The companions of al-Shafi'i stated: If its owner is not with it, the lessee is liable for its entire value. If he is with it, and it perishes in the possession of the owner, the lessee does not guarantee it, because it perished while in the possession of its owner, similar to what would happen if it perished after the period of transgression had ended. If it perishes while under the rider, there are two opinions. The first: He is liable for half its value, because it perished due to an act that is subject to guarantee and an act that is not, similar to if it perished due to his wound and the wound inflicted by its owner. The second: The value is apportioned between the two distances, so what corresponds to the distance of the lease falls away, and the remainder becomes due. A similar view is held by Abu Hanifa; for he said: Whoever hires a camel to carry nine [units] and then carries ten, and it perishes, the lessee is liable for one-tenth of its value. The point of disagreement regarding the obligation of the full value is when its owner is with its rider, or if it perishes in the possession of its owner. As for when it perishes during the act of transgression, and its owner is not with its rider, there is no disagreement that it is to be guaranteed at its full value, because it perished in the possession of a transgressor, so its guarantee became due just as with usurped property. Likewise if it perishes under the rider or under his load while its owner is with it, because the possession (yad) belongs to the rider and the owner of the load, by the evidence that if they disputed over a beast—one riding it or having a load upon it, and the other holding its halter—it would belong to the rider and the owner of the load. Also, because the rider is a transgressor by the excess, and the silence of the owner does not void the liability, like one who sits next to a person and burns his clothes while he is silent. Also, if it perishes due to its fatigue, the liability is on the transgressor, like one who throws a stone into a heavily laden ship and causes it to sink. As for if it perishes in the possession of its owner after the rider has dismounted, then it must be examined: if its perishing was due to its fatigue from the load and the journey, it is as if it had perished under the load and the rider; but if it perished due to another cause, such as being mauled by a beast of prey, falling into a pit, or the like, there is no liability for it, because it did not perish in the possession of a transgressor, nor due to an act of transgression. Their statement: "It perished due to an act that is subject to guarantee..."