And it is upon the bailee if he claims the loss or the return of the item. Furthermore, it is a contract that is not dissolved by exchanging oaths, so it is not prescribed in it, like the pardon for the blood of intentional homicide. Moreover, the opinion of exchanging oaths leads to obligating more than what she claims, or less than what he admits to her. For if her dowry of the peer is one hundred, and she claims eighty, while he says, 'Rather, it is fifty,' then he would be obligating twenty that they both agree [is not obligatory. And if she claimed two hundred, and he said, 'Rather, it is one hundred and fifty,' while her dowry of the peer is one hundred, he would be obligating one hundred, and thus dropping fifty that they both agree] is obligatory. Furthermore, if the dowry of the peer does not match the claim of either of them, it is not permissible to obligate it, because they agree that it is other than what the contract obligated. If it matches the statement of one of them, then there is no need in obligating it for the oath of the one who denies it, because it does not affect its obligation. It differs from a sale, for it is dissolved by exchanging oaths, and each one of them returns to his property. What Malik claimed—that she trusted him—is not correct; for she did not make him her trustee. And if he were a trustee for her, it would be necessary that she be a trustee for him, given that he did not have her witnessed; although difference does not necessitate a lack of witnessing, as there may have been evidence between them, and then it dies, or disappears, or the testimony is forgotten. When this is established, then everyone of whom we have said that the statement is his statement, it is with his oath, because it is a difference regarding what it is permissible to give away, so the oath is prescribed for it, like all other claims regarding property. It was reported from the Qadi that the oath is not prescribed in all circumstances, because it is a claim in a marriage.

Section: If she claims less than the dowry of the peer, and she claims more than it, it is returned to the dowry of the peer. Our companions did not mention an oath. The most appropriate is that they exchange oaths; for what each one of them says is probable of being correct, so it should not be deviated from except by an oath from the other party, like the denier in all other claims. And because they are equal in the absence of obvious proof, the exchange of oaths is prescribed, just as if the buyer and seller differed. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah, and the others are upon their principles.

Section: If he said, 'I married you for this slave,' and she said, 'Rather, for this slave-girl,' and...