the acknowledger with his oath, just as if it were still remaining. Once he swears the oath, the liability is lifted from him if its destruction was due to his transgression, and the liability becomes binding upon the other if its destruction was due to his transgression. And Allah knows best.

851 - Issue: He said: "And whoever acknowledges ten dirhams, then remains silent for a duration during which he could have spoken, then says, 'They are counterfeit,' or 'small,' or 'deferred for a month,' it shall be ten standard, complete, and immediate [dirhams]."

The general principle is that whoever acknowledges dirhams and speaks in absolute terms, his acknowledgment implies standard, full-weight dirhams, which are the dirhams of Islam—every ten of which weigh seven mithqals, and every dirham is six daniqs. It also implies that they are high-quality and immediate, just as if he had sold something to him for ten dirhams and spoke in absolute terms; they are binding upon him as such. If he remains silent for a duration during which he could have spoken, or begins speaking about something other than what he was discussing, they are established against him as such. If he returns and says, "They are zuyuf"—meaning poor quality—or "small"—which are the deficient dirhams, such as Tabari dirhams, where every dirham is four daniqs, which is two-thirds of a dirham—or "deferred for a month"—meaning payment is delayed—it is not accepted from him. This is because he is retracting a portion of what he acknowledged and negating it with separate speech, so it is not accepted, like a separate exception (istithna'). This is the school of al-Shafi'i. There is no difference between acknowledging them as a debt, a deposit, or [resulting from] usurpation. Abu Hanifah said: His statement is accepted in the case of usurpation and deposit, because it is an acknowledgment of an act regarding an object, and that does not necessitate its integrity, so it resembles the case where one acknowledges the usurpation of a slave, then brings him back defective. Our position is that the absolute use of the term implies full-weight, high-quality [coins], so his explanation that contradicts this is not accepted, just as in the case of a debt. It differs from the slave, for a defect does not prevent the absolute application of the term 'slave' to him. However, if he describes them as such within connected speech, or pauses to breathe, or is interrupted by a cough or the like, and then describes them as such, or [describes] some of them, it is accepted from him. Abu al-Khattab mentioned that it is possible that his [specification of] deferment is not accepted, which is the opinion of Abu Hanifah and some of the Shafi'i companions, because deferment prevents the immediate claiming of the right, so it is not accepted, just as if he said, "He has dirhams against me, [which] I have already paid to him." Some of the Shafi'i companions said: His explanation [that they are] deficient is not accepted. The Qadi said: If he says, "He has ten dirhams against me"