And he is bound by the two dirhams which he acknowledged. Our argument is that he merely negated limiting [his obligation] to one and affirmed an addition to it, so it is analogous to the case where one says: "He has a dirham against me, nay, more." For he is not bound by more than two. If he says: "He has a dirham against me, nay, a dirham," or "But a dirham," there are two views regarding it. The first is that he is bound by one dirham, because Ahmad said regarding one who says to his wife: "You are divorced, nay, you are divorced": She is not divorced except once. This is of the same meaning, and this is the school of al-Shafi'i; because he acknowledged a dirham twice, so he is not bound by more than one dirham, just as if he acknowledged a dirham then denied it, then said: "Nay, a dirham is against me." "Lakin" (but) is for rectification (istidrak), so it is [in the meaning of] "bal" (nay), although the correct view is that it is not used except after negation, unless a complete sentence is mentioned after it. The second view is that he is bound by two dirhams. This was mentioned by Ibn Abi Musa and Abu Bakr Abd al-Aziz. It is also required by the opinion of Zufar and Dawud; because what follows the disjunction (idrab) is distinct from what preceded it, so the dirham which he disjoined from must be different from the dirham he acknowledged after it, thus two are required, just as if he said: "He has a dirham against me, nay, a dinar." This is also because "bal" is one of the conjunction letters, and the conjoined [is not the same as the] conjoined-to, so both are required, just as if he said: "He has a dirham, a dirham against me." Also, because if we did not obligate him with more than one dirham, we would make his speech futile and his disjunction from it useless, while the principle regarding the speech of a rational person is that it should be meaningful. If that which he disjoined from could not possibly be what was mentioned after it, nor a part of it, such as if he says: "He has a dirham against me, nay, a dinar or two dinars," or: "He has a qafiz of wheat against me, nay, a qafiz of barley," or: "This dirham, nay, these two," he is bound by all of it, without any disagreement known to us; because the first cannot be the second nor a part of it, so he is an acknowledger of both, and his retraction from any of them is not accepted. Likewise, every two sentences where he acknowledges one of them, then

[he] returns to the other, he is bound by both.