the property itself for his own benefit, his statement that he returned it is not accepted.” If the benefit is for the owner of the property rather than for the one in whose possession it is, is his statement that he returned it accepted? Yes, it is accepted. An example is a deposit: a man deposits something with another person, then comes to reclaim it. The depositary says, “I have returned it to you.” In this case, the depositary’s statement is accepted, because he took possession of the property solely for the benefit of its owner; he is like the owner’s agent in safeguarding it.

But if the benefit is shared by both of them, as in the case of leased property, then the leased property is in the lessee’s possession for his own benefit and for the benefit of its owner. It is for the lessee’s benefit so that he may receive the use for which the contract was concluded, and for the owner’s benefit because of the agreed rent. Should we say that the lessee’s statement is accepted, or that the lessor’s statement is accepted? The jurists—may Allah have mercy on them—give precedence to the side of caution. They say: if the property is in a person’s possession for the benefit of both parties, and he claims to have returned it, his statement is not accepted unless he produces evidence.

The apparent meaning of their words here is that there is no distinction between a man known for truthfulness, trustworthiness, and careful preservation, and a man known for lying, dishonesty, and forgetfulness. Yet it may be said that the surrounding indications must first be considered. If there is no indication, then the ruling is as the jurists—may Allah have mercy on them—have held. But where an indication exists, one should not say that the owner’s statement is accepted, or that the statement of the one in whose possession it is is accepted. Rather, the matter should be referred to what the indication entails. This is closer to what is correct, because the indications of circumstances are evidences equivalent to proof.

Thus, if someone lends an item to a trustworthy, truthful, and careful man, then comes to reclaim it, and the borrower says, “I returned it to you,” while the lender says, “You did not return it to me,” and the lender is known to be forgetful, then it is not proper for us to say that the lender’s statement is accepted, because this person