Achieving the Right in the Deposit - A Comparative Jurisprudential Study

Our research entitled (Achieving the Right in the Deposit - A Comparative Jurisprudential Study) deals with an important issue in our daily life that is included in the transactions section, namely the deposit. As a Muslim may deposit his money with someone in order to preserve it, but when the term comes, he does not return it to him - as Allah commanded -, but he denies it and denies it. And the depositor does not have witnesses or documents to prove what he says to the judge in order to recover his money, and accordingly, if the depositor falls - one day - the money of the denier, is it permissible for him to win his right or not? , Here the scholars did not agree on a single opinion. And my scientific approach in solving this issue first is to refer to the main books of jurisprudence, especially the books of the four schools of thought, I mean the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi’is, and Hanbalis, to verify what they say and what they differ in that issue and what their evidence is Secondly, we saw that the difference is in an important aspect related to the validity and weakness of the narrated hadith: ((Pay the trust to the one who entrusted you and do not betray the one who betrayed you)), and in the end we reached a conclusion, which is the validity of this hadith of the Prophet, due to its many ways, and the hadith is strengthened by it - as we indicated in weighting-,Then, after that, we saw that the scholars differed in interpreting and analyzing this hadith, and the one who narrated our thirst in its interpretation and analysis is that what is meant by (and do not betray the one who betrays you) is the one who takes his due from the ungrateful more and more than it should be. not whoever wins his right equal; Because it is inconceivable and illogical to attribute a person to treason while he is the one who won his right and took his money and his right from the unjust denier! , On the other hand, we have come to another conclusion, which is that whoever takes the value instead of the homosexual is permissible with a condition when the homosexual is lost, and in the end we see that he has the right to do all that to reach his right, provided that he does not commit immorality, or is attributed to theft, or sent to prison, and so on. Types of harm.