with regard to hired property, but not deposits or investment capital, according to the interpretation of Ibn al-Qāsim’s position.

The fourth is to distinguish deposits from investment capital and hired property: his claim concerning a deposit is not accepted if it was handed over to him before witnesses, whereas his claim to have returned hired property or investment capital is accepted even if it was handed over to him before witnesses. This is because the purpose of having witnesses may have been to establish proof of the hire agreement or the agreed share of the investment profits, rather than to secure proof concerning the hired item itself or the investment capital. And Allah grants success.

Section

The foregoing concerns someone who returns entrusted property to the person who entrusted it to him. As for someone who hands it over to another person, he must have the transfer witnessed, just as an orphan’s guardian must. Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, says:

“When you hand over their property to them, have witnesses present.” [al-Nisā’: 6]

If he does not have witnesses, his claim to have handed it over is not accepted if the recipient denies receiving it. I recall no explicit statement of disagreement on this point, except Ibn al-Mājishūn’s view concerning someone who sends a consignment with one man to another: the messenger is not required to have its delivery witnessed, and his statement is accepted—even if the recipient denies receiving it—whether it was sent in payment of a debt or as a gift.

Ibn al-Qāsim could also adopt the same view by applying the reasoning underlying the case of the pearl in the Book of Agency. That case entails establishing a liability—namely, the principal’s liability—on the strength of the agent’s statement: “I have carried out your instruction to make the payment.” If his statement, “I have carried out your instruction to make the purchase,” must establish that liability, then it must follow