and [an act] not subject to guarantee, similar to if it perished due to two wounds. This is invalidated by the case where a thief is punished [by amputation], then another person cuts his hand transgressively, and he dies from both. This differs from what we mentioned [8] when a person wounds himself and another wounds him; because both acts are transgressions, the liability is divided between them.

Section: The liability is not removed by returning it to the [intended] distance. Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf, and al-Shafi'i held this view. Muhammad said: It is removed, just as if one transgressed regarding a deposited item (wadi'a), then returned it. Our position is that it is a possession (yad) that has become [9] liable, so the liability does not cease from it except with new permission, which was not found. What they mentioned regarding the deposited item is not accepted by us unless he returns it to its owner, or he renews permission for him.

904 - Issue: He said: (And likewise if he hires it for the load of something, and he exceeds it).

[The gist of this is that whoever hires [a beast] to carry something, and he exceeds it], such as hiring it to carry two qafiz [units], but he carries three, then its ruling is the ruling of one who hires [a beast] to a place and goes beyond it [2], regarding the obligation of the specified wage and the fair wage (ajr al-mithl) for what he exceeded, and the necessity of liability if it perishes. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. The Qadi related that the view of Abu Bakr in this issue is the obligation of the fair wage for the entirety, and he derived it from his [Ahmad's] statement regarding one who rents land to plant barley in it, but plants wheat in it instead; he said: He owes the fair wage for the entirety, because he diverted from what was contracted to something else, so it is similar to if he had rented land and planted other [land]. Thus, the Qadi combined the issue of al-Khiraqi and the issue of Abu Bakr and said: The view of each one in either of the two issues is transferred to the other, due to their equality in that the excess is not distinguishable, so there are two viewpoints in both issues. But the matter is not so, for there is an obvious difference between the two issues. For that in which the transgression occurred in the case of the load is distinguishable from [3] what was contracted—which is the extra qafiz—unlike the planting. Also, because in the issue of the load, he fulfilled the benefit contracted for.