regarding the pledgee in this matter, for he is only an agent for him in safe-keeping, so his statement is not accepted against him regarding that for which he is not an agent, just as if he had appointed a man to pay a debt, and he then claimed that he had delivered it to the creditor. Al-Sharif Abu Ja'far and Abu al-Khattab said in their books of primary issues: His statement is accepted against the pledgee for the purpose of removing liability from himself, but it is not accepted for denying liability from someone else. This is the school of Abu Hanifa, because he is a trustee, so his statement is accepted in removing liability from himself, like a depositor who claims to have returned the deposit. Accordingly, if the neutral party swears the oath, liability is removed from him, but it is not established against the pledgee that he collected it. According to the first opinion, the pledgee swears, and he (the owner/purchaser) has recourse against whomsoever he wishes of the two. If he has recourse against the neutral party, the neutral party does not have recourse against the pledgor, because he says: "He wronged me and took from me without right." Thus, he does not have recourse against the pledgor, just as if he had usurped another property from him. If he has recourse against the pledgor, does the pledgor have recourse against the neutral party? You must consider: if he delivered it to the pledgee in the presence of the pledgor or with evidence, and then the witness died or was absent, he does not have recourse against him, because he is a trustee and did not fail in the payment. If he delivered it to him without evidence in the absence of the pledgor, there are two narrations: one of them is that the pledgor has recourse against him, because he failed in the payment by not having evidence, so liability is incumbent upon him, just as if the pledge had perished due to his negligence. It is possible that this is the meaning of the statement of al-Khiraqi: "And whoever orders a man to pay money to a man, and he claims that he paid it to him, his statement is not accepted against the one who gave the order except with evidence." The second narration is that the pledgor does not have recourse against him, because he is a trustee regarding his right, whether he believes him in the payment or denies it, except that if he denies it, he is entitled to an oath from him.