which is knowledge of the identity of the owner, so one oath is sufficient for him, just as if they both claimed it and he acknowledged it for one of them. It differs from when he denies it, because each one of them claims against him that it is theirs; therefore, they are two claims. If he swears, lots are drawn between them, and whoever wins the draw against his companion swears, and it is delivered to him. Al-Shafi'i said: They mutually swear, and the item is held between them until they reach a settlement. This is the view of Ibn Abi Layla, because he does not know which of them is the owner. There is another view attributed to al-Shafi'i that it is divided between them, as if he acknowledged it for both. This is what Ibn al-Mundhir reported from Ibn Abi Layla, and it is the view of Abu Hanifa and his two companions as narrated from them. They said: The bailee is liable for half of it to each of them, because he caused the loss of what was deposited with him through his ignorance. Our argument is that they are equal in the right regarding what is not in their hands, so it is necessary to draw lots between them, like two slaves if he freed them during his terminal illness and only one of them could be covered by the one-third, or as if he intended to travel with one of his wives. The statement of Abu Hanifa is not correct; for the physical asset has not perished, and if it had perished without negligence on his part, there would be no liability. There is no negligence in his ignorance, as it is not within his capacity to not forget or not be ignorant.

1074 - Issue: He said: "And whoever is entrusted with something and takes some of it, then returns it or its equivalent, and the rest is lost, he is held liable for the amount he took."

The summary of this is that whoever is entrusted with something and takes some of it, he is liable for what he took. If he returns it or its equivalent, the liability does not cease from him. Shafi'i held this view. Malik said: There is no liability on him if he returns it or its equivalent. The scholars of opinion said: If he did not spend what he took and returned it, he is not liable, but if he spent it then returned it or its equivalent, he is liable. Our argument is that the liability was attached to his personal responsibility upon taking it, evidenced by the fact that if it had perished in his possession before returning it, he would be liable for it; thus, it does not cease except by returning it to its owner, like usurped property. As for the rest of the deposit, it is to be considered; if it was in a sealed or tied bag, and he broke the seal or untied the knot, he is liable, regardless