If he says: "He has a half of this wealth," or "He has a half of this house," it is a valid admission. If he says: "He has a thousand in this wealth," it is valid. If he says: "He has a thousand in my father’s inheritance," it is an admission of a debt upon the estate. If he says: "[He has a thousand] in my inheritance from my father," and says: "I intended a gift," it is accepted from him. This is because when he attributes the inheritance to his father, its implication is what he left behind, which necessitates the obligation of what is admitted within it. When he attributes the inheritance to himself, its meaning is what I inherited and what has transferred to me, so it is not construed as an obligation. When he attributes a part of it to him, the apparent meaning is that he granted him a portion of his wealth.

Section: If he says: "He has a partnership in this slave," his admission is valid, and he may interpret it as any amount of it. Abu Yusuf said: He is considered to have admitted to half of it, based on the saying of the Almighty: "Then they are partners in a third" (16), which necessitates equality between them; the same applies here. Our position is that whatever portion he has of it, he has a partnership in it; thus, he is entitled to interpret it however he wishes, such as a half. The use of the term 'partnership' is not metaphorical for less than a half, nor is it contrary to the apparent meaning. The verse establishes equality in that instance based on evidence; the same rule applies if he says: "This slave is a partnership between us."

Section on Admission of an Indeterminate Amount (al-Majhul): If one says: "So-and-so has a 'thing' (shay') against me," or "so-and-so," his admission is valid, and he is obligated to clarify it. There is no disagreement on this. This differs from a claim, as a claim is not valid when indeterminate, because a claim is for the claimant and an admission is against the maker of the admission. Therefore, he is bound by what is against him despite the ambiguity, unlike his own wealth. Furthermore, because if a claimant does not specify his claim, he has an incentive to clarify it, whereas the person making the admission has no incentive other than clarification. Moreover, he is not beyond potentially retracting his admission, which would cause the right of the person in whose favor the admission is made to be lost. Thus, we bind him to it despite the ambiguity. If he refuses to explain it, he shall be imprisoned until he explains. The Judge (al-Qadi) said: He is to be treated as one who refuses (nakil), and the person in whose favor the admission is made is ordered to specify it. If he specifies something and the maker of the admission confirms it, it is established. If he denies it and refuses to provide clarification, it is said...