Then we say: You yourselves have not applied the implication of the verse. In your view, the lessee, in whose possession the leased property is held, is a trustee, and the property in his possession is a trust. Yet you say that if the leased property perishes in his possession without transgression or negligence on his part, he is not liable. So how can you cite the verse as proof for something while excluding from it a case that the verse encompasses, when the ruling is the same in both cases?!

Thus, neither the verse nor the hadith provides evidence for their view. A loaned item therefore remains subject to the general principles: it came into the borrower's possession with its owner's consent, so the borrower's possession is that of a trustee; and a trustee is not liable except in the case of transgression or negligence. This is the general legal principle.

However, if liability for it is stipulated, then this is due to the saying of Allah, Exalted is He: “O you who believe, fulfil your contracts.” [al-Māʾidah 5:1] And His saying: “Fulfil every commitment.” [al-Isrāʾ 17:34] And the saying of the Prophet, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him: “Muslims are bound by their conditions.” (1) And his saying to Ṣafwān ibn Umayyah, may Allah be pleased with him: “Rather, it is a guaranteed loan.” (2) This view was also chosen by Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him.

His statement, “The loaned item entails liability”: the one liable is the borrower.

His statement, “at its value,” means if it is an item whose value is assessed; if it is a fungible item, then it is replaced by an equivalent. Thus, the wording “at its value” is deficient here. He should instead have said: “A loaned item is subject to liability according to its replacement value on the day it perishes,” because the term “replacement” includes both value and an equivalent.

Our principle concerning liability for destroyed property is: “A fungible item is replaced...”