Likewise, if he hands the item to someone who customarily looks after the owner’s property, he is discharged of responsibility, for such a practice is well-established.
But if he delivers it to a person who is a stranger to both him and the owner and it is subsequently lost, the custodian is liable, because he has no right to deposit it with another without an excuse. The ruling is different, however, when a genuine necessity compels him to entrust it to an outsider—such as the approach of death or the need to travel while fearing for the deposit if he takes it along. In that circumstance he is blameless, and he is not liable if it perishes.
Should danger arise, or should the custodian wish to travel, he must return the deposit to its owner or to the owner’s agent. If neither can be found, he should carry it with him on the journey when that offers better protection. If taking it along is not the safer option, he must place it with the judge, for the judge stands in the owner’s stead when the owner is absent. If lodging it with the judge is impossible, he should entrust it to a trustworthy person. This follows the example of the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—who, when preparing to migrate, placed the valuables in his possession with Umm Ayman and instructed ʿAlī to restore them to their owners. The same applies to someone on the brink of death who holds other people’s deposits: he is obliged to return them to their owners, and if he cannot find them, he must lodge them with the judge or with a reliable person.
Any transgression against the deposit renders the custodian liable if it is destroyed. Thus, if he was entrusted with a beast and rode it for reasons other than feeding or watering it, or he was given a garment and wore it with no concern for moth damage, or he received coins kept in a secure place and removed them from that security, or they were tied and he untied them—then, should the deposit perish in any of these cases, he must make restitution, for his conduct constitutes transgression.