If the owner instructs him to mix it with his own wealth or someone else's, and he does so, he is not liable, because he performed what he was commanded to do, acting as a deputy for the owner. Muhanna reported from Ahmad regarding a man who was entrusted with ten dirhams, and another person entrusted him with ten, and they both ordered him to mix them, so he mixed them and the dirhams were lost, that he bears no responsibility. If one of them ordered him to mix his dirhams but the other did not, he is liable for the dirhams of the one who did not order him, but not the other. If it becomes mixed without negligence on his part, he is not liable, for if it were destroyed as a result of that, he would not be liable (4), so mixing it is even more deserving of non-liability. If someone else mixes it, the liability lies with the person who mixed it, because the transgression is his, so the liability is his, just as if he had destroyed it.

The second issue is: If he does not safeguard it as he safeguards his own wealth—which is to secure it in a proper place of safekeeping (hirz) for its like—he is liable for it. The definition of a proper place of safekeeping for its like is discussed in the chapter on amputation for theft. This applies if the depositor did not specify for him a place where he should keep it; if he did specify one, he is bound (5) to keep it in the place he was ordered, whether it is a proper place of safekeeping for its like or not. If he secures it in a place equal to or higher than that, he is not liable. There is an opinion that he would be liable if he did this without necessity.

The third issue is: If he deposits it with someone else. There are two scenarios. First, that he deposits it with another without an excuse; in this case, he is liable without any disagreement in the school. This is the view of Shurayh, Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifah and his companions, and Ishaq. Ibn Abi Layla said: He is not liable, because he is obligated to guard and secure it, and he has secured it with someone else and guarded it through him; also, because a person safeguards his own wealth by depositing it, so if he deposits this, he has safeguarded it by the same means he safeguards his own wealth, and thus he is not liable, just as if [he had kept it in his own place of safekeeping. Our position is that he contradicted the depositor, so he is liable, just as if he had forbidden him from depositing it. This is correct, for he commanded him to guard it himself] (6) and was not satisfied with anyone else. Once this is established, he has the right to hold the first person liable, and the first person does not have the right to claim against the second, because he entered into the contract with him on the basis that he is a trustee for him and carries no liability. If the owner wishes to hold the second person liable, the Qadi mentioned that he has no right to hold him liable according to the manifest statements of Ahmad, because he mentioned