Section

If he says, “He has something due from me,” or, “He has such-and-such due from me,” he is told, “Explain it.” If he refuses, he is detained until he explains it. If he explains it as a right of pre-emption or as the smallest amount of wealth, his explanation is accepted. But if he explains it as carrion, wine, or a walnut shell, it is not accepted, …

The author has included this section concerning an acknowledgment of something general, unspecified, and dependent upon something else.

His statement, “If he says, ‘He has something due from me’”: “Something” is an unrestricted, general, undefined word. We do not know what this thing is.

His statement, “Or such-and-such”: that is, he says, “He has such-and-such due from me.” The expression “such-and-such,” or “such-and-such-and-such,” is likewise general and unspecified. Here an acknowledgment has been established, but that which is acknowledged has not been specified. So what should we do? The author says:

“He is told, ‘Explain it’”: that is, the one making the acknowledgment is told, “Explain it. What is this thing that you said is due to so-and-so from you?” If he says, “The thing due to him from me is one hundred dirhams,” then he is liable for one hundred dirhams. Or if he says, “He has such-and-such due from me,” he is told, “Explain this unspecified matter.” If he says, “One hundred dinars,” then he is liable for one hundred dinars. If the person in whose favor the acknowledgment was made claims that it was one hundred dinars in the first case, or two hundred dinars in the second, he must produce evidence; otherwise, the statement of the one making the acknowledgment is accepted, since he is the one incurring liability, and the right has only been established through his own statement. Therefore, the explanation is referred back to him.

His statement, “If he refuses, he is detained until he explains it”: meaning, he is prevented from coming and going until he explains it. For when he says, “He has such-and-such due from me,” another person’s right becomes attached to him. Since this right is unspecified, he is obliged to explain it.

Once he explains it, his explanation is accepted in some cases and not accepted in others. If he explains it as something that is recognized as property, and which people customarily acknowledge and undertake as an obligation to others, then his explanation is accepted. This is why he says: