He is not liable if it was destroyed along with his goods, and because if there was no negligence or transgression on his part, then liability is not incumbent upon him, just as if it were destroyed by an overwhelming event. Malik and Ibn Abi Layla said: He is liable in all cases, due to the statement of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "Upon the hand is what it has taken until it returns it." And because he took possession of the item for his own benefit without a right of entitlement, thus its liability became incumbent upon him, like the borrower (of an item). To us, it is an item held by a contract of lease, which he did not destroy by his own action, so he is not liable for it, just like a leased item. And because he took possession of it by the permission of its owner for a benefit returning to both of them, so he is not liable for it, like the mudarib (investor in a profit-sharing contract), the partner, and the lessee, and just as if it were destroyed by an overwhelming event. It differs from a loan for use (ariyyah), for he is the sole beneficiary of it. The report is specified by what we have mentioned of the principles, so it specifies the place of dispute by analogy to them. Once this is established, he has no wage for what he worked on it, because he did not deliver his work to the hirer, so he is not entitled to its compensation, like the sold food item if it is destroyed in the hand of the seller before its delivery.

Section: If the craftsman retains the garment after finishing his work until the wage is paid in full, and it is destroyed, he is liable for it; because he did not hold it as a pledge, nor did he (the owner) give him permission to withhold it, so liability became incumbent upon him, like the usurper (ghasib).

Section: If the fuller makes a mistake and delivers the garment to someone other than its owner, he is liable for it, because he has caused its loss to its owner. Ahmad said: "The fuller pays for it, and it is not permissible for the one who received it to wear it if he knows that it is not his garment, and he must return it to the fuller, and he (the owner) claims his garment from him." If the recipient did not know until he cut it and wore it, then learned of it, he returns it in a cut state and is liable for the compensation of the damage of cutting, and he (the owner) has the right to claim his garment from him if it still exists. If it is destroyed in the hand of the fuller, is he liable for it? There are two narrations: one of them is that he is liable for it, because he withheld it without the permission of its owner after he requested it, so he is liable, as if he knew. The second is that he is not liable for it, because he could not return it, so it resembles the case where he was unable to deliver it due to illness.

Section: The leased item is a trust in the hand of the lessee; if it is destroyed without negligence, he is not liable for it. Al-Athram said: I heard Abu Abd Allah being asked about those who lease out awnings or tents to Makkah, and something is lost from the lessee by theft or disappearance—is he liable? He said: "I hope he is not liable. How could he be liable? If it is gone, he is not liable." We do not know of any disagreement on this. This is because he took possession of the item to fulfill a benefit he is entitled to from it, so it was a trust, just as if he took possession of a slave to whom the service is bequeathed for a year, or the husband takes possession of his wife who is a slave. It differs from the loan for use (ariyyah), for he (the lessee) is not entitled to its benefit (gratuitously). When the period expires, he must remove his hand (from it), but he is not required to return it. He alluded to this in the narration of Ibn Mansur, for it was said to him: "If one hires a riding beast, or borrows one, or is entrusted with one, is he not required to carry it back?" Ahmad said: "Whoever borrows something, he must return it to the place from which he took it." So he made the return obligatory in the loan for use (ariyyah), but did not make it obligatory in the lease and the trust (wadi'ah). The reasoning is that it is a contract that does not require liability, so it does not require its return or the expenses of it, like the trust. It is distinct from the loan for use, for its liability is obligatory, and so is its return. Accordingly, whenever the period expires, the item in his hand is a trust, like a trust, and if it is destroyed without negligence, there is no liability upon him, and this is the opinion of some of the Shafi'iyyah. Some of them said: He is liable, because after the expiration of the lease, he is not permitted to retain it, so it resembles the time-limited loan for use after its time. To us, it is a trust, resembling the deposit, and because if its liability were obligatory, its return would be obligatory. As for the loan for use, it is guaranteed in all cases, unlike our case, and because it is obligatory to return it. In any case, whenever the owner requests it, it must be surrendered to him; if he refuses to return it without an excuse, it becomes guaranteed, like a usurped item.

Section: If the lessor stipulates upon the lessee the liability for the item, the condition is invalid, because it contradicts the requirement of the contract. Does the lease become invalid due to it? There are two views, based on the invalid conditions in a sale. Ahmad said, regarding the case where he stipulates the liability for the item: "The lease and the guarantee are disliked." Al-Athram narrated, with his chain of narration, from Ibn Umar that he said: "Leasing with a guarantee is not valid." And it is reported from the jurists of Medina that they used to say: "We do not lease with a guarantee, except that the one who stipulates on a transporter that he does not unload his goods..."