that they mentioned is invalidated by this issue. Furthermore, since they agreed that the benefits do not transfer to the rider except by the owner transferring them to him, his statement is accepted regarding the manner of the transfer, just as with physical objects; thus, the owner takes an oath and is entitled to the rent. Regarding its amount, there are two views: one is the standard rent (ajr al-mithl), because if they agreed on its obligation but differed on its amount, the standard rent would be mandatory, so it is even more appropriate in the case of a disagreement over its origin. The second is the specified amount, because it became mandatory due to the owner's statement and his oath, so what he swore to becomes mandatory, just like the original. If their disagreement occurs during the term, the statement is that of the rider regarding what has passed (59), and the statement is that of the borrower (musta'ir) regarding what remains; [because what remains] (60) is in the same status as if they had disagreed immediately after the contract. If the owner claims in this scenario that it is a loan (ariya) and the rider claims that it is for rent, the rider claims entitlement to the benefits and acknowledges the rent to the owner, while the owner denies all of that; therefore, the statement is his (the owner's) along with his oath, and he takes his beast. If they disagree on that after the destruction of the beast, before a period has passed for which there is a standard rent, the statement is that of the owner, whether he claims lease or loan; for if he claims lease, he is acknowledging to the rider that the rider is free from liability for its destruction, and his admission is accepted against himself. If he claims loan, he is claiming its value, and his statement is accepted; because they disagreed on the nature of the possession, and the principle regarding what a person takes from another's wealth is liability (daman), due to the Prophet's (peace be upon him) saying: "The hand is responsible for what it has taken until it returns it." So if the owner takes an oath, he is entitled to the value, and the statement regarding its amount is that of the rider along with his oath; because he denies the excess that is disputed, and the principle is its absence. If they disagree on that after a period has passed for which there is a standard rent, and the beast has been destroyed, and the rent is equal to its value, or if what the owner claims is less than what the rider acknowledges, the statement is that of the owner without an oath, whether he claims lease or loan, since there is no benefit in an oath regarding something he acknowledges for him. It is possible that he does not take it except with an oath, because he is claiming something he is not believed in, and the rider acknowledges for him what he claims, so he takes an oath regarding what he claims.