In the Arabic language this is called, ‘The Principle of Ihsan’ - of doing good. While people are held liable for any damage they cause, consequential damage that results from legitimate efforts to save others - for example, the lives of those caught in a fire - do not incur liability.

Similarly, if conditions become so extreme that the lives of passengers and crew are endangered - and the ship's captain is obliged to order items of surplus weight to be jettisoned - he is not liable for losses that result from that 'good action' he is obliged to order out of necessity.

The Basis Of This Principle

From The Qur'an

“Those who undertake good actions do not incur in blame” (Surah At-Tawba, 9:91).

The above ayah was revealed to the Prophet (S) when, en-route to the battle of Tabuk, some who accompanied him reported that they had no equipment with which to participate in military action. When they learned that he had nothing to provide them with they are reported to have departed in tears.

The first part of the above ayah reads, 'There is no blame on the weak, the sick, or those without funds, if such descriptions accurately reflect their condition.'

Further, all fuqaha agree that the ayat that deal with specific cases also operate as general rulings. Thus, exemption from blame or liability, at times of good faith and good intention, is not restricted to jihad alone but applicable as a general ruling.

The phraseology of the above ayah, 'Those who undertake good actions', applies to a wide range of activities and covers those who seek to benefit or protect others financially, physically or morally. Negation of blame includes exemption from liability for damages, in addition to exemption from accountability on 'The Last Day'.

Common Usage

It is reasonable and just to 'return a favour' and to treat those who have acted in 'good faith' with similar appreciation and 'good faith'. For example, those who are stirred to save the property of others from fire, pillage or flood - by lodging them in safe and secure premises - are not held liable for any subsequent damage to that property. It would be wholly unreasonable to seek compensation from those who have sincerely attempted to save your property.

To discuss liability for damage we need to distinguish between honesty, trustworthiness and circumspection on the one hand, and dishonesty, intention to cheat, and lack of care on the other. If one leaves an envelope or box of jewellery in the care of another - who takes all precautionary measures to protect those effects - they are not held liable for any loss or damage that inadvertently occurs while those effects remain in their possession.

However, if they neglect to take the same reasonable precautions as they do for their own property, they are held liable for any compensation that might be claimed.

Even in circumstances in which an item left in the care of another is moved by them to a safer location - despite the owner's objections to this being done - liability is not incurred for any consequential damage on the basis of the ayah, 'Those who undertake good actions do not incur blame.'

Consensus

All jurists accept this principle and do not hold liable for consequential damages those who have acted with good intent. For example, refer to1.

Points For Debate

Even though the rulings on this subject are clear, we need to explore examples that include areas for debate, for example:

• Valuables are left in the care of a person who safeguarded them with the same level of security as he did his own valuables. When he travelled he did so in the firm belief that he had taken every reasonable precaution to safeguard the items left in his trust.

However, in his absence a thief gained access to his safe and stole everything lodged therein. In these circumstances he should not, according to this principle, be held liable to compensate the owner. However, it might be argued that the items left in trust would have been better protected if they had been temporarily deposited in a facility that maintains regular security checks.

It is important to clarify that the points of liability to be discussed only concern the two parties involved and that, for this purpose, matters concerning insurance policy conditions are not relevant.

• It is the considered opinion of an 'investment manager' that - in the light of impending improvements to market conditions - a client's capital should be immediately invested. Unfortunately for this 'investment manager', the market unexpectedly moves in the opposite direction and a loss is suffered.

In their deliberations, Islamic jurists make distinction between financial investors and 'guardians' appointed to oversee a minor's funds. For the latter they presume guardians will make every effort to safeguard and advance a minor's interests. However, in financial investment issues juridical judgements are based upon the terms and conditions agreed by the parties to the contract.

• Assume that two routes to a destination are available, one longer but considered safe, the other shorter but considered riskier. If a transport company, in the light of reliable current information and with the best of possible commercial motives, decides to take the shorter, riskier route, is he to be held liable for consequential loss?

• 1. Shaykh Muhammad Hasan al-Najafi in Jawahir al-Kalam, Vol. 27, p. 147.