Nor is it upon him; it is only with him. What they mentioned is a metaphor, the method of which is the omission of the genitive (mudaf) and the substitution of the genitive possessor (mudaf ilayh) in its place, or the substitution of one particle for another. Admissions are interpreted according to the apparent meaning of the wording, evidenced by the fact that if he says, "He has dirhams against me," he becomes liable for three dirhams, even if it is permissible to express the plural form for two or for one, as in the words of Allah the Almighty: "If he has brothers, his mother has a sixth" (4), and many places in the Qur'an. If he says, "He has a dirham against me," and says, "I meant half a dirham, so I omitted the genitive and substituted the genitive possessor in its place," it is not accepted from him. If he says, "You have a thousand from my wealth," and he says, "You spoke the truth," then says, "I intended that you have a thousand from my wealth against me, and I substituted the 'lam' for 'against me' (alaayya), like the words of Allah the Almighty: 'And if you do evil, it is against it' (5)," it is not accepted from him. If absolute possibility were accepted in admissions, it would become nullified, and it would be accepted in (6) clarifying the dirhams as being defective, counterfeit, or deferred. As for when he says: "You have a thousand against me," then says: "It was a deposit and it was destroyed," his statement is not accepted; because he is contradictory. Something similar to this has preceded.

Section: If he says: "You have a hundred dirhams against me," then brings them and says: "This is what I made an admission of, and it is a deposit that was yours with me." The person in whose favor the admission was made says: "This is a deposit, and that which you admitted to is something else, and it is a debt upon you." The statement of al-Khiraqi implies that the statement is that of the person in whose favor the admission was made. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa. The Qadi said: The statement is that of the admitter along with his oath. For al-Shafi'i, there are two opinions, like the two views, and the reasoning for them is what has passed. If he said in his admission: "You have a hundred against me in my liability," the Qadi agreed here that the statement of the admitter is not accepted; because a deposit is a specific object that is not in the liability. He said: It (7) may be accepted; because it allows for the meaning: "It is in my liability to deliver it." And because it is permissible that he had a deposit with him regarding which he transgressed, so its guarantee became in his liability. The followers of al-Shafi'i have two views regarding this. As for if he connected that to his speech, saying: "You have a hundred against me as a deposit," it is accepted; because he connected his speech with what it allows, so it became valid.