they agreed on the permission but disagreed on its nature, so the statement is that of the person granted permission, like the mudarib (speculative investor) if he says: "You permitted me to sell on credit." Also, because they agreed on the tailor's ownership of the right to cut and the dyer's ownership of the right to dye, and the appearance is that he performed what he owned, and they disagreed on the obligation of liability for him, and the default is its absence. Accordingly, the tailor and the dyer take an oath by Allah that "you permitted me to cut it into a qaba' and dye it red." The liability is lifted from him, and he is entitled to the wage of an equivalent (ujrat al-mithl); because it is established that he performed the act for which permission was granted in exchange for compensation, yet he is not entitled to the named wage, because the named wage was established by his own statement and claim, so he does not commit perjury with his oath. Furthermore, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "If people were given based on their claims, a group would claim the blood and wealth of others, but the oath is upon the defendant." Reported by Muslim. As for the named wage in the contract, the owner of the garment only acknowledges it as a wage for cutting it into a shirt and dyeing it black. As for those who say the statement is that of the owner of the garment, he takes an oath by Allah: "I did not permit cutting it into a qaba' nor dyeing it red." The named wage is lifted from him, and nothing is due to the tailor or dyer, because they performed something other than what they were permitted to do. Ibn Abi Musa mentioned, on the authority of Ahmad, another narration: that if the owner of the garment is not among those who wear qabas and the color red, then his statement is accepted, and the artisan bears the liability for what was lost due to the cutting and the guarantee for what he ruined, and he is entitled to no wage; because the circumstantial evidence of the owner of the garment indicates his truthfulness, so his claim is bolstered by them, just as if they disagreed regarding a wall between them upon which there is a binding or a roof, we would favor his claim due to that. If spouses disagree regarding household items, we favor the claim of each of them regarding what is appropriate for him/her. And if two artisans disagree regarding the tools in their shop, we favor the statement of each of them regarding the tools of his profession.