the principle is its obligation, so it is not negated by an ambiguous matter. However, if he claims the deposit and says, "You have nothing with me," or "You are not entitled to anything from me," and then evidence is established for the deposit, or the bailee admits to it, and then he says, "It was lost from a place of safekeeping," his statement is accepted with his oath, and he is not liable. This is because his statement does not contradict what the evidence testified to, nor does it prove it false; for whoever has a deposit perish from their place of safekeeping without negligence, the owner has no claim against them, and is not entitled to anything. However, if he claims it perished after his denial, or evidence is established that it perished after the denial, or that it was with him at the time of his denial, he is liable for it; because his denial made him liable, thus he became like a usurper.

Section: If he intends betrayal regarding the deposit, either by denial or by use, but does not actually do so, he does not become liable; because he has not initiated any word or deed regarding the deposit, so he is not held liable, just as if he had not intended it. Ibn Surayj said: He is liable for it, because he withheld it with the intention of betrayal, so he is liable for it, like one who finds lost property with the intention of taking possession of it. Our argument is the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "My nation is forgiven for mistakes, forgetfulness, and what their souls whisper to them, as long as they do not speak of it or act upon it." And because he did not betray it by word or