Within the claim of payment is an acknowledgment that they were against him, so the claim of payment is not accepted without proof.

Section: If he says, "He had a thousand against me," and remains silent, the thousand becomes binding upon him according to the manifest view of our companions. This is the position of Abu Hanifa and one of the two statements from al-Shafi'i. In the other statement, he said: Nothing becomes binding upon him, and this is not an acknowledgment because he did not mention that anything was against him at the present time; he only informed of that [in a time] that has passed, so it is not established in the present. Therefore, if witnesses were to testify to it, it would not be established. Our argument is that he acknowledged the obligation without mentioning anything that would remove it, so it remains as it was. For this reason, if two people dispute over a house, and one of them acknowledges to the other that it was his property, it is judged as belonging to the latter. However, if he returns here and claims payment or discharge, his claim is heard because there is no contradiction between his acknowledgment and what he claims.

Section: If he says, "He has a thousand against me, I have paid it to him," the thousand becomes binding upon him, and the claim of payment is not accepted. The Qadi said: It is accepted, because he removed what he established by claiming payment immediately after, so it is similar to if he said: "He had [a claim] against me, and I paid it." Ibn Abi Musa said: If he says, "I paid all of it," it is not accepted except with proof, and what he acknowledged is binding upon him, and he has the right to an oath from the one to whom the acknowledgment was made. If he says, "I paid some of it," it is accepted from him in one of the two narrations because he removed part of what he acknowledged with a continuous statement, so it is similar to if he had excepted it, unlike when he says: "I paid all of it," because he removed all that was established, so it is similar to excepting the whole. Our argument is that this is a contradictory statement, since it is impossible for there to be a thousand against him that he has paid, for its being against him necessitates its remaining in his liability and the entitlement to demand it from him, while his paying it necessitates the clearance of his liability and the prohibition of demanding it from him. The acknowledgment of it necessitates its establishment, and the payment necessitates its removal, and these are two opposites whose union cannot be conceived at one time, unlike when he says: "He had against me, and I paid it," for he informed of them in two different times, and it is possible for what was established to be removed and for what was a debt to be paid. Since this is not valid in the whole, it is not valid in the part, due to the impossibility of a thousand remaining against him while he has paid part of it.