sneezes; because it is narrated in the report: "The Muslim has thirty rights over the Muslim: he returns his greeting, responds to his sneeze, and accepts his invitation." And he mentioned the Hadith (20). If he says, "I usurped (ghasabtu) something from him," and explains it with something that is not wealth, it is accepted, because the term usurpation applies to it. If he says, "I usurped his person (nafsahu)," it is not accepted, because usurpation does not apply to it. Most of this section represents the school of al-Shafi’i. It was narrated from Abu Hanifa that the explanation of his admission is not accepted unless it is for something measurable by volume (makil) or by weight (mawzun); because anything else does not establish itself in the liability. Our position is that it is property (mamluk) that comes under a contract, so it is permissible for a thing in an admission to be explained by it, like the measurable and the weighted; and because it is established in the liability in general, so the explanation is valid like the measurable, and there is no consideration given to the cause of its establishment in the admission of it and the account given of it.

Section: If one admits to [owing] wealth, his explanation with a small or large amount of wealth is accepted. This is the view of al-Shafi’i. Abu Hanifa said: His explanation is not accepted unless it is for zakatable wealth; based on the saying of God Almighty: "Take from their wealth a charity to purify them" (21), and His saying: "And in their wealth is a right" (22). Some of the companions of Malik narrated from him three views: one is like our view. The second is that it is not accepted except for the first nisa (threshold) of zakatable assets, from the type of their wealth. The third is that which a thief is punished for [stealing], and which is valid as a dowry; based on the saying of God Almighty: "That you seek [marriages] with your wealth" (23). Our [basis] is that other than what they mentioned, it bears the name of wealth in reality and by custom, and is usually considered wealth, so his explanation with it is accepted, just as with that which they agreed upon. As for the verse (24) on zakat, it is general but subject to specification. His saying: "And in their wealth is a right" did not intend zakat, as evidence that it was revealed in Mecca before the obligation of zakat, so there is no proof for them in it. Furthermore, their view is refuted by His saying: "That you seek [marriages] with your wealth." Marriage is permissible with any type of wealth, and with less than the threshold (nisa). If he says, "He has a great, large, majestic, or significant amount of wealth upon me," it is permissible to explain it