he is bound by two dirhams. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and his companions. Al-Qadi mentioned a viewpoint in the case where one says: "A dirham, then a dirham," and says: "I intended 'A dirham, then a dirham is obligatory upon me,'" that it is accepted from him; and this is the opinion of al-Shafi'i, because it admits the possibility of being a description. Our argument is that the 'fa' (then/so) is one of the three conjunction letters, so it is analogous to 'wa' (and) and 'thumma' (then), and because he conjoined one thing to another with 'fa', which necessitates the establishment of both, just as if he said: "You are divorced, then divorced," which al-Shafi'i has conceded. What they mentioned regarding the possibility of it being a description is far-fetched and is not understood in the state of absolute (unqualified) speech, so his explanation with it is not accepted, just as if he were to explain absolute dirhams as being counterfeit, small, or deferred. If he says: "He has a dirham and two dirhams against me," he is bound by three. If he says: "He has a dirham and a dinar against me," or "A dirham, so a dinar," or "A qafiz of wheat," and the like, he is bound by all of that. If he says: "He has a dirham and a dirham and a dirham against me," he is bound by three. Ibn Abi Musa narrated from some of our companions that if he says: "I intended by the third to emphasize the second and clarify it," it is accepted. This is the opinion of some of al-Shafi'i's companions, because the third is in the wording of the second. The manifest (zahir) view of his school is that he is bound by the three, because 'wa' is for conjunction, and conjunction necessitates distinction (non-identity), so it must be that the third is other than the second, just as the second was other than the first. Acknowledgment does not necessitate emphasis, so it must be construed as referring to the number. The same ruling applies if he says: "He has a dirham, so a dirham, so a dirham," or "A dirham, then a dirham, then a dirham." If he says: "He has a dirham and a dirham against me, then a dirham," or "A dirham, so a dirham, then a dirham," or "A dirham, then a dirham, so a dirham," he is bound by the three, in a single clear view; because the third is distinct from the second due to the difference between the two conjunction letters entered upon them, so it does not admit the possibility of emphasis.

Section: If he says: "He has a dirham, nay, two dirhams against me," or "A dirham, but two dirhams," he is bound by two dirhams. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Zufar and Dawud said: He is bound by three, because "bal" (nay) is for disjunction (idrab), so when he acknowledged a dirham and then disjoined from it, he is bound by it because it is not permissible for him to retract from what he has acknowledged.