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...