such as when he is given something over which he may dispose by sale in matters where it is customary for him to do so—for example, disposing of a chicken, an egg, or some other insignificant item. In such a case, his acknowledgement is valid, because it is made by someone whose contract in that matter is valid; consequently, his acknowledgement concerning it is valid.

Thus, the author’s unrestricted use—may Allah have mercy on him—of the term “legally accountable person” is open to some consideration. It may be said, however, that the validity of a minor’s disposal of the things mentioned does not preclude this unrestricted wording, because it is understood implicitly. As they say, an implied meaning has no general scope. For by his words, “by a legally accountable person,” he means one whose action is legally valid. The implication is that an acknowledgement made by one who is not legally accountable is invalid; but the ruling indicated by implication is established by a single instance. Therefore, if there is one case to which that implied ruling applies, there is no problem.

The point is that this discussion pertains to the principles of jurisprudence. It may be said that the implication of the author’s words, “by a legally accountable person,” is that the acknowledgement of one who is not legally accountable is invalid, which includes both the insane person and the minor. As for the insane person, there is no exception; as for the minor, there is an exception.

If someone asks: If there is an exception, why did the author not mention it? The answer may be given in one of two ways. First, it may be said that an implied meaning has no general scope, and its ruling is established by a single instance; thus, if there is one instance in which the ruling differs from that expressed explicitly, that suffices. Second, it may be said that the author spoke without qualification because it is understood that whoever may validly dispose of something may also validly acknowledge it, both in his favour and against him. We have previously seen in the Book of Sales that a sale by a minor is valid in matters customarily permitted to him, such as insignificant items.

His statement: “acting voluntarily.” This is the second condition, its opposite being compulsion. The one making the acknowledgement must therefore act voluntarily with respect to both his acknowledgement and that which he acknowledges. If he acknowledges voluntarily