Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/294)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

The point is that if he hands it over to someone who safeguards his own property and it is destroyed, he is not liable—unless its owner expressly stipulates this and says, “Do not give it to anyone. It is from me to you, and from you to me.” In that case, he is liable, because the owner has specified a means of safekeeping stronger than that prescribed by customary practice. It has already been stated that when a particular means of safekeeping is specified, it must be observed. Thus, if he says, “Do not give it to anyone—not the servant and not the child,” then, if he hands it over to someone who safeguards his property, he is liable, because that person provides less careful protection than the depositary.

His statement, “or to someone who safeguards the owner’s property, he is not liable,” means that if the depositary hands it over to someone who safeguards the owner’s property, he is not liable. It is as though this depositary has grown weary of the deposit and wishes to return it, so he returns it to someone who safeguards its owner’s property—for example, to the depositor’s servants, slave, or household. In that case, he is not liable, even though the owner did not tell him, “Give it to my household,” nor did he appoint his household as his agents to take delivery of it.

There is disagreement concerning this issue. Some scholars hold that if he hands it over to someone who safeguards the owner’s property without the owner’s permission, he is liable, because he was not authorized to hand it over to anyone else, and because the owner of the deposit may not trust his household or servants with it, as they may be negligent. What appears proper is that the matter be referred to customary practice: whatever is established by custom is to be followed, and whatever is not established by custom is not to be followed.

Valuable items are customarily not returned except to their owner in person. With ordinary items, such as utensils, bedding, and livestock, it is customary for the person who safeguards the owner’s property to take delivery of them when they are returned. Thus, the matter is referred to customary practice: where custom dictates that it may be handed over to someone who safeguards the owner’s property, then if he hands it over to them, he is not liable; but where custom dictates that it must be delivered to the depositor personally, he is liable.

المهم إذا دفعها إلى من يحفظ ماله فتلفت فإنه لا يضمن، إلا إذا نص صاحبها عليه وقال: لا تعطها أحداً، هي مني إليك ومنك إلي، فهنا يضمن؛ لأنه عين حرزاً أقوى من حرز العادة، وقد سبق أنه إذا عين حرزاً فإنه يتعين، فإذا قال: لا تعطها أحداً، لا الخادم، ولا الولد، فحينئذٍ إذا دفعها إلى من يحفظ ماله، فهو ضامن؛ لأنه أقل حفظاً من المودَع. قوله: «أو مال ربها لم يضمن» أي إذا دفعها المودَع إلى من يحفظ مال ربها لم يضمن، فهذا المودَع كأنه مَلَّ من الوديعة وأراد أن يردها، فردها لمن يحفظ مال صاحبها، مثل أن يردها إلى خدم المودِع، أو إلى غلامه، أو إلى أهله فإنه لا ضمان عليه، مع أنه لم يقل له: ادفعها إلى أهلي، ولم يوكل أهله في قبضها، وهذه المسألة فيها خلاف، فمن العلماء من يقول: إنه إذا دفعها إلى من يحفظ مال ربها بغير إذن ربها فإنه ضامن؛ لأنه لم يُوَكَّل في دفعها إلى غيره؛ ولأن صاحب الوديعة قد لا يأتمن أهله أو خدمه عليها؛ لأنهم مفرطون، والذي ينبغي أن يرجع في ذلك إلى العرف، فما جرى به العرف اتبع وما لم يجرِ به العرف لم يُتَّبع، فالأشياء الثمينة جرت العادة أنها لا ترد الوديعة منها إلا إلى صاحبها بنفسه، والأشياء العادية كالأواني والفرش والبهائم جرت العادة أنه يتولى قبولها عند ردها من يحفظ مال ربها، فيرجع في ذلك إلى العرف، فما جرى العرف بأنه يدفع إلى من يحفظ مال ربها فدفعها إليهم، فلا ضمان عليه؛ وما جرى العرف بأنه لا بد أن يسلم إلى نفس المودِع فإن عليه الضمان.