returns to the other, he is bound by both. If he says: "He has two dirhams against me, nay, a dirham," or "Ten, nay, nine," he is bound by the greater amount; because he disjoined from one and negated it after his acknowledgment of it, so his negation of it is not accepted, unlike [the case of] an exception (istithna'), for it does not negate anything he acknowledged, but rather it is an expression for what remains after the exception. Thus, if he says: "Ten except a dirham," its meaning is nine.

Section: If he says: "He has a dirham against me before it a dirham," or "after it a dirham," he is bound by two dirhams. If he says: "Before it a dirham and after it a dirham," he is bound by three, because "before" and "after" are used for precedence and subsequence in obligation. If he says: "He has a dirham above a dirham against me," or "below [a dirham, or with it] a dirham," or "along with a dirham," al-Qadi said: "He is bound by one dirham." This is one of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i; because it is possible it means "above a dirham in quality," or "above a dirham [that is already] mine," and likewise with "below a dirham." And his saying: "With it a dirham," it is possible it means "with it is a dirham [that is] mine" as well as "along with a dirham," so an increase does not become obligatory by mere possibility. Abu al-Khattab said: "He is bound by two dirhams." This is the second opinion of al-Shafi'i; because this wording functions in the manner of a conjunction, due to the fact that it requires adding another dirham to it, and he mentioned that in the context of acknowledgment, so the apparent meaning is that it is an acknowledgment. Also, because his saying "against me" requires "in my liability," and the acknowledger does not have in his own liability a dirham with the dirham of the one to whom it is acknowledged, nor above it, nor below it, for it is not established for a person to owe something in his own liability to himself. Abu Hanifa and his companions said: "If he says: 'above a dirham,' he is bound by two dirhams; because 'above' requires an increase in the apparent meaning. If he says: 'below a dirham,' he is bound by one dirham; because 'below' requires a reduction." Our argument is that if his speech is interpreted in the sense of a conjunction, there is no difference between the two. And if it is interpreted as a descriptor for the acknowledged dirham, it is necessary that what is acknowledged be a single dirham, whether he mentioned it with what implies an increase in quality or a decrease. And if he says: