it is found written upon it that it is a deposit, it does not constitute a proof against them, because it is possible that the container had a deposit in it before this, or that it was a deposit belonging to their legator with someone else, or that it was a deposit which he then purchased. Likewise, if one finds in the ledger (ruznamah) of his father that 'so-and-so has a deposit with me,' it does not bind them, because it is possible that he returned it and forgot to strike through what he had written, or other reasons.

1072 - Issue: He said: "If he demands the deposit from him, and he says: 'You did not deposit anything with me.' Then he says: 'It was lost from a place of safekeeping,' he is liable; because he has exited the state of trust. But if he says: 'You have nothing with me,' then he says: 'It was lost from a place of safekeeping,' then his statement is accepted, and he is not liable."

The summary of this is that if he claims a deposit against a man, and he says: "You did not deposit anything with me," then it is established that he did deposit it with him, and he then says: "You did deposit with me, but it perished from my place of safekeeping," his statement is not accepted, and he is liable for it. This is the opinion of Malik, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y); because he is contradicted by his previous denial and has confessed to falsehood that contradicts the nature of a trust. If he admits to the deposit for him and that it perished from his place of safekeeping before his denial, he is not liable. If he admits that it perished after his denial, he is not absolved of liability, because by denying it, he exited the state of trust and became a guarantor, like someone who is demanded to return a deposit and refuses to do so. If he produces evidence that it perished after the denial, he is not absolved of liability for that reason. If he produces evidence that it perished from a place of safekeeping before the denial, is his evidence heard? There are two views regarding this: The first is that it is not heard, because he contradicted it by his denial of the deposit. The second is that his evidence is heard, because if the depositor were to admit to that, his right would lapse, thus evidence for it is heard. If the evidence testifies to its destruction from a place of safekeeping but does not specify whether it was before or after the denial, and it remains ambiguous, liability is not lifted because