before his own liability for it, he does not have the right to demand it from him before he is requested to pay. There is another view, which is that he does have the right to demand it, because he encumbered his own liability with his permission, so he has the right to demand its discharge, just as if he had borrowed a slave and pledged him; his master would have the right to demand he redeem him and discharge him from the pledge. The first view is more appropriate. Guaranty differs from commodatum (ariyah) because the master is harmed by the obstruction of the benefits of his borrowed slave, so he has the right to demand what removes the harm from him, whereas the guarantor does not have any of his benefits nullified by the guaranty. As for if he guarantees on his behalf without his command, he does not have the right to demand the person whose liability was guaranteed before payment under any circumstances, because he has no right that he can demand, nor did he encumber his liability by his command, so he is like a stranger. It is said that this is built upon the two accounts regarding his having recourse against the person whose liability was guaranteed for what he paid on his behalf: if we say he has no recourse, then there is no demand permitted in any case. If we say he does have recourse, then his ruling is the ruling of one who guaranteed on his behalf with his command, according to the details that have already passed.

Section: If a guarantor is guaranteed by another guarantor, and one of them pays the debt, they are all acquitted. If the person whose liability was guaranteed pays it, he does not have recourse against anyone. If the first guarantor pays it, he has recourse against the person whose liability was guaranteed, not the guarantor on his behalf. If the second pays it, he has recourse against the first, then the first has recourse against the person whose liability was guaranteed, provided that each of them had given permission to the other. If he had not given him permission, there are two accounts regarding recourse. If the first gave permission to the second, but the person whose liability was guaranteed did not give permission, or the person whose liability was guaranteed gave permission to his guarantor, but the guarantor did not give permission to his guarantor, the one who was given permission has recourse against the one who gave him permission, and the other does not have recourse, according to one of the two accounts. If the person whose liability was guaranteed gave permission to the second guarantor for the guaranty, and the first guarantor did not give him permission, he has recourse against the person whose liability was guaranteed and does not have recourse against the [first] guarantor; because he only has recourse against the one who gave him permission, not anyone else.

Section: If there is one thousand [dirhams] owed to him by two men, upon each of them is half of it, and each of them is