its continuity. The judge stands in the place of its owner during his absence. If he deposits it [with someone else] despite having the ability to reach the judge, he becomes liable, because someone other than the judge has no legal authority [to accept it]. It is possible that it is permissible for him to deposit it, as he might be more protective of it and more preferred by its owner. If he is unable to reach the judge, and he deposits it with a trustworthy person, he is not liable, because it is a situation of necessity. The Qadi mentioned that the apparent meaning of Ahmad’s words is that he is liable, then he interpreted his statement as referring to the case where he deposited it without necessity, or while he was able to reach the judge.

If he buries it in a location and informs a trustworthy person who has control over that location, and it is of a nature that burial does not damage, it is like depositing it with him. If he does not inform anyone about it, he is liable, because he has been negligent in its safeguarding; for he cannot be certain that he will not die during his travels, whereby it would not reach its owner, or he might forget its location, or it might befall a calamity such as collapse, fire, or drowning, and it would be lost. If he informs a person who is not trustworthy, he is liable, because he might take it. If he informs a trustworthy person who does not have control over the location, he has been negligent, because he has not deposited it with him, and he is not able to preserve it.

Section: If he intends to travel with it, and the owner has forbidden him from doing so, he is liable, as he is acting in opposition to its owner. If he has not forbidden him, but the road is dangerous, or the city to which he is traveling is dangerous, he is liable, because he has been negligent in its safeguarding. If it is not so, he is permitted to travel with it. Ahmad stated this clearly, regardless of whether he has a necessity for the journey or not. Abu Hanifah held this view as well. Al-Shafi'i said: If he travels with it while able to return it to its owner, his agent, the judge, or a trustee, he is liable, because he traveled with it without necessity, which is similar to if the travel were dangerous. Our position is that he has transported it to a safe place, so he is not liable for it, just as if he had transported it within the city, and because he traveled with it on a journey that is not dangerous, which is similar to if he found no one with whom to leave it. It seems stronger to me that whenever he travels with it while able to reach its owner or his representative without permission, he is negligent and bears the liability, because he denies the owner the possibility of retrieving it and puts it at risk, for the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "The traveler and his wealth are in peril, except what Allah protects," meaning in destruction. Permission to hold it in a manner that does not entail this risk and does not negate the possibility of returning it to its owner does not imply permission for what entails that. As for the absence of the owner and his agent, he may travel with it if it is more protective for it, as it is a case of necessity, so he chooses to do what contains the benefit.

Section: If death approaches him, his ruling is the ruling of travel, according to what has preceded of its rulings, except in taking it with him, because each of them is a cause for the deposit to leave his possession.

1068- Issue: He said: (And if it were debased coins and he mixed them with sound ones, or sound ones and he mixed them with debased ones, there is no liability upon him).

He means by "debased" (ghallah) the broken/inferior currency, if he mixes them with sound ones from his own wealth, or mixes sound ones with broken/inferior ones, he is not liable for them, because they are distinguishable from them, so he is not incapable of returning them to their owner, and thus he is not liable for them, just as if he left them in a box containing his own bags. Al-Shafi'i and Malik stated this, and we do not know of any disagreement regarding it. The same ruling applies if he mixes silver coins (dirhams) with gold coins (dinars), or white ones with black ones. It has been narrated from Ahmad, regarding one who mixes white dirhams with black ones: he is liable. Perhaps he said that because they might acquire blackness from them, or their color might change, thus decreasing their value; if there is no harm in it, there is no liability upon him. And Allah the Exalted knows best.