were to usurp a dog whose benefit is permissible, he would be obliged to return it to its owner. Although he would not be liable for compensation if he destroyed it, he must return it because its owner benefits from it.

Likewise, the prescribed punishment for slander is accepted as an explanation, because it is a right due to an individual and is therefore like a financial right. Thus, if he says, “He has something due from me,” and is asked, “What is it?” and replies, “The prescribed punishment for slander, because I slandered him; he has the right to have me flogged eighty lashes,” this is accepted.

It was also said that it is not accepted—that is, in either of the two cases—because it is not property.

If the person in whose favor the acknowledgement was made claims something, he is told: “Produce evidence; otherwise, you have no claim.”

His statement: “If he says, ‘He has a thousand due from me,’ the explanation of its type is referred back to him.” “A thousand” is an unspecified number whose type is unknown. We say: “Explain it: a thousand dirhams? A thousand dinars? A thousand garments?” Thus, its explanation is referred back to him.

His statement: “If he explains it as one type or as several types, his explanation is accepted.” One type would be if he says: “A thousand dinars.” If he says, “A thousand dinars and one dirham,” these are two types. But in this example, do we say that he owes a thousand dinars plus one dirham, or do we say, “A thousand dinars and dirhams,” meaning a thousand consisting of dinars and dirhams? The apparent meaning is the first: a thousand dinars plus one dirham. However, if he says, “A thousand dinars and dirhams,” then he owes an amount from both types that does not exceed a thousand. Yet we say: if he does not specify the proportion, they are divided equally; that is, half and half. He therefore owes five hundred dinars and five hundred dirhams. The same applies, likewise, to: “A thousand shirts”