is that brokers and market criers are not held liable except for whatever they themselves transgress against or neglect. Craftsmen, on the other hand, are liable for anything that is lost while solely in their custody: if they have taken possession of an item and worked on it while the owner is absent, their claim that it was destroyed is not accepted. They must answer for every tear or defect just as they do for total loss, unless they can establish by evidence that a calamity befell them through no act, cause, or negligence of their own—in which case no liability attaches to them. Some have nonetheless maintained that even the production of such evidence does not remove their liability.

Malik’s view concerning an agent is undisputed: when he sells on behalf of another without calling witnesses and the buyer later denies the transaction, the agent’s failure to secure testimony constitutes negligence, and he is therefore liable. In my judgment the same rule applies to the market crier, and Allah knows best.

The craftsman’s word is accepted with regard to his having received the wage for his labor, and he may retain the garment as security until he has obtained his full due; in that, he has priority over other creditors. The burden of proof rests on the owner of the garment when he claims to have already paid the wage. If the craftsman alleges that he has returned the garment to the owner, the owner’s statement prevails unless the craftsman can produce evidence; failing that, the owner must take an oath.