What is the ruling when the animal is destroyed before any rent period has passed, and the parties dispute whether the contract was a lease or a loan for use?

Primary text

The statement of the owner prevails, regardless of whether they claim it was a lease or a loan for use. If the owner claims a lease, they admit the rider is exempt from liability for the animal's value, and their admission against themselves is accepted. If they claim a loan for use, they are claiming its value, so their statement prevails because the dispute is over the manner of possession, and the default principle for anything taken from another's property is liability, based on the saying of the Prophet, peace be upon him: 'The hand is liable for what it takes until it returns it.' If the owner swears, they are entitled to the value.