or if the bread is burned in the baker’s oven, or a patient dies while under a physician’s care, the same applying to a veterinarian—unless it is known that he exceeded proper limits, in which case he becomes liable.

As for the physician and those in comparable professions: should he err in his treatment while being duly qualified, no liability for the life itself rests upon him; any blood money exceeding one-third is borne by the ʿāqilah, while anything less than one-third comes out of his own property. If he is not qualified, he is subject to flogging and imprisonment, and the blood money is due—some hold that it is taken from his personal wealth, while others hold that it is upon the ʿāqilah.

SECTION THREE
Determining the Ruling When the Parties Differ

This section concerns the scrutiny of disputes, and within it are several issues:

One of them: what happens when the craftsman and the owner of the article differ over the quality of the workmanship? Abū Ḥanīfah says the owner’s statement prevails, whereas Mālik and Ibn Abī Laylā hold that the craftsman’s statement prevails. The source of the disagreement lies in identifying which of the two is the claimant and which the defendant.

Another issue: if the artisans claim that they have returned the item that was entrusted to them and the depositor denies it. According to Mālik, the depositor’s word is accepted and the burden of proof falls on the artisans, because they were liable for what was in their hands. Ibn al-Mājishūn, however, says the artisans’ word is accepted if the item was handed over to them without witnesses; but if it was delivered with witnesses, they are not cleared except by producing witnesses.

When the craftsman and the owner differ over payment of the wage, the well-known position in the school is that the craftsman’s statement, supported by his oath, is accepted if the dispute is recent; but if considerable time has passed, the owner’s statement prevails. The same applies when the lessor and lessee differ. Others contend that the craftsman’s statement—and likewise that of the lessor—prevails even after a long interval, and this is the basic rule.

If the lessor and lessee, or the hired worker and the employer, disagree about the length of time during which the benefit was actually taken, while agreeing that it was not enjoyed for the entire period stipulated, the well-known view in the school is that the lessee’s or employer’s word is accepted, for he is the party bearing liability; the general principle is that the defendant’s statement prevails. Ibn al-Mājishūn says the lessee’s word prevails when the thing from which the benefit is drawn is in his possession, such as a house; but when it is not, as with a labourer, the labourer’s word prevails.

Among the well-known issues of the school in this chapter is the disagreement between the two parties to a hiring contract for riding beasts and mounts. Their dispute may concern the distance, its type, the fare, or its type. If their disagreement is over the type of distance or the type of fare, they must each swear an oath and the contract is annulled, just as when two parties to a sale differ over the kind of price. Ibn al-Qāsim maintained that this applies whether the contract has become binding or not; others said that once the contract is binding the owner of the animal is to be believed, provided what he asserts is plausible.