the rider, so he takes an oath regarding what he claims. If what the owner claims is more—for instance, if the value of the beast is greater than its rent, and the owner claims it was a loan, for which he would be entitled to the value, and denies the entitlement to the rent, while the rider claims it was leased; or if the rent is more than its value, and the owner claims he leased it, for which he would be entitled to the rent, and the rider claims it was a loan—the statement is that of the owner in both cases, for the reason we have already presented. Thus, when he takes an oath, he is entitled to what he swore to. The school of al-Shafi'i regarding all of this is similar to what we have mentioned.

Section: If the owner says, "You usurped it," and the rider says, "Rather, you lent it to me," if the disagreement occurs immediately after the contract and the beast is still intact and nothing of it has been destroyed, there is no significance to the disagreement, and the owner takes back his beast. The same applies if the beast is destroyed, because the value is mandatory for the borrower, just as it is mandatory for the usurper. If the disagreement is after the passage of a period for which there is a standard rent, then the disagreement is over the obligation of that [rent], and the statement is that of the owner. This is the apparent view of al-Shafi'i. Al-Muzani narrated from him that the statement is that of the rider; because the owner is claiming a compensation from him, and the original principle is the innocence of his liability from it, and because the outward appearance of possession is that it is by right, so the statement is that of its possessor. Our evidence is what we have presented in the chapter prior to this one. In fact, this case is even more appropriate, because in the former case, they agreed that the benefits were the property of the rider, whereas here they do not agree on that; for the owner denies the transfer of ownership of the benefits to the rider, and the rider claims it, and the statement is that of the denier, because the original principle is the absence of transfer, so he takes an oath and is entitled to the rent. If the owner says, "You usurped it," and the rider says, "You leased it to me," then the disagreement here is over the obligation of the value, because the rent is mandatory in both positions, unless there is a discrepancy between the specified amount and the standard rent. The statement is that of the owner along with his oath. If the beast was destroyed immediately after he took it, he takes an oath and takes its value. If it