the loss falls upon the person who gave the instruction. Some interpreters—I believe al-Fadl ibn Salama was among them—have distinguished between the two cases. On that interpretation, there are three views on the issue as a whole:

First: the person who handed over the property is discharged by the recipient’s confirmation, whether the recipient received it in trust or on terms entailing personal liability.

Second: the person who handed it over is not discharged by the recipient’s confirmation, whether the recipient received it in trust or on terms entailing personal liability while financially ruined.

Third: the person who handed it over is discharged by the recipient’s confirmation if the recipient received it on terms entailing personal liability, even if financially ruined, but not if he received it in trust.

Section

All these distinctions concern the transfer of entrusted property. As for payment of an established debt, it must be made either on terms entailing personal liability or in trust.

If it is paid to someone who receives it in trust, the payer is not discharged by the recipient’s confirmation when the latter claims that it was lost. He is discharged only by producing testimony from witnesses who saw the payment being made, or by the recipient producing the property. This is expressly stated in al-Mudawwana. I know of no disagreement concerning this case, unless the disagreement concerning entrusted property is extended to it by analogy. Likewise, the payer’s statement is not accepted if the recipient denies receipt, although a difference of opinion might be extended to this case by drawing on the reasoning underlying the previously mentioned case of the pearl.

The disagreement concerns only whether, once the payer has had to pay the sum again, he may recover it from the recipient who received it from him and claimed that it was lost. Mutarrif said that he may recover it, because the recipient neglected to deliver it to the person who had appointed him, until it was lost while in his possession. Ibn al-Mājishūn said that he may recover nothing from him unless it becomes evident that the recipient was negligent and exposed what he received to loss.

This applies when the agency is established by testimony or by the principal’s acknowledgment. If, however, the recipient claims to have been appointed as an agent and the principal denies it, one view is that the principal’s statement is accepted: he swears that he never appointed him to act in any matter, and liability is imposed. According to another view, the statement to be accepted is that of