denying what his opponent claimed, and he is entitled to the wage for his work, and nothing more. If the wealth is lost or destroyed, and the owner of the wealth says: "It was a loan," while the agent says: "It was a Qirad or a consignment (bida'a)," then the statement is that of the owner of the wealth.

Section: If the Mudarib (agent) stipulates sustenance, then later claims that he spent from his own wealth and desires to be reimbursed, he is entitled to that, whether the wealth is still in his hands or has already returned to its owner. Abu Hanifa held this view if the wealth is still in his hands, but stated that he is not entitled to it if it is after he has returned it. Our position is that he is a trustee, so his statement regarding this is accepted, just as if it were still in his hands, and just as the executor (wasi) is when he claims to have spent on the orphan.

Section: If there is a slave owned by two men, and one of them sells him by the order of the other for one thousand, and says: "I have not received his price," while the buyer claims that he did receive it, and the one who did not sell confirms this, the buyer is absolved of half the price due to the partner of the seller acknowledging that his agent received his right; thus the buyer is absolved of it, just as if he had acknowledged that he received it himself. The dispute remains between the seller, his partner, and the buyer. If his partner disputes with him, claiming against him: "You received my share of the price," and he denies it, then his statement is accepted along with his oath if the claimant has no evidence. If he has evidence, judgment is passed against him based on it, and the testimony of the buyer for him is not accepted, because he brings a benefit to himself through it. If the seller disputes with the buyer, and the buyer claims that he paid the price to him, and the seller denies it, the statement is that of the seller along with his oath, because he is the denier. Once he takes the oath, he takes half the price from the buyer, and his partner does not share it with him, because he is acknowledging that he is taking it unjustly, so he does not deserve to share it with him. If the buyer has evidence, judgment is passed based on it, and the testimony of his [the seller's] partner against him is not accepted, because he brings a benefit to himself through it. Anyone who testifies with a testimony that brings a benefit to himself, his testimony is invalidated in its entirety, and there is no difference between the partner's dispute occurring before the buyer's dispute or after it. If the buyer claims that the seller's partner received the price from him, and the seller confirms this, you examine: if the seller had authorized his partner to receive it, then it is like the preceding case. If he had not authorized him to receive it, the liability of the buyer for any part of the price is not discharged; because the seller did not appoint him as an agent for receipt, so his receipt of it is not binding, and the buyer is not discharged from it, just as if he had paid it to a stranger.