What, then, must the authorities do about him? Is it permissible to put him to death and destroy his monastery? The owners demanded their property from him, but he did not hand it over to them, and they have Christian witnesses who can testify to this.

He replied:

Praise be to Allah.

If it becomes clear that the custodian’s own property was not lost, yet he claims that the deposit alone was lost, then he is liable for the deposit according to one of the two scholarly views. This is the view of Mālik and of Ahmad according to one of the two reports from him. For ʿUmar ibn al-Khattāb, may Allah be pleased with him, held Anas ibn Mālik liable for a deposit that he claimed had been lost while his own property remained intact. If, however, he claims that all the property was lost and his claim is then exposed as false, the grounds for holding him liable are stronger still.

If the depositor—the owner of the deposit—claims that he demanded it from the custodian but the latter did not hand it over, or that the custodian betrayed his trust and the deposit was not lost, then the grounds for accepting the depositor’s statement under oath are stronger and more compelling. Indeed, in such a case, the custodian deserves a severe discretionary punishment that will deter him and others like him from lying. This applies even though he is a non-Muslim living under Muslim protection.

If members of his own religion who are regarded as acceptable witnesses among them testify against him, their testimony is accepted according to one of the two scholarly views. This is the position of Abū Hanīfa and of Ahmad according to one of the two reports from him. The grounds for accepting their testimony against him here are stronger still. Even those who do not accept their testimony rule on the basis of the defendant’s oath in a case such as this, given the evident greater plausibility of the claimant’s account