with a small or large amount, as if he had said, "wealth." He does not increase upon it. This is the view of al-Shafi’i. It was narrated from Abu Hanifa that his explanation is not accepted as less than ten dirhams, because that is the amount for which a thief is punished, and it is valid as a dowry according to him. Another view from him is that it is not accepted as less than two hundred dirhams; this is the view of his two companions, because that is the amount upon which zakat becomes obligatory. Some of the companions of Malik said the same as their view regarding wealth. Among them are those who said: He must exceed that by the smallest increment. Among them are those who said: The amount of the blood money (diyah). Al-Layth ibn Sa’d said: Seventy-two; because God Almighty said: "God has given you victory in many places" (25), and His expeditions and military detachments were seventy-two. They said: And because a single grain is not called great or large wealth. Our position is that whatever explains wealth also explains "great," like that which they conceded. And because "great" and "large" have no limit in the Sacred Law, nor in the language, nor in custom, and people differ regarding it; among them are those who consider a small amount to be great, among them are those who consider a large amount to be great, and among them are those who disparage a large amount. Thus, no limit was established in that which would cause a return to his explanation for it. And because there is no wealth that is not great or large in relation to what is less than it. It is possible that he intended what is great according to him due to his poverty and baseness. What they mentioned contains no determination for "large," and the fact that what they mentioned is large does not preclude largeness in what is less than it. God Almighty has said: "Remember God with much remembrance" (26), so it does not refer [specifically] to that. He also said: "How many a small company has overcome a large company by permission of God" (27), so it is not interpreted as such. The ruling, if he says "very great" or "great, great," is the same as if he did not say it, due to what we have established.

Section: If he says, "He has more wealth upon me than the wealth of so-and-so," and he explains it with an amount that is more than that in number or value, he is liable for more than that. The surplus is explained by whatever he wishes, even if it is a single grain or less. If he says, "I do not know that so-and-so has more than such-and-such" (28), and evidence is established for more than that, he is not liable for more than what he confessed to, because the amount of wealth in reality is not known regarding "more," and it may be apparent or hidden, so he possesses that which he does not know.