its delivery to them was witnessed, even though their claims of loss are not accepted. He denied that Mālik had said that their claims to have returned it are not accepted. Yet the established, well-known position of Mālik and all his followers, Ibn al-Qāsim and others, is that their claims to have returned it are not accepted, just as their claims of loss are not accepted. Ibn al-Mājishūn himself also stated this elsewhere. In the Book of Deposits, Abū Zayd related from Ibn al-Qāsim a statement indicating that a pledge-holder’s claim to have returned pledged property is accepted if he received it without witnesses, as with a deposit. This, however, is far-fetched.

Section

If an artisan claims that an item entrusted to him for work has been lost, he is liable for its value on the day it was delivered to him, based on what is known of its condition at that time. An exception is where he acknowledges that its value on the day it was lost exceeded its value on the day it was delivered to him: he is then liable for its value on the day he says it perished. Another exception is where the item is seen in the artisan’s possession some time after its delivery: he is then liable for its value on the day it was seen in his possession, according to the testimony concerning its value that day, even if that value was less than its value on the day it was delivered to him. The same applies to pledged and borrowed property.

A passage in the Book of Pledges, in the material transmitted by ‘Īsā, states that if pledged property perishes while in the pledge-holder’s possession, he is liable for its value on the day it was lost. My interpretation is that this applies where it was seen in his possession at the time he claims it perished. Its value on the day it was lost may be less than its value on the day it was pledged to him. If it has not been seen in his possession since it was pledged to him, his statement concerning when it perished is no more accepted than his claim that it perished. He must therefore pay its value on the day it was pledged to him, based on what is known of its condition at that time and on the description he acknowledges under oath.

The senior scholars have interpreted the statement in the report, “He must pay the value of the pledged property on the day it was lost,” as applying where its value on the day it was pledged is unknown. He would then pay its value on the day it was lost, based on the description he acknowledges under oath. This interpretation is far-fetched. Our first interpretation is the correct one, and it is supported by the statements of Ibn al-Qāsim and Asbagh in the material transmitted by Asbagh in the Book of Deposits.

Section

If, when the artisan claims that the cloth has perished, its owner wishes to pay him his fee for the work