because he restricted the invalidation to that which exceeds half, since it is not the majority, so it is permissible like the minority. The second [view] is that it is not permissible, which Abu Bakr mentioned, because nothing appeared in their speech except the few from the many, and the half is not few.

Section: If he says, "He has ten against me, except seven, except five, except two dirhams," it is valid, and he would be acknowledging six. This is because if he excepts the whole or the majority, it falls if he pauses upon it; but if he connects it with another exception, we apply it, because the exception along with the thing excepted from it is an expression of what remains. For "five except two dirhams" is an expression of three, which he excepted from seven, leaving four excepted from ten, from which six remain. If he says, "He has eight against me, except four, except two dirhams, except one dirham," the exception is void according to the view of Abu Bakr, because he excepted the half. It is valid according to the other view, so five becomes binding upon him. If he says, "Against me are ten, except five, except three, except two dirhams, except one dirham," the whole exception is void according to one of the two views, and valid according to the other, so he would be acknowledging seven. If he says, "Ten, except six, except four, except two dirhams," then according to the view in which the exception is valid, he is acknowledging six. If he says, "Three, except two dirhams, except one dirham," he would be acknowledging two dirhams (14). As for if he says, "He has three against me, except three, except two dirhams," the whole exception is void, because the exception of two dirhams from three is an exception of the majority, and it is dependent upon it, so it is void. When the second is void, the first is void [because it is an exception of the whole] (15). The followers of al-Shafi'i have three views regarding this: one of them is that the exception is void, because the first is void due to it being an exception of the whole, so the second is void because it is a derivative of it. The second is that it is valid, and one dirham becomes binding upon him, because when the first exception was void, we placed the second exception upon the acknowledgment, as it follows it due to the invalidation of what was between them. And the third,