payment, and the volunteer does not have recourse for anything. The disagreement is only regarding one who performs it with the intention of having recourse.

Section: The guarantor has recourse against the person whose liability was guaranteed for the lesser of the two amounts: what he paid or the amount of the debt; because if the lesser amount is the debt, the excess was not obligatory, so he is a volunteer in paying it. If the amount paid was the lesser, he only has recourse for what he actually lost; this is why if his creditor releases him, he has no recourse for anything. If he pays a commodity on behalf of the debt, he has recourse for the lesser of its value or the amount of the debt for that reason. If he pays a deferred debt before its term, he does not have recourse for it before its term; because he is not entitled to more than what the creditor was entitled to. If he refers him [to another], the referral is equivalent to his taking possession, and he has recourse for the lesser of what he referred [the creditor] to or the amount of the debt, regardless of whether the creditor received payment from the one referred to, released him, or if collection became impossible for him due to bankruptcy or delay; because the referral itself is like taking possession.

Section: If there is one hundred [dirhams] upon two men, upon each of them is half of it, and each one is a guarantor for his companion [for what is upon him], and another person guarantees the one hundred on behalf of one of them with his command and pays it, the obligation is lifted from everyone, and he has the right to have recourse for it against the one for whom he guaranteed, and he does not have the right to have recourse against the other for anything, in one of the two accounts; because he did not guarantee on his behalf, nor did he give him permission to pay. If he has recourse against the one for whom he guaranteed, he [then] has recourse against the other for half of it, if he had guaranteed on his behalf with his [the other's] permission; because he guaranteed it on his behalf with his permission, and his guarantor paid it. The second account is that he has the right to have recourse against the other for the one hundred; because it became obligatory for him against the one on whose behalf he performed it, so he gained the right to have recourse for it against him, like the principal.

Section: If he guarantees on behalf of a man with his command, and the guarantor is demanded [for payment], he has the right to demand the person whose liability was guaranteed to relieve him; because the performance became incumbent upon him on his behalf by his command, so he has the right to demand the acquittal of his liability. If the guarantor is not demanded, he does not have the right to demand the person whose liability was guaranteed; because since he does not have the right to have recourse for the debt