returned them, his statement is accepted. If he clarifies them as a debt owed by him, it is also accepted; because he is making an admission against himself of that which is more binding. And if he says: "He has a deposit with me that I returned to him," or "It was destroyed," he becomes liable for its guarantee, and his statement is not accepted. This is the position of al-Shafi'i; because it contains a contradiction of the admission and a retraction of what he admitted. For the thousand that is returned or destroyed is not in his possession, nor is it a deposit, and every speech that contradicts the admission and makes it impossible must be rejected. The Qadi said: His statement is accepted; because Ahmad said, in the narration of Ibn Mansur: If he says, "You have a deposit with me that I delivered to you," he is believed; because he claimed the destruction of the deposit, or that he returned it, so it is accepted, just as if he claimed that with disconnected speech. And if he says: "It was with me, and I thought it was still remaining, then I realized that it had already perished," then the ruling regarding it is the same as the one before it.

854 - Issue: He said: (And if he says: "He has a thousand against me." Then he says: "[it is] a deposit." His statement is not accepted.)

The summary of this is that if he makes an admission of dirhams by saying: "I owe so-and-so," then clarifies it as a deposit, his statement is not accepted. If he claims its destruction after this, his statement is not accepted. This is the position of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i. It is said on behalf of al-Shafi'i: His statement that it is a deposit is accepted, and if he later claims its destruction, it is accepted from him. The Qadi said what indicates this as well; because the deposit is something he is obligated to preserve and return, so if he says: "I owe..." and clarifies it as that, his truthfulness is possible, so it is accepted from him, just as if he had connected it to his speech, saying: "He has a thousand against me [as] a deposit." And because prepositions (1) can replace one another, so it is permissible for him to use "against me" (alaayya) in the sense of "with me" (indi), just as Allah the Almighty said, informing us about Moses, peace be upon him, that he said: "And they have a sin against me" (3), meaning: "with me." Our argument is that "against me" is for obligation, and that requires it to be in his liability, and likewise if he says: "What is upon so-and-so is upon me," he would be a guarantor for it, and the deposit is not in his liability.