As for holding artisans liable when they allege that an article delivered to them has perished, the jurists have differed. Mālik, Ibn Abī Laylā, and Abū Yūsuf maintain that the artisan must guarantee anything that is destroyed while in his custody.

Abū Ḥanīfah rules that no liability attaches to one who works gratuitously, nor to the “private” craftsman, but that it does attach to the “public” craftsman and to anyone who works for a wage. Al-Shāfiʿī has two opinions regarding the public craftsman. In their terminology a “private” craftsman is the one who works in the customer’s own home; another definition—adopted by Mālik—makes him the one who has not opened his services to the general public. In Mālik’s view such a craftsman is not liable. Summarising Mālik’s position: the public craftsman is liable whether or not he takes a wage. ʿAlī and ʿUmar likewise imposed liability on artisans, though the report from ʿAlī is disputed.

Those who absolve the artisan liken him to a deposit-holder, a partner, an agent, or a hired shepherd. Those who impose liability rely only on considerations of public welfare and on blocking avenues that may lead to harm.

The jurists who distinguish between paid and unpaid work argue that the unpaid artisan receives the article solely for the owner’s benefit and is therefore like a depositary, whereas once he receives it for a wage the benefit is shared and the artisan’s benefit predominates; the precedent, for al-Shāfiʿī, is the loan (qard) and the gratuitous loan for use (ʿāriyah). Likewise, one who has not set himself up as a public craftsman need not be made liable as a deterrent measure.

With Mālik, as noted earlier, the hired worker (ajīr) is not liable, though he deemed it preferable to hold the food-carrier and analogous trades, as well as the miller, liable. Apart from these, no liability is incurred unless there is transgression. The proprietor of a public bath is not liable according to Mālik—that is the well-known position—although another view holds him liable. Ashhab ventured an anomalous opinion, holding artisans liable for items proved to have perished in their custody without any transgression or negligence on their part; this is regarded as irregular. There is no dispute that artisans are not liable for goods they have not yet taken into their own premises.

Mālik’s companions further disagreed: when evidence establishes that the article has perished and liability is lifted from the artisan, is he still entitled to his wage if the loss occurred after all—or part—of the work was finished? Ibn al-Qāsim says no wage is due; Ibn al-Mawwāz says the wage is due.

Ibn al-Mawwāz reasons that, since the misfortune befell the customer, the artisan’s labour ought not to be wasted. Ibn al-Qāsim argues that the wage is earned only in return for the surviving article, comparing the case to one in which the article perishes through the worker’s negligence. Ibn al-Mawwāz’s opinion is closer to analogy, whereas Ibn al-Qāsim’s looks more to public interest, for he holds that the loss should be shared.

From this same chapter arises their dispute over the ship-owner’s liability. Mālik says no liability falls upon him; Abū Ḥanīfah says he is liable, save for losses caused by the sea-waves.

The underlying principle of Mālik’s school is that artisans are liable for every loss their own hands cause—burning, breaking, or cutting—provided the work is done in their shop, even if the owner is sitting beside them, except in inherently risky trades such as drilling jewels, engraving signet-stones, or straightening swords.