Section: If he says: "He has two dirhams in ten against me," and says: "I intended the calculation," he is bound by twenty. If he says: "I intended two dirhams with ten," and he did not know calculation, it is accepted from him, and he is bound by twelve; because many of the common people intend this meaning by this expression. If he is of the people of calculation, it is possible that it is not accepted, because the outward meaning of calculation is the usage of its terms for their meanings in their technical convention, and it is possible that it is accepted, because it is not forbidden that he would use the convention of the common people. If he says: "I intended two dirhams in ten of mine," he is bound by two dirhams; because it admits of what he says. If he says: "Two dirhams in a dinar," it does not admit of calculation, and he is asked about his intent. If he says: "I intended the conjunction or the meaning of 'with'," he is bound by the two dirhams and the dinar. If he says: "I handed them over (as a salam contract) in a dinar," and the one acknowledged to affirms his statement, his acknowledgement is invalidated; because a salam of one of the two types of currency for the other is not valid. If he denies it, then the statement is the statement of the one acknowledged to; because the acknowledger attached his acknowledgement to what invalidates it, so he is bound by what he acknowledged, and his statement regarding "in a dinar" is invalidated. Likewise, if he says: "He has two dirhams in a garment against me," and he explains it by salam, or says: "In a garment I bought from him to a year," and he affirms it, his acknowledgement is invalidated; because if it was after separation, the salam is invalidated and the price is dropped, and if it was before separation, the acknowledger has the option between rescission and enforcement. If the one acknowledged to denies it, the statement is his statement with his oath, and he gets the two dirhams.

Section: If he says: "He has a dirham with me in a garment, or in a bag, or oil in a jar, or straw in a sack, or dates in a pouch, or a knife in a sheath, or a gemstone in a ring, or a bag in a box." Or he says: "I usurped a garment in a handkerchief from him, or oil in a skin." There are two views regarding it. One of them is that he is an acknowledger of the contained object without the container. This is the choice of Ibn Hamid, and the school of Malik and al-Shafi'i; because his acknowledgement did not encompass the container, so it is possible that it is in a container belonging to the acknowledger, so he is not bound by it. The second is that he is bound by both; because he mentioned that in the context of the acknowledgement, and it is suitable to be an acknowledgement of it, so he is bound by it, as if he said: "He has a slave with me upon whom is a turban." Abu Hanifa said regarding usurpation: