four daniqs, and in Khwarazm their dirham was four and a half daniqs, and in Mecca their dirham was deficient, as was the case in the Maghrib, or in a land where their dirhams are adulterated, such as Egypt and Mosul, [or [acknowledging] dinars in a land where their dinars are adulterated]. There are two views regarding this: The first is that he is bound by the dirhams and dinars of the country; because the absolute nature of their speech is interpreted based on the custom of their country, just as in the case of sales and prices. The second is that he is bound by full-weight ones that are free from adulteration, because the absolute mention of dirhams in the Shari'a refers to them, as evidenced by the fact that the minimum threshold for Zakat (nusus al-zakah) and the amounts for blood money (diyat) are measured by them, so the absolute [acknowledgment] of a person is the same. It differs from a sale because that is an obligation at the moment, so it is specified to the dirhams of the place where they are, whereas an acknowledgment is an account of a past right, so it is directed to the dirhams of Islam.

Section: If he acknowledges dirhams and speaks in absolute terms, then explains them as the currency (sikka) of the city in which he acknowledged them, it is accepted; because his absolute statement is directed towards it. If he explains them as a currency other than that of the city that is higher in quality, it is accepted; because he is acknowledging against himself something more burdensome. The same applies if it is equivalent, because he is not suspected in that regard. If it is lower than the city's currency, but equal in weight, it is possible that it might not be accepted, because the absolute use of the term requires the dirhams of the city and its currency, so a lower quality is not accepted from him, just as it is not accepted in a sale, and because it is deficient in value, so his explanation of it is not accepted, like that which is deficient in weight. It is also possible that it is accepted from him, and this is the opinion of al-Shafi'i, because it permits what he explained it as. It differs from the deficient [weight] because the Shari'a's absolute use of 'dirhams' does not include that, unlike this [case], and for this reason, the amount of the nusus for Zakat and other matters depends on this. It differs from the price, as that is an obligation at the moment, while this is an account of a past right.

Section: If he says, "He has a large dirham against me," he is bound by a dirham from the dirhams of Islam, because it is large in custom. If he says, "He has a durayhim (small dirham) against me," it is as if he said, "A dirham," because the diminutive form may be