or "weigh it out," or "it is sound," there are two viewpoints regarding it. The first is that it is not an acknowledgement, because the description refers to the claimant, and he has not acknowledged its obligation. Furthermore, it is permissible that he might give him what he claims without it being obligatory upon him; thus, his command to him to take it is more appropriately interpreted as not necessarily implying an obligation. The second is that it is an acknowledgement, because the pronoun refers back to what preceded.

If he says: "He has a thousand against me when the month ends," or "When the month ends, he has a thousand against me," our companions stated: The first is an acknowledgement, and the second is not an acknowledgement. This is explicitly stated by al-Shafi'i, because in the first he began with the acknowledgement, then followed it with what does not necessitate its nullification, because his statement: "When the month ends," may be intended to indicate the time of payment, and therefore the acknowledgement is not invalidated by an ambiguous matter. In the second, he began with the condition, [thereby attaching to it a phrase] that is suitable for an acknowledgement and suitable for a promise, so it is not an acknowledgement given the ambiguity. It is also possible that there is no difference between them, because placing the condition either before or after is the same, so there would be two viewpoints in both cases.