850 - Issue: He said: "And whoever has something claimed against him, and he says: 'He once had a claim against me, and I have paid it,' it is not an acknowledgment."

Ibn Abi Musa reported two narrations regarding this issue: The first is that this is not an acknowledgment. The Qadi chose this and said: "I have not found a narration from Ahmad other than this." The second is that he is an acknowledger of the right, claiming he has paid it, so the burden of proof for the payment is upon him; otherwise, his opponent shall swear an oath and take [what is claimed]. Abu al-Khattab chose this, and it is the position of Abu Hanifa, because he acknowledged the debt and claimed payment, so his claim is not accepted, just as if he claimed payment in separate speech. Furthermore, he removed everything he established, so it is not accepted, like excepting the whole. There are two statements from al-Shafi'i similar to the two schools of thought. The reasoning for the position of al-Khiraqi is that it is a continuous statement, the correctness of which is possible, and there is no contradiction in it; therefore, it is mandatory that it be accepted, like excepting a part. It differs from separate speech because the ruling of the first has been established by his silence upon it, so it is not possible to remove it after it has been established. For this reason, part of it cannot be removed by an exception or otherwise. Thus, what follows it from the claim of payment is a naked claim that is not accepted unless with proof. As for excepting the whole, it is contradictory, because it is impossible for there to be a thousand against him and for there to be nothing against him.

Section: If he says: "He has one hundred against me, and I have paid him fifty of it," the discussion regarding this is like the discussion regarding when he says: "And I have paid it." If someone says to him: "I have one hundred against you," and he says: "I have paid you fifty of it," the Qadi said: "He is not an acknowledger of anything, because the fifty that he mentioned in his speech that he paid does not prevent the existence of the remainder, and it is a claim of payment, and he did not mention the rest of the hundred. His statement 'of it' admits the possibility that he means 'of what he claims' and admits the possibility of 'of what is against me.' Thus, nothing is established against him by a statement that admits possibilities. It follows from the position of those who upheld the other narration that he is liable for the fifty which he claimed to have paid, because within the claim of payment is an acknowledgment that they were against him, so the claim of payment is not accepted without proof."