if a portion of it is shown to be claimed, the contract is void in its entirety according to one of the two narrations; thus the entire item has left his possession due to the claim of right. According to the other narration, the contract does not become void in its entirety, but he is entitled to return it. If he returns the whole of it, the ruling is the same; and if he retains the portion belonging to him, he has the right to demand the indemnity (arsh), just as if he had found a defect in it. If one sells him an item or lends him something on the condition that he pledges an item with him, and a man guarantees the delivery of the pledge, the suretyship (kafala) is not valid, because it is not binding upon the pledger to deliver it; therefore, it is not binding upon the surety what is not binding upon the original debtor. If he guarantees to the buyer the value of what occurs in the sold item, such as construction or planting, it is valid, whether the seller guarantees it or a third party. If he builds or plants and then the sold item is rightfully claimed by another, the buyer seeks recourse from the guarantor for the value of what was destroyed or diminished. This is the position of Abu Hanifa. Al-Shafi'i said: It is not valid, because it is a guarantee of something unknown and a guarantee of something that has not yet become obligatory. We have already explained the permissibility of that.

Section: Regarding whose guaranty is valid and whose is not. The guaranty of everyone who is permitted to dispose of their own wealth is valid, whether they are a man or a woman, because it is a contract whose purpose is wealth, so it is valid from a woman just as a sale is. It is not valid from one who is insane or afflicted with pleurisy (mubarsam), nor from a child who lacks discernment, without disagreement, because it is an obligation of wealth through a contract, so it is not valid from them, just like a vow. It is not valid from the spendthrift (safih) who is under interdiction. Abu al-Khattab mentioned this, and it is the view of al-Shafi'i. The Qadi said: It is valid, and he is pursued for it after the interdiction is lifted from him, because it is a principle of ours that his acknowledgment (iqrar) is valid and he is pursued for it after the interdiction is lifted from him, so his guaranty is likewise. The first (view) is more appropriate, because it is an obligation of wealth through a contract, so it is not valid from him, just like selling and purchasing, and it does not resemble acknowledgment because that is a report of a prior right.