Islamic Fiqh > Endowments (waqf) and property > Wadi'a: the deposit of trust
Wadi'a (deposit of trust): definition, the depositary's obligations, the liability rule in case of loss, and the deposit's fate upon the depositary's death.
Contents
Updated on 31 August 2026 at 3:55 AM
The wadi'a is the deposit entrusted to another for safekeeping without compensation. The Quran commands: « Allah orders you to render trusts to their owners » (Surah an-Nisa, 58), « if one of you trusts another, let the trustee render what he was entrusted » (Surah al-Baqara, 283). The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: « The hand is answerable for what it took until it returns it » (at-Tirmidhi 1266, good hadith) and « Return the deposit to him who entrusted you, and betray not even him who betrayed you » (Abu Dawud 3534). At the emigration, Ali stayed in Mecca to return to the people the deposits of the Messenger of Allah (reported by al-Bayhaqi). Consensus on its lawfulness is reported by al-Imrani and Ibn Qudama.
Hanafis: accepting it belongs to mutual aid, recommended, never obligatory. Malikis: its status follows circumstances, obligatory when the wealth would perish without him and the custodian is capable. Shafiites detail four: recommended to one who knows himself faithful and capable; obligatory if he alone can save the wealth; disliked if he distrusts himself; forbidden if he knows himself incapable, for he would expose another's wealth. Hanbalis: recommended to the trustworthy man, forbidden to the incapable one, unless he warns the owner.
The four schools hold the deposit a benevolent contract: safekeeping is given freely per custom. Remuneration is discussed: the majority (Hanafis, Malikis, Shafiites) validate it if agreed, custom remaining gratuitous; Hanbalis keep it outside the contract, which stays benevolent, with one way admitting it.
The custodian guarantees loss only for transgression or negligence: Malikis and Shafiites make no difference between free and paid deposit; Hanafis distinguish: a paid deposit, he guarantees every avoidable damage, such as a watch stolen when it could have been secured, not a general disaster. Ibn Qudama cites Ahmad: saying « I guarantee it » does not make the custodian a guarantor, the deposit's origin being amanat.
Agreement of the four schools: whoever denies the deposit at the owner's demand then admits it, or is exposed by proof, becomes liable, his hand having left amanat. Hanafis set seven conditions, among them denial in the owner's presence, after his demand, with the property moved, it being movable and a danger to fear. Rule of proof: « the proof is upon the claimant and the oath upon the denier » (al-Bukhari 2668, Muslim 1711).