except Ashhab, who held them liable even when the destruction was established by proof. He likewise held the recipient of pledged property liable, by analogy with borrowed property, which must be returned—as stated in the hadith. The underlying reason common to both is that he received the pledged property solely for his own benefit, just as he received the borrowed property solely for his own benefit. Craftsmen, however, cannot validly be compared to borrowers in this respect, since they receive goods for their own benefit and that of the owners.

Nevertheless, his position has some merit. Its rationale is that, since craftsmen must be held liable in the public interest, lest this become a means of destroying property, proof does not relieve them of liability, thereby closing off that avenue altogether. Measures based on public interests and blocking the means to harm admit no exceptions. The precedent here is a son’s testimony in his father’s favour: since it is inadmissible to block a potential avenue to wrongdoing, it remains inadmissible even when suspicion is absent in both cases. Al-Fadl: Moreover, whoever is held liable in the absence of proof remains liable even when proof is produced; the precedent is one who wrongfully seizes another’s property. Likewise, whoever receives something for his own benefit and is held liable in the absence of proof remains liable even when proof is produced; the precedent is a loan.

Section

The position of Mālik—may Allah have mercy on him—and Ibn al-Qāsim is sounder. A craftsman is a hired worker; thus, when it is established that what was entrusted to him perished without negligence, he is comparable to an exclusively employed craftsman or a shepherd. Furthermore, a potential avenue to wrongdoing may be disregarded when there is a manifest excuse. For example, we prohibit someone who has missed the Friday prayer from performing the noon prayer in congregation, lest this become an avenue for adherents of innovation. Yet this is permitted for those with manifest excuses, such as the sick and prisoners.

The same applies to the matter under discussion: when the craftsman’s excuse is manifest because he produces proof that the goods were destroyed without negligence, we disregard the potential avenue to wrongdoing. There is disagreement on this matter, which we have set out and examined, explaining its rationale and meaning, in Kitāb al-Bayān, under the subsection Naqdahā in the transmissions of ‘Īsā, in the third Book of Prayer.