If someone were to ask: “Is it permissible to introduce such a view?”

The answer is: Yes, it is permissible to introduce such a view, and it is not considered a departure from consensus. That is, even if we assume that this issue is one upon which there is consensus—either this or that, with no third view—such a distinction does not constitute a violation of consensus. This is because it agrees, in one respect, with those who invalidate the acknowledgment, and in another respect with those who validate it.

Shaykh al-Islam sometimes employs this approach. For example, he says: The scholars differed concerning witr: is it obligatory or a sunnah? He then says: Whoever has a regular night prayer must perform witr, whereas whoever has no regular night prayer is not obliged to do so. He then said: This corresponds in part to the view of those who hold it to be unconditionally obligatory, because it is obligatory only in one circumstance and not another. The point is that when a disagreement among the scholars exists, and someone adopts a middle position by making a distinction that agrees with one group in one respect and with the other group in another, this is not a violation of consensus or a departure from the views of the scholars.

His statement: “If someone makes a claim against another concerning something and he confirms it, it is valid.” This is an issue about which someone might say that it is like saying, “The sky is above us and the earth is beneath us,” or like the statement of another:

It is as though we, with water all around us,
Are people seated with water surrounding them.

This is self-evident. That is, a person comes and says, “You owe me ten dirhams,” and the other replies, “Yes.”

The author says that when the matter is as such, the acknowledgment is valid. What he intends, however, is that an acknowledgment is valid in whatever wording it is made. Thus, whether you say, “I acknowledge that I owe so-and-so such-and-such,” or someone comes and says, “You owe me such-and-such…”