Upon me. And he has a right against the agent which the agent acknowledges; thus, by taking it, he fulfills his right from him. As for if the paid amount was a debt, he does not claim it back except from the payer alone; because his right remains in the liability of the payer, and he is not absolved of it by delivering it to someone other than the agent of the rightful owner. The amount that the agent took is, in the claim of the rightful owner, the exact property of the payer, while both the agent and the payer claim that it has become the property of the rightful owner, and that he is treating the payer unjustly by taking it from him. Thus, the payer claims back what the agent took from him, and it serves as a set-off against what the rightful owner took from him. If it was lost in the hand of the agent, he does not claim anything back from him; because he acknowledges that he is a trustee with no liability upon him, unless it is lost due to his transgression and negligence, in which case he claims it back from him.

Section: If a man comes and says: "I am the heir of the rightful owner." If he denies him, the oath is binding upon him that he does not know the truth of what he said; because the oath here is regarding the denial of the act of another, so it is an oath regarding the denial of knowledge; because if he were to confirm him, payment to him would be mandatory, so since payment is mandatory upon acknowledgement, the oath is mandatory upon denial. If he confirms him in that he is the heir of the rightful owner and that there is no other heir besides him, payment to him is mandatory, without any disagreement that we know of; because he is acknowledging the right to him, and that he is absolved by this payment, so it becomes mandatory, just as if the rightful owner had come. As for if a man comes and says: "The rightful owner has transferred his claim against you to me." If he confirms him, there are two views: One of them is that payment to him is not mandatory; because payment to him does not provide absolution, due to the possibility that the transferor might come, deny the transfer, and hold him liable; so he is similar to one claiming agency. The second is that payment to him is mandatory; because he is acknowledging that the right belongs to him and not to anyone else, so he is similar to the heir. If we say: Payment is mandatory upon acknowledgement, then the oath is mandatory upon denial. And if we say: Payment is not mandatory upon acknowledgement, then the oath is not mandatory upon denial, due to the lack of benefit in it. Similar to this is the school of al-Shafi'i.