If the depositee wishes to return it to its owner, the owner is obligated to accept it (7), because the depositee is a volunteer in keeping it (8); therefore, he is not obligated to continue volunteering in the future.

1066 - Issue: He said: "There is no liability on a depositee, provided he does not commit a transgression (ta'addi)."

The summary of this is that a deposit is a trust. Therefore, if it is destroyed without negligence by the depositee, he bears no liability, regardless of whether something of the depositee's own wealth was lost along with it or not. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars. It is narrated from Abu Bakr, 'Ali, and Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with them). This was also the view of Shurayh, al-Nakha'i, Malik, Abu al-Zinad, al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i, and the jurists of reasoning (Ashab al-Ra'y). There is another narration from Ahmad: if the deposit is lost along with his own wealth, he is liable for it, due to what is narrated from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) that he held Anas ibn Malik liable for a deposit that was lost along with his own wealth (1). The judge (al-Qadi) said: The first (2) view is more correct, because Allah the Almighty named it a trust, and liability contradicts the nature of a trust. It is narrated from 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "There is no liability on the depositee" (3). This is also narrated from the Companions whom we have mentioned. Furthermore, the depositee is a trusted person, so he is not liable for what is destroyed without his transgression or negligence, just like the wealth that was lost with his own. Moreover, the depositee guards it for its owner voluntarily, without any benefit accruing to him (4); if liability were imposed upon him, people would refrain from accepting deposits, which would be harmful, due to the need for it that we have already clarified. What was narrated from 'Umar is interpreted as negligence by Anas in safeguarding it, so it does not contradict what we have mentioned. As for if he transgresses...