by Asbagh as distinguishing between profit-sharing investment capital (qirād) and deposits, on the one hand, and hired goods, on the other, when a claim of return is made after receipt before witnesses. A statement from Ibn al-Qāsim recorded in al-Nawādir appears to agree with Asbagh’s interpretation of his position. The correct view, however, is that there is no distinction between these cases. If someone is believed when he claims to have returned hired property, even though he received it before witnesses, he has even greater grounds to be believed concerning a deposit: he received the latter solely for its owner’s benefit, whereas he received the hired property for their mutual benefit. Likewise, he received the investment capital for their mutual benefit, so there is no distinction between it and hired goods. Indeed, there are even stronger grounds for not accepting his claim concerning investment capital, since some scholars hold him liable when he claims that it was lost or destroyed unless he produces evidence of that loss or destruction, as with pledged and borrowed property. Al-Shāfiʿī adopted the view that a depositary is believed concerning the return of a deposit, whether it was handed over to him before witnesses or without witnesses.

There might have been grounds for distinguishing between deposits and hired property: when the handing over of hired property is witnessed, the purpose may be to establish proof of the hire agreement rather than to secure proof concerning the hired item itself. Yet this distinction breaks down when tested against investment capital, since there is no difference between investment capital and hired property with regard to a claim of return. Thus, four positions emerge on this question:

The first, which is the well-known position, is that his claim of return is not accepted if the property was handed over to him before witnesses, whether it was a deposit, investment capital or hired property.

The second is that he is believed in all these cases, even if the property was handed over to him before witnesses. This follows from Asbagh’s report concerning a claim to have returned hired property. If his claim of return is accepted despite witnesses to the handing over of hired property, which he received for their mutual benefit, then there are even stronger grounds for accepting his claim concerning a deposit, which he received solely for its owner’s benefit. Hired property is also comparable to investment capital, which he received for their mutual benefit.

The third is Asbagh’s distinction between hired property, on the one hand, and investment capital and deposits, on the other, so he is believed