of the messenger; because he deceived him and took the dinar on the basis that he was an agent for the sender. If he collects from him the dirhams he was ordered to collect, and they are lost by the messenger, they are at the risk of the creditor; because they perished in the hands of his agent. Ahmad said, in the narration of Muhanna, regarding a man who has dinars and garments with another, so he sent a messenger to him, and said: "Take a dinar and a garment." He took two dinars and two garments, and they were lost; the liability is on the sender (the one who gave him the two dinars and two garments), and he recovers it from the messenger. Meaning, the liability for the extra dinar and garment is upon him; liability was placed upon him because he paid them to one who was not ordered to be paid them, and he recovers them from the messenger; because he deceived him, and the loss occurred in his hands, so the liability is established upon him. The principal may hold the agent liable; because he transgressed by collecting what he was not ordered to collect. If he holds him liable, he does not recover from anyone; because the loss occurred in his hands, so the liability is settled upon him. Ahmad said, regarding a man who appointed an agent to collect his debt, and he was absent, so the agent took a pledge (rahn) for it, and the pledge was lost in the agent's hands, he said: The agent did wrong in taking the pledge, but there is no liability upon him. He only did not hold him liable because it is an invalid pledge, and taking possession in a corrupt contract is like taking possession in a valid one; so whatever possession was liable in its valid state is liable in its corrupt state, and whatever was not liable in its valid state is not liable in its corrupt state. Al-Baghawi narrated from Ahmad, regarding a man who gave another dirhams to buy a sheep for him, and he mixed them with his own dirhams, and they were both lost, then nothing is upon him. If one of them is lost, whichever one is lost, he is liable for it. Al-Qadi said: This is interpreted as meaning that he mixed them in a way that they could be distinguished from one another. It is possible that he gave him permission to mix them. [However, if he mixes them] with that from which they cannot be distinguished without his permission, he is liable for them, like a deposit. He only becomes liable if one of them is lost, because he does not know that what was lost is the principal's dirhams, and the default assumption is their remaining. The meaning of liability here is that he counts the lost amount from his own dirhams. As for the other interpretation, which is when he mixes them with that from which they can be distinguished, then if the principal's dirhams alone are lost, there is no liability upon him; because they were lost without any transgression on his part.

843- Issue: He said: "And if he ordered him to pay money to a man, and he claimed that he had paid it to him, his statement is not accepted against the orderer except with evidence."

Its summary is that if a man appoints an agent to pay his debt, and gives him money to pay it to him, and the agent claims payment of the debt and payment of the money to the creditor, his statement is not accepted against the creditor except with evidence; because he is not his trusted person (amin), so his statement against him regarding the payment is not accepted, just as if the principal had claimed that. If the creditor takes an oath, he has the right to demand payment from the principal; because his liability is not absolved by paying the money to his agent. If he pays it, does the principal have the right to recourse against his agent? It is looked into: if he claims that he paid the debt without evidence, the principal has [the right of recourse against him if he paid it in the principal's absence]. Al-Qadi said: This applies whether he confirms him that he paid the right or denies it. This is the view of al-Shafi'i; because he permitted him to make a payment that would absolve him, and it was not found. From Ahmad, there is another narration: He does not recover anything from him, unless he had ordered him to call for witnesses and he did not do so. According to this narration, if the principal confirms him regarding the payment, he does not recover anything from him, and if he denies him, the statement is the agent's statement along with his oath. This is the view of Abu Hanifa, and a view held by the followers of al-Shafi'i; because he claimed the performance of what his principal ordered him to do, so the statement is his statement, just as if he ordered him to sell his garment, and he claimed that he sold it. The view of the first [group] is that he was negligent by omitting to call for witnesses, so he is liable, as if he were negligent in selling for less than the market price. If it is said: Why did he not order him to call for witnesses? We say: The absolute command to pay implies that; because it is not established except through it, so it becomes like his command to sell and buy, as is implied by custom, not by generality. It is thus here. And the analogy of the other view makes it possible to adopt its requirements, which is that his statement is accepted regarding the payment, but...