it, and he is liable for it from his estate. If he has another debt besides it, then it and that debt are treated equally; if his estate suffices for both, it is paid, otherwise they are divided proportionally (2). This is the opinion of al-Sha'bi, al-Nakha'i, Dawud ibn Abi Hind, Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa and his companions, and Ishaq. This has also been narrated from Shurayh, Masruq, 'Ata', Tawus, al-Zuhri, and Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn 'Ali. It is narrated from al-Nakha'i: The trust takes precedence over the debt. Al-Harith al-'Ukli said: The debt takes precedence over the trust. Our position is that they are both rights that have become binding upon his liability, so they are equal like two debts, regardless of whether there is property of the same genus as the deposit in his estate or not. This applies if the depositor acknowledges that 'I have a deposit' or 'I owe a deposit to so-and-so,' or if it is established by evidence that he died while having a deposit. However, if he had a deposit during his lifetime, but it was not found in its specific form, and it is not known whether it remains with him or has been destroyed, there are two views. The first is that he is liable for it, because a deposit must be returned unless it is established that the obligation to return it has ceased due to destruction without transgression, and that has not been established; and because ignorance of its specific form is like ignorance of its existence, and that does not nullify the duty to return it. The second is that there is no liability, because the deposit is a trust, and the basic principle is that it was not destroyed or transgressed upon, so liability does not become incumbent. This is the opinion of Ibn Abi Layla and one of the two views of the Shafi'i scholars. The manifest position of the Madhhab is the first, because the basic principle is the obligation of return, so it remains upon him unless something is found to remove it.

Section: If he dies while having a known, specific deposit, his heirs are obligated to enable its owner to take it. If he did not know of his death (4), they are obligated to inform him of it (5), and they are not permitted to withhold it before its owner learns of it; for he did not entrust it to them, rather the property of others came into their hands, like someone whose garment the wind blew into his house and he became aware of it; he is obligated to inform its owner of it, and if he delays that while able to do so, he is liable. It is the same here. A deposit is not established except by the acknowledgment of the deceased or his heirs, or by evidence that testifies to it. And if