due to its smallness in essence, or due to its low value in his estimation and his belittling of it. It may also be due to affection, as the poet said:
In that valley I pine, though I did not say 'In that valley' and 'that' out of ascetism
But if something is loved, the letters of the diminutive Become infatuated with it out of intense yearning
If he says: "He has ten dirhams against me by count," he is bound by ten counted dirhams that are of full weight; because the absolute mention of dirhams requires those of full weight, and the mention of count does not contradict that, so it is necessary to combine both. If he is in a land where they transact with them by count without weight, its ruling is the same as the ruling if he had acknowledged them in a land where their weights are deficient, or their dirhams are adulterated, according to what has been detailed regarding that.
Section: If he acknowledges a dirham, then acknowledges a dirham, he is bound by one dirham. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: He is bound by two dirhams, just as if he said: "He has a dirham and a dirham against me." There is no difference between whether the acknowledgment is at one time or at different times, or in one sitting or multiple sittings. Our argument is that it is permissible that he merely repeated the statement about the first, just as Allah Almighty repeated the statement about His sending of Noah, Hud, Salih, Lut, Shu'ayb, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, and what was mentioned in one story was not other than what was mentioned in the other; the same applies here. If he describes one of them and leaves the other absolute, the case is the same; because it is permissible that the absolute one is the same as the described one, he left it absolute at one time and described it at another. If he describes it with the same description both times, it is an emphasis of what we have mentioned. If he describes it in one instance with a different description than in the other, such as saying: "A dirham from the price of a sold item," then saying: "He has a dirham against me from a loan," or "A dirham from the price of a garment," then saying: "A dirham from the price of a slave," or saying: "A white dirham," then saying: "A black dirham," then they are two dirhams; because they are distinct.
Section: If he says: "He has a dirham and a dirham against me," or "A dirham, then a dirham," or "A dirham, and then a dirham."
(9) We have not found the source for these two verses. (10) In the original: "mentioned". (11) In A, B, and M: "it is not permissible".
لِصِغَرِه في ذَاتِه، أو لِقِلَّةِ قَدْرِه عندَه وتَحْقِيرِه، وقد يكون لِمَحَبَّتِه كما قال الشاعر (٩):
بِذَيَّالِكَ الوادِى أهِيمُ ولم أَقُلْ ... بِذَيَّالِكَ الوادِى وذَيَّاكَ مِن زُهْدِ
ولكنْ إذا ما حُبَّ شَىءٌ تَوَلَّعَتْ ... به أحْرُفُ التَّصْغِيرِ مِنْ شِدَّةِ الوَجْدِ
وإن قال: له عَلَىَّ عَشَرَةُ دَرَاهِمَ عَدَدًا. لَزِمَتْهُ عَشرَةٌ مَعْدُودَةٌ وازِنَةٌ؛ لأنَّ إطْلَاقَ الدَّرَاهِمِ يَقْتَضِى وازِنَةً، وذِكْرُ العَدَدِ لا يُنَافِيهَا، فوَجَبَ الجَمْعُ بينهما. فإن كان في بَلَدٍ يَتَعَامَلُون بها عَدَدًا من غيرِ وَزْنٍ، فحُكْمُه حُكْمُ ما لو أقَرَّ بها في بَلَدٍ أَوْزَانُهم ناقِصَةٌ، أو دَرَاهِمُهم مَغْشُوشَةٌ، على ما فُصِّلَ فيه.
فصل: وإذا أقَرَّ بِدِرْهَمٍ، ثم أقَرَّ بِدِرْهَمٍ، لَزِمَهُ دِرْهَمٌ واحِدٌ. وبهذا قال الشّافِعِىُّ. وقال أبو حنيفةَ: يَلْزَمُه دِرْهَمَانِ، كما لو قال: له علَىَّ دِرْهَمٌ ودِرْهَمٌ. ولا فَرْقَ بين أن يكونَ الإِقْرَارُ في وَقْتٍ واحدٍ أو في أوْقَاتٍ، أو في مَجْلِسٍ واحِدٍ أو مَجَالِسَ. ولَنا، أنَّه يجوزُ أن يكونَ قد كَرَّرَ الخَبَرَ عن الأَوَّلِ، كما كَرَّرَ (١٠) اللهُ تعالى الخَبَرَ عن إِرْسَالِه نُوحًا وهُودًا وصَالِحًا ولُوطًا وشُعَيْبًا وإبْراهِيمَ وموسى وعِيسى، ولم يكُنِ المَذْكُورُ في قِصَّةٍ غيرَ المَذْكُورِ في أُخْرَى، كذا ههُنا. فإن وَصَفَ أحَدَهما وأطْلَقَ الآخَرَ، فكذلك؛ لأنَّه يجوزُ (١١) أن يكونَ المُطْلَقُ هو المَوْصُوفَ، أَطْلَقَه في حالٍ وَوَصَفَهُ في حالٍ. وإن وَصَفَهُ بِصِفَةٍ واحِدَةٍ في المَرَّتَيْنِ، كان تَأْكِيدًا لما ذَكَرْنَا، وإن وَصَفَهُ في إحْدَى المَرَّتَيْنِ بغيرِ ما وَصَفَه في الأُخْرَى، فقال: دِرْهَمٌ من ثمَنِ مَبِيعٍ. ثم قال: له عَلَىَّ دِرْهَمٌ من قَرْضٍ، أو دِرْهَمٌ من ثمَنِ ثَوْبٍ. ثم قال: دِرْهَمٌ من ثمَنِ عَبْدٍ. أو قال: دِرْهَمٌ أبْيَضُ، ثم قال: دِرْهَمٌ أسْوَدُ. فهما دِرْهَمَانِ؛ لأنَّهما مُتَغَايِرَانِ.
فصل: وإن قال: له عَلَىَّ دِرْهَمٌ ودِرْهَمٌ. أو دِرْهَمٌ فَدِرْهَم. أو دِرْهَمٌ ثم دِرْهَمٌ.
(٩) لم نهتد إلى نسبة البيتين.(١٠) في الأصل: "ذكر".(١١) في أ، ب، م: "لا يجوز".