If we suppose that Zayd took the payment from Amr, Amr may then seek recourse against Abdullah, who claimed to be the agent, because he took it from him.

If Zayd claims that he did not receive his due from Amr and produces evidence—whether witnesses or a court document—then Amr is required to pay, because Zayd is the holder of the right and may receive it personally or through his agent. Thus, if he produces proof, we say: you are obliged to pay.

His statement, “Nor is an oath required if he considers him untruthful,” means that Amr is likewise not required to swear an oath if he declares the claimant of agency—namely Abdullah—to be lying. Thus, when Abdullah comes to Amr and says, “Zayd appointed me as his agent to collect his due from you,” and Amr replies, “You are lying,” he is not required to swear that the claimant of agency is lying. This is because an oath is only required of one who, if he refuses to swear, may have judgment rendered against him. Were Amr to refuse and say, “I will not swear,” the judge would not tell him, “Then you are liable for the payment,” since we have already established that he is not required to hand it over even if he believes him.

Thus, there are two cases:

The first: Abdullah claims that Zayd appointed him as his agent to collect his due from Amr, and Amr says, “You are telling the truth, but I will not hand it over to you.” This is valid.

The second: Abdullah claims that Zayd appointed him as his agent to collect his due from Amr, and Amr says, “You are lying, and I do not believe you. Produce evidence; otherwise, you are not truthful.” In this case, he is not required to hand over the payment.