the owner of the property. The recipient’s claim that it was lost or destroyed is accepted, whether it is property that can be kept out of sight, such as cash and merchandise, or property that cannot, such as animals and houses. This applies whether he receives it on the understanding that he will dispose of the original property through his dealings, as in a profit-sharing investment, or that he will retain it unchanged, as when he is hired to transport it, tend it, use it, or undertake something similar. Exceptions are the artisan who offers his services to the public and the person hired to transport food: their claims of loss or destruction are not accepted concerning property that can be kept out of sight, for the reason already mentioned—preventing avenues of abuse and safeguarding the public interest.

Section

At the beginning of this classification, we specified that the person receives another’s property “with its owner’s permission” because anyone who receives another’s property without its owner’s permission is liable for it in all circumstances, being either a usurper or a transgressor. We also specified “without acquiring ownership of it” because, if he receives it by way of acquiring ownership—whether through purchase, charity, gift, bequest, or any similar means by which ownership is transferred—there is likewise no disagreement that he bears the risk of loss, whether the sale is valid or invalid.

Section

Whenever the recipient’s claim of loss is accepted—as with a deposit, a profit-sharing investment, pledged property that cannot be kept out of sight, or an item borrowed for use that cannot be kept out of sight—his claim to have returned it is also accepted, provided that he received it without witnesses. If, however, he received it before witnesses, his claim to have returned it is not accepted. This is the well-known, established position of Ibn al-Qāsim and other followers of Mālik.

Asbagh, however, related from Ibn al-Qāsim that his claim to have returned it is accepted even if he received it before witnesses. He stated this concerning a hirer’s claim that the goods he had hired had been lost. Asbagh disagreed with him, raising the cases of profit-sharing investments and deposits as an objection. Yet Asbagh’s objection does not hold against him, because, according to this report, he makes no distinction between a profit-sharing investment, a deposit, and a hired item. Rather, he considers the recipient’s claim to have returned the property acceptable in all these cases, even if it was handed over to him before witnesses. For if he accepts his claim to have returned a hired item, even though he received it before witnesses, then he should all the more accept his claim in the case of