“Whichever of the two he wishes,” that is, either Amr or Abdullah, the claimant of agency. If it is destroyed, we say: hold whomever you wish liable. He may hold the claimant of agency liable, because he denied the agency; thus, the claimant of agency took the property without right and is therefore liable for it. He may also hold the depositary—who was acting benevolently, namely Amr—liable, because he was negligent when he handed it over to this man without proof. Thus, he now has the choice: if he wishes, he may hold this one liable, and if he wishes, he may hold that one liable.

The first case does not concern a deposit; rather, it concerns a debt. Zayd has a claim against Amr, and Abdullah alleges that he was appointed as an agent to receive it. This case, however, concerns a deposit.

These issues, in reality, are based upon a governing principle established by the sunnah: the default rule concerning the property of those whose property is inviolable is that it is protected, and one may not dispose of it except in the manner for which one has been authorized. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “The wealth of a Muslim is not lawful except with his willing consent.” (1)

This is the foundational principle. The subsidiary rulings are then based on such principles, and a given deduction may be sound or unsound.