feminine, so it is not permitted to count them with it. Second, if they were months, He would have said "fourteen months," using the compound form, not the conjunctive form, just as He said: "Over it are nineteen" (36). Regarding their statement that the "thousand" is ambiguous, we say: That which indicates its interpretation has been joined with it, so it is similar to if he had said: "a hundred and fifty dirhams," or "a hundred and a dirham," according to Abu Hanifa. If it is said: When he says "a hundred and fifty dirhams," the dirham is mentioned for interpretation, which is why the number does not increase because of it, and thus it is suitable to interpret everything preceding it; unlike his saying: "a hundred dirhams," for he mentioned the dirham for the sake of obligation, not for interpretation, evidenced by the fact that the number increases with it. We say: It is suitable for both obligation and interpretation, and the need calls for interpretation; therefore, it is obligatory to construe the matter as such, to safeguard the speech of the one making the admission from ambiguity (37) and vagueness, and to direct it toward clarity and expression. Regarding the statement of the companions of Abu Hanifa that "against me" is for obligation, we say: When that which is obligatory by it is conjoined to that which is [already] obligatory, and one of them is ambiguous and the other interpreted, and it is possible to interpret it by it, it is mandatory that the ambiguous be of the same genus as the interpreted. However, if that is not possible (38), such as conjoining a number for the masculine to the feminine, or vice versa, and the like, then one of them is not of the same genus as the other, and the ambiguous remains in its state of ambiguity, as if he said: "He has four dirhams and ten against me."

853 - Issue: He said: (And if he says: "He has ten dirhams with me," then says: "[as] a deposit," his statement is accepted.)

The summary of this is that whoever makes an admission with this wording, saying: "He has dirhams with me," and clarifies his admission by [stating] that they are a deposit, his clarification is accepted. We do not know of any disagreement among the people of knowledge regarding this, whether he clarifies it with connected or disconnected speech; because he clarified his wording by what it requires, so it is accepted, just as if he said: "He has dirhams against me," and clarifies them as a debt owed by him. At that point, the rulings of a deposit are established for it, such that if he thereafter claims its destruction or return, his statement is accepted.