—may Allah have mercy on him—concerning general wording occasioned by a particular incident: should it be confined to that occasion, or understood in its general sense? He held two views. According to most of his Iraqi followers, including Ismā‘īl al-Qādī, al-Qādī Abū Bakr and others, the sounder view is that it retains its general scope and is not confined to its occasion, for numerous reasons that need not be discussed here. Thus, invoking the general wording of this hadith in support of Mālik’s position on this issue—even if it arose from the incident mentioned—is valid according to the sounder of Mālik’s two views. Allah knows best. Ibn Sha‘bān said: “Some of our scholars hold that if a depositary denies holding property entrusted to him, and that property is something other than gold, then the person whose property he has denied may not, upon finding dirhams or goods belonging to him against his outstanding claim, take or sell them for the equivalent of what he is owed, because he has not been authorized to do so. This is the view I hold.”

Section

Regarding trusts between people, Allah has commanded them to fear Him and return what has been entrusted to them. He has not commanded them to call witnesses, as He did in the case of an orphan’s guardian. This indicates that they are trusted to return property to those who entrusted it to them without calling witnesses. A depositary must therefore be believed, upon taking an oath, when he claims to have returned the deposit and the depositor denies it. Likewise, a woman is believed concerning what Allah has entrusted to her knowledge of what He has created in her womb, namely menstruation and pregnancy. Allah Most High says:

“It is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the Last Day.” [al-Baqara: 228]

An exception is where the property was handed over to him before witnesses. This makes it clear that he was trusted to safeguard it, but not to return it without proof. He is therefore believed concerning its loss, since its safekeeping was entrusted to him, but not concerning its return, for which the owner sought verification rather than relying on his trustworthiness. This is the position of Mālik, may Allah have mercy on him, and all his followers, including Ibn al-Qāsim and others, with the exception of Asbagh’s report from Ibn al-Qāsim concerning a hirer who claims to have returned the goods he hired: he is believed whether he received them before witnesses or without witnesses. In this respect, there is no distinction between hired property and deposited property. His position has, however, been interpreted