the declarant, and so the recourse is to what the declarant believed, along with his oath, if someone claims more than that against him. If he explains it with less than his wealth while knowing his wealth, it is not accepted. Our companions said: His explanation with a small or large amount is accepted. This is the school of al-Shafi’i, whether he knows the wealth of so-and-so or is ignorant of it, or mentions its amount or does not mention it, or says it following the testimony regarding its amount or not (29); because it is possible that it is more than it in terms of longevity, benefit, or blessing, due to it being from the lawful, or because it is a liability (in the dhimmah). Al-Qadi said: If he were to say, "You have a thousand dinars upon me," and he says, "You have more than that upon me," he is not liable for more than that, because the word "more" is ambiguous due to its potential for what we have mentioned. It is also possible that he intended more than that in fulus (copper coins), or grains of wheat, barley, or millet, so the recourse for its explanation is to him. This is far-fetched, for the word "more" is only used in reality for number or quantity, and it refers to the genus of what "more" is added to; nothing else is understood from it in an absolute sense. God Almighty said: "They were more than them" (30). He reported concerning the one who said: "I am more than you in wealth" (31), and "And they said: We are more in wealth and children" (32). In an admission, one takes the apparent meaning rather than the absolute possibility. For this reason, if he admits to dirhams, he is liable for the minimum plural, of high quality, sound, of full weight, and immediate. If he says, "He has dirhams upon me," he is not permitted to explain it as a deposit. If one were to return to absolute possibility, the admission would collapse. The possibility of what they mentioned is further removed than these possibilities which they did not accept his explanation for, so there is no reliance on this.

Section: If he says, "He has a thousand upon me, except for a thing," his explanation of it as more than five hundred is accepted; because "a thing" admits of the small and the large, but it is not permissible to exclude the majority. Thus, it is determined to be interpreted as less than half. Similarly, if he says: "Except for a little," because it is ambiguous, it resembles his saying: "Except for a thing." If he says, "He has most of a thousand upon me," or "the bulk of a thousand," or "nearly a thousand," he is liable for more than half a thousand, and he swears regarding the surplus if it is claimed against him.