What is the ruling when the pledgor acknowledges delivery of the pledge and later denies it, claiming he admitted delivery but never actually delivered it?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Pledges (Collateral)
Primary text
When the pledgor acknowledges delivery and subsequently denies it, or when the pledgee acknowledges receipt and then denies it, the statement of the one to whom the admission was made (al-muqarr lahu) prevails. If the denier demands an oath, there are two differing views. The first view holds that the oath is not required because an acknowledgement is stronger than testimony, and if testimony were presented, the defendant would not be allowed to demand the witness's opponent swear. The second view holds that the oath is required. This latter view is the established position of Al-Shafi'i because it is customary for a person to testify to the receipt beforehand, thus accepting the claimant's defense and requiring the opponent to swear based on this custom. This latter view is considered stronger, distinguishing itself from standard testimony which does not testify to a prior right.
Supporting text
Al-Qadi stated that if the acknowledging party was absent and claimed the acknowledgement was based on a letter from his agent which later proved false, his statement is accepted, and his opponent is made to swear. If the acknowledging party personally performed the act and then retracted the admission, the opponent is not made to swear. This latter distinction is a view held by some Shafi'i scholars.