whether it is taken out of it or not; because he violated the protective covering (hirz) by an act through which he transgressed. If he tore the bag above the tie, he is liable for what he tore only; because he did not violate the protective covering. If the dirhams were not in a bag, or were in a bag that was not tied, or were clothing and he took one piece from it then returned it exactly as it was, he is not liable for the rest; because he did not transgress regarding the rest. If he returned its replacement and it was distinct, he is not liable for the rest due to that. If it was not distinct, the apparent view of al-Khiraqi here is that he is not liable for the rest; because the transgression was specific to it, so the liability is specific to it, and mixing the returned item with other items does not entail liability; because he is obligated to return it along with them, so he did not cause himself to lose the possibility of returning it, unlike if he mixed it with something else. If the owner of the deposit permitted him to take from it, and did not order him to return its replacement, and he took then returned the replacement for what he took, it is like returning the replacement for what he was not permitted to take. Al-Qadi said: He is liable for the whole. This is the view of al-Shafi'i; because he mixed the deposit with what cannot be distinguished from it, so he became liable for the whole, as if he mixed it with other than the replacement. We have already mentioned a distinction between the replacement and other things, so the analogy is not valid. Abu Hanifa said: If he breaks the seal of the bag, the liability for the deposit is not binding on him; because he did not transgress against the rest. Our argument is that he violated its protective covering, so he is liable for it if it perishes, just as if he deposited it with him in a locked chest, and he opened it and left it open. We do not concede that he did not transgress against what was beyond the seal.

Section: If he becomes liable for the deposit through usage or denial, then returns it to its owner, the liability is removed from him. If the owner returns it to him, it is an initiation of a new entrustment. If the owner does not return it to him, but renewed the entrustment for him, or absolved him of the liability, he is absolved of the liability, according to the apparent view of the school; because the liability is his right, so if he absolves him of it, he is absolved, just as if he absolved him of a debt in his personal responsibility. If he renewed an entrustment for him, the possession that was accompanied by liability has ended, so the liability ceases. Our companions have said: If he pledged the usurped property to the usurper, or deposited it with him, the liability of usurpation is removed from him, so this is more appropriate.