town and, after depositing it with someone else, it was lost. If he re-deposited it because he intended to travel, he is not liable; the same applies when his house is exposed and he fears a burglary. Any circumstance of that sort which constitutes a reasonable excuse removes liability. But when no such excuse exists, he must make good the loss.
If he does fear that his dwelling is unsafe, there is no objection to his moving the deposit elsewhere and leaving it with a person he trusts.
Whoever is entrusted with a vessel that subsequently slips, falls, and breaks is not liable. Yet if it falls from his hand onto another object and breaks that object, he is liable according to Mālik and his colleagues, although other scholars dissent.
If the custodian hands the deposit to members of his household—his wife, daughter, son, female slave, or any relative who normally looks after his belongings—he bears no liability should it be lost. Handing it to anyone outside that circle, however, renders him liable.
When a person mixes the deposit with his own property so that it is no longer distinguishable, reports from Mālik differ: at one time he held the custodian liable, at another he did not. The settled view is as follows: if he mixes it with identical items—dinars with dinars of the same type, or dirhams with dirhams—he is not liable. Should part of the mixture survive while part is lost, the loss is apportioned between them in proportion to their shares. If, however, he mixes it with goods of a different kind and some of that mixed property perishes, the loss falls on the owner of the item that perished, and the custodian is not liable.
If he was entrusted with dinars and mixed them with dirhams, or with dirhams and mixed them with dinars, and they were lost, he is not liable; this is not regarded as the kind of prohibited commingling.
Likewise, whoever is given wheat and mixes it with wheat identical in variety and quality is not liable, and the same ruling applies to every grain when it is mixed with its own kind. But if he mixes wheat with barley, or with another grain that differs in type and description, he is liable. This situation is not analogous to the case of dinars.