so his word is accepted, like the first. The second is that his word is not accepted; because he received the property for his own benefit, so his word regarding the return is not accepted, like the borrower. It is the same whether they differ regarding the return of the specific item or the return of its price. The totality of trustees (umana') are of two types. The first is he who received the property for the benefit of its owner only, such as the depositary and the agent without a fee; their word is accepted regarding the return, because if their word were not accepted, people would refrain from accepting these trusts, and harm would befall the people. The second is he who benefits from receiving the trust, such as the agent with a fee, the mudarib, the shared worker (al-ajir al-mushtarak), the lessee, and the pledgee. There are two views regarding them, which Abu al-Khattab mentioned. Al-Qadi said: "The word of the pledgee, the lessee, and the mudarib is not accepted regarding the return; because Ahmad stated this explicitly concerning the mudarib, in the narration of Ibn Mansur, and because whoever receives property for his own benefit, his word is not accepted regarding the return." If the agent denies receiving the property, then it is proven by evidence or confession, and he then claims the return or that it perished, his word is not accepted; because his treachery (khiyanah) has been established by his denial. If he produces evidence for what he claimed of return or destruction, is his evidence accepted? There are two views; one is that it is not accepted, because he falsified it by his denial, for his saying "I did not receive" implies that he did not return anything. The second is: it is accepted, because he is claiming return and destruction before the existence of his treachery. If his denial was "You are not entitled to anything from me," or "You have nothing of yours with me," his word is heard along with his oath, because his answer does not falsify that; for if it had perished or been returned, then he has nothing of his with him. Thus, there is no contradiction between the two statements, unless he claims that he returned it or it perished after his statement: "You have nothing of yours with me." Then his word is not heard either, due to the establishment of his lying and treachery.

The fifth scenario is when they differ regarding the origin of the agency. He says: "You appointed me," and the principal denies it. The word is that of the principal, because the origin is the absence of agency, so he has not established that he is his trustee for his word to be accepted against him. And if...