And if [the lessee] claims that the slave fled from his custody, and that the beast strayed or died, and the lessor denies it, then there are two narrations from Ahmad. One of them is that the word is the word of the lessee for the reason we have mentioned, and he owes no wage if he swears that he did not derive benefit from it, because the principle is the absence of benefit. The second is that the word is the word of the lessor, because the principle is soundness. As for if he claims that the slave became ill while in his custody, we examine: if he brings him back healthy, the word is the word of the owner, whether the slave agrees with him or disagrees. Ahmad stated this textually. If he brings him back ill, the word is the word of the lessee. This is the view of Abu Hanifa, because if he brings him back healthy, he has claimed something that contradicts the principle, and he has no proof for it (72). But if he brings him back ill, what contradicts the principle has certainly been found, so the word is his word regarding the duration of the illness, because he is more knowledgeable about that, by virtue of it being in his custody. Likewise, if he claims he fled while [the slave] was currently a fugitive, or he brings him back not having fled. Ishaq ibn Mansur reported from Ahmad that his statement is accepted regarding the flight of the slave, but not his illness. Al-Thawri and Ishaq held this view. Abu Bakr said: I hold the first view, because they are equal in the loss of his benefit, so they are equal in claiming that. If the item perishes, and they disagree regarding the time (72) of its perishing, or the slave flees, or becomes ill, and they disagree regarding the time of that, the word is the word of the lessee, because the principle is the absence of work, and because that occurred in his custody and he is more knowledgeable about it.

Section: If he hands his garment to a tailor or a fuller to sew or to full, without a contract, stipulation, or compensation with a wage, such as if he says: "Take this and work on it," and I know that you only work for a wage, and the tailor and the fuller are established for that, and they did so, then they are entitled to the wage. The companions of al-Shafi'i said: They have no wage because they did that (73) without any compensation being set for them, so it is like if they volunteered the work. To us, the custom that is current regarding that takes the place of a statement, so it becomes like the currency of the land, and like if one enters a bathhouse or sits in a boat with a boatman, and because the state of affairs necessitates it, so it becomes like compensation. But if they were not established for that, they are not entitled to any wage.