Section: If they differ regarding the amount of the pledge, and one says, "I pledged this slave to you," and the other says, "Rather, it was both this [slave] and another slave," the statement is that of the pledgor; because he is a denier, and we know of no disagreement regarding this. If he says, "I pledged this slave to you," and the other says, "Rather, it was this slave girl," the slave is released from the pledge due to the pledgee's admission that he did not pledge it, and the pledgor takes an oath that he did not pledge the slave girl to him, and she is also released from the pledge. If they differ regarding the return of the pledge to the pledgor, his statement is also accepted; because he is a denier, and the original principle (asl) supports him. The ruling is the same for the lessee (musta'jir) if he claims to have returned the leased property. Abu al-Khattab said: Another opinion can be derived in both these cases, which is that the statement is that of the pledgee and the lessee regarding the return, based on the case of the silent partner (mudarib) and the paid agent (wakil bi-ju'l) if they claim return; for there are two opinions regarding them. The difference between them and the pledgee is that the pledgee took possession of the item to benefit from it, and likewise the lessee, whereas the agent took possession of the item to benefit from the fee (ju'l), not from the item, and the silent partner took possession of it to benefit from its profit, not from the item itself. If they differ regarding the destruction of the item, the statement is that of the pledgee along with his oath; because his holding is a holding of trust (amanah), and it is difficult for him to establish evidence regarding the destruction, so his statement is accepted regarding it, like the bailee (muda').

Section: If he says, "I sold you this garment, on the condition that you pledge to me for its price these two slaves of yours," and the other says, "Rather, it was on the condition that I pledge to you this one alone," there are two narrations regarding this, which the Qadi narrated. The first is that they must exchange oaths (yatahalafan), because it is a disagreement regarding the sale, and it is like a disagreement regarding the price. The second is that the statement is that of the pledgor; because he is a denier of the condition to pledge the slave about which they differed, and the statement is that of the denier. This is the more correct view.

Section: If he says, "You sent your agent, and he pledged your slave to me for twenty, which he took possession of," and the [other] says, "I did not order him to pledge it except for ten, nor did I take possession of anything but ten," the messenger is asked. If he confirms the pledgor, then the oath lies upon him that he did not pledge it except for ten and did not receive except ten, and there is no oath upon the pledgor; because the claim is against someone else. If the agent takes the oath, both are absolved. If he refuses, he is liable for the ten that are in dispute, and he has no recourse against anyone; because he confirms the pledgor that he did not take them and did not order him to take them, and it was only the pledgee who wronged him. If the agent confirms the pledgee and claims that he delivered the twenty to the pledgor, the statement is that of the pledgor along with his oath. If he refuses [to swear], judgment is passed against him for the ten, and he pays it to the pledgee; if he swears, he is absolved, and the messenger is liable for the ten to the pledgee; because he claims that it is a right due to him, and it was the pledgor who wronged him. If the messenger is absent, or it is impossible to make him swear, the oath lies upon the pledgor that he did not authorize its pledge except for ten, nor did he receive more than that, and the pledge remains for the other ten.