The statement is that of the one to whom the acknowledgement is made, because he acknowledged the thousand for him and claimed a sold good against him, which resembles the case where he says: "This is a pledge," and the owner says: "[It is] a deposit," or "He has a thousand against me and I have a sold good with him which I have not received." The second view is that the statement is that of the acknowledger. The Qadi said: This is the analogy (qiyas) of the school of thought (madhhab), and it is the view of al-Shafi'i and Abu Yusuf, because he acknowledged a right in exchange for a right he has, and neither of them is independent of the other; so if he does not deliver his wealth to him, he does not deliver to the one to whom the acknowledgement is made what is against him, just as if he said to a man: "I sold you this slave for a thousand," and he said: "Rather, you transferred ownership of him to me for nothing." This is different from the case where he says: "I have a pledge with me," and the owner says: "Rather, it is a deposit," because a debt is independent of a pledge. If a master said to his slave: "I have sold you yourself for a thousand," and the slave denied it, he is freed, and nothing is due to the acknowledger, because manumission is independent of the price. There is no difference between his saying: "I have not received it," separately or connectedly. Thus, if he says: "He has a thousand against me from the price of a sold good," then falls silent, then says: "I have not received it," his statement is accepted, just as if it were connected, because his acknowledgement is linked to the sold good, and the original principle (asl) is non-receipt, so his statement regarding it is accepted. However, if he says: "I owe a thousand," then falls silent, then says: "From the price of a sold good," it is not accepted, because he explained his acknowledgement with something that negates the necessity of delivering it in a separate statement, so it is not accepted, just as it would not (3) be accepted if he said: "He has a thousand against me," then fell silent, then said: "It is deferred."

Section: If he says: "I sold you this slave girl of mine," and he says: "Rather, you married me to her," then this situation inevitably involves one of two cases: either their disagreement is before the payment of the price or after it, and before the claim of paternity (istilad) or after it. If it is after the seller's admission of having received the price, then he is an acknowledger of her for the one claiming the marriage, because he is claiming something against him, and the husband denies that she is his property and claims her lawfulness for himself (4) through marriage; thus, her lawfulness is established due to their agreement upon it, and she is not returned to the seller due to their agreement that he is not entitled to take her. If it is before the receipt of the price and after the claim of paternity, the seller acknowledges that she has become an umm walad (mother of a child), that her child is free, and that he has no dowry, while the buyer denies all of that; therefore, the child is ruled to be free due to the acknowledgement of the one whose property is attributed to him regarding his freedom, and there is no loyalty (wala') upon him due to his admission that he is originally free, and the slave girl is not returned to the seller due to his admission