it is binding upon him, but it is not binding upon him in the remaining cases; because a handkerchief is a container for the garment, so the outward appearance is that it is a container for it at the time of the usurpation, and it becomes as if he said: "I usurped a garment and a handkerchief." As for our view, it is that it is possible that the handkerchief belongs to the usurper, and it is a container for the garment, so he says: "I usurped a garment in a handkerchief of mine." If he said this, he would not be acknowledging the usurpation of it; so when he speaks generally, it admits of it, and thus he is not an acknowledger of its usurpation, just as if he said: "I usurped a mount in its stable," or "He has a garment in a handkerchief against me." If he says: "He has a jar with me in which is oil," or "a pouch in which are dates," or "a sheath in which is a knife," there are two views regarding it. If he says: "He has a ring with me in which is a gemstone," it is the same. It is possible that he is an acknowledger of it along with its gemstone, as a single view; because the gemstone is a part of the parts of the ring, so it resembles the case where he says: "He has a garment with me in which is a decorative emblem." If he said: "He has a ring with me," and spoke generally, he is bound by the ring with its gemstone; because the name of the ring encompasses both of them. If he said: "He has a garment with me with embroidery," he is bound by the garment with its embroidery.

Section: If he says: "He has a house with me furnished," or "a mount saddled," or "a slave upon whom is a turban," there are also two views regarding it. The companions of al-Shafi'i said: "The turban of the slave is binding upon him, but not the furniture or the saddle; because the slave has his hand upon his turban, and his hand is like the hand of his master, and the mount and the house have no hand." As for our view, it is that the outward appearance is that the saddle of the mount belongs to its owner, and likewise if two men disputed over a saddle on a mount belonging to one of them, it would belong to its owner; thus it is like the turban of the slave. As for if he says: "He has a mount with me with its saddle," or "a house with its furniture," or "a ship with its cargo," he is an acknowledger of both without disagreement; because the 'ba' (letter) attaches the second to the first.

Section: If he says: "He has a dirham against me, or a dinar," or: "Either a dirham or a dinar," he is an acknowledger of one of them, and the matter is referred back to him for its interpretation; because "or" (aw) and "either... or" (imma) in a statement imply uncertainty, and require one of the two mentioned things, not both of them. If he says: "He has against me either a dirham or two dirhams," he is an acknowledger of a dirham, and the second is in doubt, so it is not binding upon him due to the doubt.