Section: If he transgresses by wearing the garment, riding the beast, or taking the deposit to use it or to betray the trust regarding it, then returns it to its place with the intention of safekeeping, he is not absolved of the liability. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: He is absolved, because he is a holder of it by the permission of its owner, so it is like the state before the transgression. Our argument is that he became liable for it through aggression, so the state of entrustment was voided, just as if he denied it then acknowledged it; by this, what they mentioned is nullified.

Section: Depositing is not valid except from one who has the capacity for legal action. If a child or a mentally deficient person deposits a deposit with someone, he becomes liable for it upon taking possession of it, and the liability is not removed from him by returning it to him; it is only removed by delivering it to his guardian (wali) who oversees his property, or to the judge. If the child is discerning, his depositing is valid for what he has been permitted to dispose of, because he is like an adult in regards to that. If a man deposits a deposit with a child or a mentally deficient person and it perishes, he is not liable for it, regardless of whether he protected it or was negligent in protecting it. If he destroys it or consumes it, he is liable for it according to the view of al-Qadi and the apparent view of the school of al-Shafi'i. Among our companions are those who said: There is no liability upon him. This is the view of Abu Hanifa, because he empowered him to destroy it by delivering it to him, so the liability for it is not binding upon him. Do you not see that if he gave a child a knife and he fell upon it, the liability would be upon his 'aqila (male paternal kin)? Our argument is that what he was liable for by his destruction before the depositing, he is liable for after the depositing, just like an adult. Their statement that "he empowered him to destroy it" is not valid; he only asked him to keep it for him, and it is distinct from giving a knife, for that is a cause for destruction, whereas giving a deposit is the opposite.

Section: If he deposits a deposit with a slave, it is derived from the two views regarding the minor. If we say: The child is not liable, then if the slave destroys it, it is a liability on his personal responsibility (dhimma). If we say: He is liable, it is attached to his person (raqaba).