single expression mandates more than a repeated one, for twenty is mandated by the single, while eleven is mandated by the repeated (42), and we do not know of any single expression encompassing a whole number for which more is mandated than what is mandated by its repeated counterpart.

Section: If he says: "I have usurped (ghasabtu-ka) you," or "I have defrauded (ghabantu-ka) you," nothing is binding upon him, because he might have usurped his own self, or defrauded him in matters other than wealth. If he says: "I have usurped something from you," and explains it as having usurped his own self, it is not accepted, because he has created two objects for it, making him the first object and "something" the second object, and it is necessary that the second be different from the first. If he explains it as wealth, it is accepted, even if it is small. If he explains it as a dog, the skin of a carcass, or dung (43) from which benefit is derived, it is accepted, because he may have overpowered him and taken it from him. If he explains it as something from which there is no benefit, or something from which deriving benefit is not permitted, it is not accepted, because taking such things does not constitute usurpation (ghasb).

Section: Testimony is accepted regarding an acknowledgement of an unknown thing, because acknowledgement of it is valid, and whatever is valid in itself, testimony regarding it is valid, just as in the case of a known thing.

855 - Issue: He said: (If he says: "He has a pledge (rahn) with me," and the owner says: "[It is] a deposit (wadi'ah)," the statement is that of the owner.)

The statement of the owner is prioritized because the physical object was established as belonging to him by acknowledgement, while the acknowledger claimed a debt he does not recognize for him, and the statement is that of the denier. Also, because he acknowledged wealth belonging to someone else and claimed that it has (1) an attachment (2) to him, so it is not accepted, just as if he had claimed it in a separate statement. Likewise, if he acknowledged a house for him and said: "I have rented it," or a garment and claimed he had shortened it or sewn it for a fee that is binding upon the one to whom it is acknowledged, it is not accepted, because he is a claimant of a right against someone else, so his statement is not accepted except with evidence. The same applies if he says: "This house is his, but I have the right to reside in it for a year."

Section: If he says: "You owe me a thousand [dirhams] as the price of sold goods I have not yet received," and the one against whom the claim is made says: "Rather, I have a thousand against you, and you have nothing with me." Abu al-Khattab said: There are two views: One of them,