Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/296)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

and he tells him, “Keep it with you.” So he keeps it, then takes it and gives it to the judge while its owner is present. Does the judge have the right to take it? No. Nor does the depositary have the right to hand it over to the judge, because the judge acts as a representative only for one who is absent, refuses [to act], or the like. Here, however, there is no necessity. Thus, if it is destroyed while with a stranger or the judge, the depositary is liable, and the owner of the deposit demands compensation from the depositary.

Can he demand compensation from the judge and the stranger?

The author says, “They are not to be held liable if they are unaware.” That is, the stranger and the judge are not to be held liable if they do not know that it is a deposit held by a depositary, because they have an excuse. For example, a man comes to a stranger and says, “Take this and keep it with you as a deposit.” He takes it, believing it to be the property of the man who gave it to him and believing that he is doing a good deed; therefore, he bears no liability. The same applies to the judge: he bears no liability.

The authoritative position of the school is that the owner may demand compensation from him even if he was unaware. Their proof is that the property was destroyed while in his possession. According to the view followed by the author of the text, however, the owner may not demand compensation from him. His evidence is that he was unaware and was acting benevolently, and Allah Most High says: “There is no blame upon the doers of good.” [al-Tawbah: 91]

But if they know that it is a deposit, then they are liable, and the owner of the deposit may demand compensation from the depositary, the judge, or the stranger. This is because the judge or stranger had the property destroyed while in his possession, whereas the other caused its destruction by placing these people in control of this deposit. Thus, he may demand compensation from either one. In the case of ignorance, however, he may not demand compensation from either the judge or the stranger.

But if the depositary is given ten million as a deposit and deposits it in the bank, is he liable? Banks are undoubtedly more secure, but this depositor knows

اجعلها عندك، فجعلها عنده، ثم أخذها وأعطاها القاضي، وصاحبها موجود، فهل للقاضي الحق أن يأخذها؟ لا، وليس للمودَع الحق أن يسلمها للقاضي؛ لأن القاضي إنما ينوب عن الغائب أو الممتنع أو ما أشبه ذلك، أما هنا فلا ضرورة، فيضمن المودَع إذا تلفت عند الأجنبي أو عند الحاكم، ويطالب صاحبُ الوديعة المودَع. وهل يطالب الحاكمَ والأجنبيَ؟ يقول المؤلف: «ولا يطالبان إن جهلا» يعني لا يطالب الأجنبي والحاكم إذا جهلا أنها وديعة عند مودَع؛ لأنهما معذوران، فمثلاً: جاء الأجنبيَ رجلٌ وقال له: خذ هذه اجعلها عندك وديعة، فأخذها على أنها ملك الرجل الذي أعطاه وعلى أنه محسن فلا ضمان عليه، والحاكم كذلك لا ضمان عليه، والمذهب أن له أن يطالبه وإن جهل، وحجتهم أن المال تلف تحت يده، وعلى ما مشى عليه الماتن فليس له أن يطالبه، وحجته أنه جاهل ومحسن وقد قال الله تعالى: ﴿مَا عَلَى الْمُحْسِنِينَ مِنْ سَبِيلٍ﴾ [التوبة: ٩١]، أما إذا علما أنها وديعة فعليهما الضمان، ولصاحب الوديعة أن يطالب المودَع أو الحاكم أو الأجنبي؛ لأن الحاكم أو الأجنبي حصل التلف تحت يده، وذاك حصل التلف بتسليطه هؤلاء على هذه الوديعة، فله أن يطالب هذا وهذا، وأما مع الجهل فلا يطالب الحاكم ولا الأجنبي. لكن لو أن المودَع أعطي عشرة ملايين وديعة، وأودعها في البنك فهل يضمن؟ البنوك أحرز ولا شك، لكن هذا المودِع يعلم