I am not liable,” because that would nullify the basis itself. This, however, merely removes an attribute; it is termed a specification, not nullification.

If he acknowledges a deferred debt, and the person in whose favor the acknowledgment is made denies the deferment, then the word of the one making the acknowledgment is accepted with his oath. If he acknowledges that he made a gift or pledge and delivered possession, or acknowledges receipt of a price or something else, then denies receipt without denying the acknowledgment, and requests that his opponent be required to swear, he has that right, …

His statement, “If he acknowledges a deferred debt, and the person in whose favor the acknowledgment is made denies the deferment, then the word of the one making the acknowledgment is accepted with his oath”: If someone acknowledges a deferred debt and the person in whose favor the acknowledgment is made denies the deferment, then we have two conflicting presumptions. The first is that the basic presumption is immediate payment rather than deferment: the man has acknowledged a debt and claims that it is deferred. The second is that the one making the acknowledgment is liable, and the statement of one who is liable is accepted because he is the defendant. Which of these two presumptions takes precedence? We give precedence to the second: namely, that the one making the acknowledgment is liable. What supports his truthfulness is that he acknowledged the debt, whereas he could have denied it, since the claimant has no proof.

Thus, if a man says, “This man owes me one hundred riyals,” and he replies, “Yes, I owe you one hundred, payable after a year or after a month,” then the word of the one making the acknowledgment is accepted, because the debt has been established only through his acknowledgment, and he acknowledged it only with this qualification. Therefore, he is not liable for more than what he acknowledged. Moreover, he is in fact liable, and the statement of one who is liable is accepted.

But if he says, “I sold you something for one hundred,” and the other replies, “Yes, you sold it to me for one hundred, but the price is deferred,” then the word of the seller is accepted, because the basic presumption is that there is no deferment. This man has acknowledged that the seller sold it to him, but he claims that the price is deferred, so his claim is not accepted.

His statement, “then the word of the one making the acknowledgment is accepted with his oath”: In every case in which we say that a person’s statement is accepted, it is accepted with his oath, due to the general wording of the hadith: “The proof is upon the claimant, and the oath is upon the one who denies.” (1)