Section: If he deposited an item with him, and did not specify the place for its preservation, the bailee may preserve it in a place similar to its like, in whichever place he wishes. If he placed it in a secure place, then moved it to another secure place of its like, he is not liable, whether he moved it to a place similar to the first or one less secure; because its owner delegated the preservation to his judgment and ijtihad, and permitted him to secure it in whatever manner he finds suitable for things of its like. For this reason, if he had left it in this second place initially, he would not be liable; thus it is the same if he moved it there. If the item was in its owner's house and he said to a man: "Keep it in its place," and he moved it from there without fear, he is liable, because he is not a bailee of a deposit, rather he is an agent for its preservation. He does not have the right to remove it from the owner's property, nor from a place he rented for it, unless he fears for it, in which case he must remove it. This is because he is commanded to preserve it, and its preservation has become contingent upon moving it, and he knows that if its owner were present in these circumstances, he would have moved it. Furthermore, he is commanded to preserve it in a specific manner, and when that manner is impossible, he is obligated to preserve it otherwise, just like a bailee when he fears for the deposit.

Section: If he removed a deposit after being forbidden from doing so, and it was destroyed, and he claimed he removed it due to the onset of a fire, a flood, or some manifest event, but its owner denied that such an occurrence took place, the burden of proof is on the bailee to prove that what he claimed existed in that place, because this is something for which providing proof is not impossible, as it is a manifest matter. Once this is established, his word is accepted regarding the destruction, along with his oath, and he does not need proof, as providing proof for it is impossible, so he is not required to provide it, just as if he claimed destruction by a hidden cause. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. The ruling regarding its removal from a bag or a chest is the same as the ruling regarding its removal from a house, based on the detail that has already passed.

Section: If he ordered him to put it in his house, but he left it in his garments and went out with it, he is liable, because the house is more secure for it. If he came to him with it in the marketplace, and he said: "Keep it in your house," and he remained with it on the spot, and it was destroyed, he is not liable. But if he left it in his shop or in his garments, and did not carry it to his house despite being able to, and it was destroyed, he is liable, because his house is more secure for it. This is what our companions have stated. It is possible that when he...