of the cow may entrust it to this person for safekeeping, and the custodian who receives the cow may accept it as a deposit, on condition that he is able to bear its upkeep and safeguard it. Otherwise, it is not permissible. Even if we suppose that the cow’s owner wished to entrust it to someone who would neglect it, he may not do so, because it is a living animal that requires care and attention—unlike money, which has no life.

Thus, we have an entrustor, an entrusted item, and a custodian. The entrustor is the owner of the property; the entrusted item is the property itself; and the custodian is the person entrusted with it.

The author did not discuss this, as though—may Allah have mercy on him—he considered the matter clear and therefore did not address it. Rather, he discussed the legal consequences arising from a deposit for safekeeping.

From this definition of a deposit for safekeeping, it becomes clear that the common people’s present-day description of placing their money in banks, or similar institutions, as a deposit is incorrect. They have not placed their money with the bank, or its equivalent, merely for safekeeping; rather, the money is placed in the bank’s funds and the bank disposes of it. In reality, then, it is a loan, not a deposit for safekeeping. For this reason, the jurists—may Allah have mercy on them—have explicitly stated that if the entrustor permits the custodian to dispose of the deposited property, it becomes a loan. Thus, calling it a deposit is incorrect, because a deposit means that the property remains the owner’s property in its original state. In reality, it is lending, not depositing. Were it truly a deposit, we would say that the bank must keep it in its envelope and not dispose of it.

One consequence of this issue is that if the bank were to burn down along with its funds, without