There is, however, another view with respect to the single word “Yes.” If the creditor says, “Settle the thousand you owe me,” and the debtor replies, “Yes,” or “I will settle it tomorrow,” or “Give me one day’s respite,” or “until I sit down,” or “until I open the purse,” or “until I find the money,” then—according to the sounder opinion—this counts as a valid acknowledgment.

Section

For an acknowledgment to be valid, the thing acknowledged must not already belong to the one who makes the confession. Hence, if he says, “My house,” or “My garment,” or “My claim against Zayd is for ʿAmr,” the statement is meaningless. If, however, he declares, “This belongs to so-and-so and it was my property until I made this acknowledgment,” the first part of the sentence is a binding acknowledgment, while the latter part is of no effect.

Ideally, the object acknowledged should be in the confessing party’s possession so that, by virtue of the confession, it passes to the beneficiary. If he makes the acknowledgment while the item is not in his hand and later performs an act consistent with that confession—such as declaring a slave who is in someone else’s possession to be free and then purchasing him—the slave is ruled free. If the wording was, “He is originally free,” the purchase is deemed a redemption. If the wording was, “I have manumitted him,” then, according to the preferred view, the purchase counts as a redemption from the buyer’s side and as a sale from the seller’s side, and both options of rescission rest with the seller alone.

One may lawfully acknowledge an unspecified amount. Thus, if he says, “I owe him something,” the statement is accepted, prior to any clarification, as covering anything that has monetary value, however small. Should he later explain it as something that possesses little or no market value yet belongs to the same category—such as a single grain of wheat—or as something that may lawfully be owned, like a trained dog or manure, the explanation is accepted according to the sounder opinion. It is not accepted if he defines it as something that may not be owned, such as a pig, a useless dog, or as a mere act like visiting the sick or returning a greeting.

If he acknowledges “property,” or “a great amount of property,” or “a large (or plentiful) amount of property,” the confession is accepted even if he later construes it as only a small sum. The same applies—according to the sounder opinion—if he specifies a mustawlada (a slave-woman who has borne her owner a child), but not if he specifies a dog or the hide of a dead animal.

His statement “He has such-and-such against me” is the same as saying “something,” and repeating the word—“a thing, a thing,” or “such-and-such, such-and-such”—is treated as though no repetition had occurred. By contrast, if he says “a thing and a thing” or “such-and-such and such-and-such,” two separate liabilities arise.

If he says “such-and-such a dirham,” or places the word “dirham” in the nominative or genitive case, he owes one dirham. According to the predominant view, if he says “such-and-such and such-and-such dirhams,” putting “dirhams” in the accusative