There are banks that accept deposits in the true sense: the money given to them is placed in designated, safeguarded boxes, and the bank does not dispose of it. This is a pure deposit.

If he travels with it, finds no trustworthy person with whom to leave it as a deposit, and its owner is absent, what should he do? He gives it to the judge, because the judge is the guardian of one who has no guardian. The evidence for this distinction is Allah’s saying:

“Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due.” [Al-Nisa’: 58]

This commands everything necessary for rendering the trust. A command to render it is also a command to do whatever is indispensable to its fulfilment. It is clear that in such a case, when travel exposes it to loss, leaving it with a trustworthy person is what constitutes proper delivery.

“Whoever is entrusted with an animal and rides it for a purpose other than its benefit, or with a garment and wears it, or with coins and removes them from their secure place and then returns them, or breaks the seal, or mixes them with other indistinguishable coins, and then all of it is lost, is liable.”

His statement, “Whoever is entrusted with an animal and rides it for a purpose other than its benefit,” means that he is liable. For example, if a horse or camel is entrusted to him and he rides it for a purpose other than its benefit, he is liable due to transgression, not negligence—whether it is destroyed through that act or afterwards as well. By his transgression, the status of trustworthiness is removed from him, and his possession becomes that of a transgressor, like that of an usurper. He is therefore liable in every case: whether he transgresses or is negligent, or neither transgresses nor is negligent; and whether the property is destroyed by the act itself or subsequently.

Thus, if a man who is passionately fond of riding horses is entrusted with a horse, and he races it every day or makes it run every day for a purpose other than the horse’s benefit, he is liable if it perishes during its use or otherwise, even if he has returned it to its secure place. That he is liable if it perishes during the use is obvious; as for his liability after that, it is because by using it, his possession ceased to be that of a trustee.

It is understood from his statement, “for a purpose other than its benefit,” that if he rides it for its benefit, then he is not