to him. If he acknowledges that he received it, and the delivery was for a debt, then the entire matter is absolved. If he denies it, his word is accepted along with his oath. Our companions have mentioned that the payer is liable because he settled the debt without evidence, and the oath is not obligatory upon the owner of the deposit because the bailee is negligent, as he permitted a settlement that would absolve him of the right without being absolved by his delivery, so he becomes liable, whether the owner believes him or accuses him. If the owner orders him to deliver it as a deposit, he does not need evidence, because the word of the bailee is accepted regarding its destruction and return, so there is no benefit in having it witnessed. Consequently, the bailee swears an oath and is absolved, and the other party swears an oath and is also absolved, and the loss falls upon its owner.

Section: If he is entrusted with a beast, and its owner orders him to feed and water it, it is incumbent upon him for two reasons: First, out of respect for its owner, as he took it from him based on that. Second, out of respect for the beast itself, for the life of an animal must be preserved through feeding and watering. It is possible that feeding it is not incumbent upon him unless he accepts that, because this is an act of benevolence on his part, so he is not compelled by the mere order of its owner, unlike things other than a deposit. If the owner leaves it absolute and does not order him to feed it, it is also incumbent upon him. Al-Shafiʿi held this view. It is possible that it is not incumbent upon him. Abu Hanifa held this view, because he entrusted him with it but did not order him to feed it, and the feeding is the responsibility of its owner, so if he does not feed it, he is the one who is negligent regarding his property. Our argument is that it is not permissible to let it perish, nor to be negligent regarding it, so when he ordered him to safeguard it, this included its feeding and watering. We then examine the matter: if the bailee can reach its owner or his agent, he demands that he spend on it, or take it back, or grant him permission to spend on it so he may be reimbursed. If he is unable to reach the owner or his agent, he refers the matter to the judge. If he finds property belonging to the owner, he spends on it from that. If he finds no property, he does what he deems to be in the interest of the owner, such as selling it, selling a part of it and spending that on it, hiring it out, borrowing on behalf of its owner from the Bayt al-Mal (Public Treasury) or elsewhere, and he hands that to the bailee if he deems it appropriate for him to spend it on it. If he deems it appropriate to hand it to someone else to handle the spending on it, that is permissible. If he borrows from the bailee, it is permissible to hand it to him to handle the spending on it because he is a trustee over it. It is permissible for the judge to grant him permission to spend on it from his own property,