until it is established for its claimant, and he rents it out, and preserves its rent for its owner. The third [view] is that it is surrendered to its claimant because there is no disputant over it. The position of the Shafi'i school regarding this entire section is similar to what we have mentioned.

858 - Issue: He [the author] said: (And everyone for whom we have said: the statement is his statement, then his opponent has the right to an oath from him.)

He means in this chapter and what is similar to it, such as if he says: "I have a thousand [in my possession]," then says: "[it is] a deposit," or says: "[It is] owed by me," then says: "[It is] a deposit," or says: "He has a pledge with me," and the owner says: "[It is] a deposit." Similar to this is the partner, the Mudarib (capital manager), the one who denies the claim, and when they differ regarding the value of the pledge, its quantity, or the amount of the debt for which the pledge is held, and similar cases. For everyone of whom we have said (1): the statement is his statement, the oath is due from him to his opponent, according to the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "If people were given [everything] by their claims, a group would claim the blood and wealth of others, but the oath is upon the defendant." Narrated by Muslim (2). Furthermore, because an oath is legislated in the right of one whose truthfulness has become apparent and whose position has strengthened, in order to reinforce his statement and as a means of corroboration; and the one for whom we have determined that the statement is his statement is in such a position, so it is mandatory that the oath be legislated in his right.

Section: If he acknowledges that he gave a gift and took possession of the gift, or pledged and took possession [of the pledge], or acknowledges (3) that he received the price (4) of the sold item or the rent of the leased item, then denies that and asks for his opponent to be sworn, there are two narrations regarding this. The first is that he shall not be made to take an oath; this is the position of Abu Hanifa and Muhammad; because his claim is a contradiction of his acknowledgement, so it shall not be heard, just as if the Mudarib acknowledged that he made a profit of a thousand, then said: "I erred." Also, because an acknowledgement is stronger than evidence (bayyina), and if evidence (5) had testified and he said: "Make them take an oath for me alongside their evidence," he would not be made to take an oath; thus it is here. The second [narration] is that he shall be made to take an oath; this is the position of al-Shafi'i and Abu Yusuf; because the custom is to acknowledge [receipt] before taking possession, so it is possible that what he said is true, therefore it is appropriate that his opponent be made to take an oath to negate the possibility.