deed, so he is not liable for it, just like the one who did not intend it. He differs from the one who finds lost property with the intention of taking possession of it, for he has acted upon it by taking it while intending betrayal regarding it, so liability became obligatory due to his intended act, not merely by the intention. If he picks it up intending to identify it, and then later intends to withhold it for himself, it is like our case. If he removes it with the intention of using it, but does not use it, he is liable for it. Al-Shafiʿi held this view. Abu Hanifa said: He is not liable for it unless he uses it, because if he had removed it to transport it, he would not have been liable for it. Our argument is that he committed aggression by removing it, which is similar to if he had used it, unlike the case where he transports it.

Section: The bailee is a trustee, and his word is accepted regarding what he claims of the deposit's destruction, without disagreement. Ibn al-Mundhir said: All the scholars I have memorized from are in consensus that if the bailee secures the deposit and then mentions that it was lost, his word is accepted. Most of them said: along with his oath. If he claims to have returned it to its owner, his word is accepted along with his oath as well. Al-Thawri, al-Shafiʿi, Ishaq, and the People of Opinion (Ahl al-Ra'y) held this view. Malik also held this view if he handed it to him without evidence (witnesses). If he deposited it with him with evidence, his word regarding the return is not accepted except with evidence. Our argument is that he is a trustee who has no benefit in receiving it, so his word is accepted regarding the return without evidence, just as if he had been entrusted without evidence. If he says: "I gave it to so-and-so by your order," and its owner denies the permission to give it, the word of the bailee is accepted. Ahmad stated this in a narration by Ibn Mansur, and it is the view of Ibn Abi Layla. Malik, al-Thawri, al-ʿAnbari, al-Shafiʿi, and the People of Opinion said: The owner's word is accepted, because the default is the absence of permission, and he has the right to hold him liable. Our argument is that he claimed a transfer by which he is absolved of the deposit, so his word is accepted, just as if he claimed to have returned it to its owner. If the owner acknowledges the permission but says, "He did not deliver it," the word of the bailee is accepted as well, then we look into the delivered...