If, however, he says, “He has against me what lies between one dirham up to ten,” he is liable for nine, because the end-point is not deemed part of what it limits. Some jurists, though, maintain that when the end-point is of the same kind as the thing limited it is included; otherwise it is not.

If he says, “He has against me what lies between this wall and that wall,” the two walls themselves are not included, for he has acknowledged only what is between them.

If he acknowledges to someone a single tree, or a number of trees, his admission does not cover the land beneath them; therefore, should the tree perish he has no right to replant in its place, nor may the landowner uproot it, for the presumption is that it was planted lawfully.

By contrast, if he acknowledges an orchard, his admission embraces the trees, the buildings and the ground, for the term “orchard” comprises them all.

If he says, “I owe him dates in a sack,” or “a knife in a sheath,” or “a garment in a cloth wrap,” he has confessed to what is inside, not to the container. The same principle applies whenever a thing is mentioned as either the container or the contained: they are two distinct items, the first does not necessarily entail the second, the container and its contents may belong to different people, and an acknowledgement that allows for such a possibility is not binding.

If he says, “This item is shared between me and so-and-so,” the proportion of the partner’s share is referred back to the confessor for clarification. Another view holds that they divide it equally, for the general rule is that an unqualified claim of partnership implies equality between the partners; Allah says, “So they are partners in one third.”

Anyone who holds another’s right is obliged to acknowledge it whenever the need arises.