LessonsKitab al-Iqrar: Debt and Trust, Admissions by Reply, and Deferred DebtsQuiz

The previous lesson examined how much property was admitted. This lesson asks whether the admission establishes a debt owed personally or a trust held for someone else. Both recognize another's right, but not the same form of liability.
Three further questions follow: Can an indirect reply to a claimant count as acknowledgment? What if the debtor claims a payment term that the creditor denies? Who is asked to swear about that disputed term?

Opening interactive controls...

Kitab al-Iqrar: Debt and Trust, Admissions by Reply, and Deferred Debts

ʿAlayya and qibali, ʿindi and maʿi, responsive admissions, and a disputed term of payment Read the bilingual lesson for Kitab al-Iqrar: Debt and Trust, Admissions by Reply, and Deferred Debts and test your understanding with a focused quiz.

Lesson

1. Why does the wording of an admission matter?

The previous lesson examined how much property was admitted. This lesson asks whether the admission establishes a debt owed personally or a trust held for someone else. Both recognize another's right, but not the same form of liability.
Three further questions follow: Can an indirect reply to a claimant count as acknowledgment? What if the debtor claims a payment term that the creditor denies? Who is asked to swear about that disputed term?

2. Text: acknowledging a debt

وَإِنْ قَالَ «لَهُ عَلَيَّ» أَوْ «قِبَلِي» فَقَدْ أَقَرَّ بِدَيْنٍ
If he says that the right is owed by him or is due from him, he has admitted a debt.
ʿAlayya expresses personal liability; qibali also denotes an obligation owed by the speaker in this context. Once the right or amount is determined, the claim concerns discharging an obligation, not simply locating an item held in custody.

3. Text: acknowledging custody in trust

وَإِنْ قَالَ «عِنْدِي» أَوْ «مَعِي» فَهُوَ إِقْرَارٌ بِأَمَانَةٍ فِي يَدِهِ
If he says that the other person's property is with him or in his possession, he acknowledges property held in trust.
Here ʿindi and maʿi indicate possession or custody. Those words alone do not establish that the speaker borrowed and spent an equivalent amount. An obligation owed personally and property held for its owner are distinct legal relationships.

4. The legal force of ʿalayya

Suppose Zayd says: لِخَالِدٍ عَلَيَّ أَلْفُ دِرْهَمٍ—“I owe Khalid 1,000 dirhams.” He speaks about his personal financial obligation, not about specific coins of Khalid sitting in Zayd's cupboard.
A debt measured in money is normally discharged by paying the amount owed, not necessarily by returning particular physical coins. The point is liability in the debtor's estate.

5. Qibali also denotes a debt

The word qibali must not be dismissed because it lacks the preposition ʿala. Al-Quduri expressly pairs the two and gives them the same consequence: acknowledgment of a debt.
For example, describing 500 dirhams as due from oneself in either expression acknowledges a payable obligation. The judge still examines the full statement to determine the precise right admitted.

6. ʿIndi: another person’s property is with me

If someone says لِزَيْدٍ عِنْدِي ثَوْبٌ, he admits that Zayd's garment is with him. The primary admission concerns the owner's proprietary right and custody of the specific garment.
If it remains available, the appropriate claim is return of that very garment, not automatically a monetary debt equal to its value. If it was lost, a separate inquiry asks whether misconduct or negligence created liability.

7. Maʿi: property in one’s possession

Maʿi ordinarily means “with me.” Al-Quduri likewise treats it as admission of a trust when it establishes another's property in the speaker's possession.
If Zayd carries Khalid's sealed envelope and admits “Khalid's envelope is with me,” the admission concerns custody. It does not automatically make Zayd personally indebted for its contents. The chosen expression frames the legal claim.

8. Debt versus trust: a focused comparison

Debt: a payment or delivery obligation rests upon the person making the admission; the inquiry is how it must be discharged.
Trust: another person's specific property is held by the speaker; the inquiry is its return and the custodian's duties.
Both acknowledge a right against the speaker in a legally relevant sense. They differ in the nature of the right, not in whether the other person has any right.

9. Loss of a trust does not always create a debt

A trust does not invariably turn into a debt just because the property is lost. A lawful custodian who met the required standard of care is generally not liable for loss without misconduct or neglect.
Conversely, unauthorized use, wrongful handling or negligent custody can produce liability. Therefore ʿindi proves a type of holding; any later compensation depends on the facts of custody and loss.

10. Replacing one word changes the case

Compare two statements about the same figure:
لَكَ عَلَيَّ أَلْفٌ — “I owe you 1,000”: a debt.
لَكَ عِنْدِي أَلْفٌ — “I have 1,000 of yours”: prima facie a trust.
The presence of a money amount in both does not erase the difference. The contrast between ʿalayya and ʿindi matters to classification.

11. Text: a reply may itself be an admission

وَإِنْ قَالَ لَهُ رَجُلٌ «لِي عَلَيْكَ أَلْفٌ» فَقَالَ «اتَّزِنْهَا» أَوْ «انْتَقِدْهَا» أَوْ «أَجِّلْنِي بِهَا» أَوْ «قَدْ قَضَيْتُكَهَا» فَهُوَ إِقْرَارٌ
If someone says, “You owe me 1,000,” and the respondent says “Weigh it,” “Inspect it,” “Give me more time for it,” or “I already paid it to you,” that reply counts as acknowledgment.
None of these literally says “I admit the debt.” In context, however, each treats the specific claim as a recognized obligation.

12. Ittazinha: weigh it and take it

Ittazinha is an imperative meaning “Weigh them,” with -ha pointing back to the claimed money. The expression reflects a setting in which coins were weighed.
When asked for 1,000 dirhams, a reply such as “Go ahead and weigh them” treats the claimed money as payable. That acknowledges the obligation; it does not by itself prove that actual payment has occurred.

13. Intaqidha: inspect the coins

Intaqidha means “Inspect or test them,” referring to examination of coins for acceptability and quality—a material concern in historical currency exchange.
In response to a demand for 1,000 dirhams, “Inspect them” links the very coins to the claimed obligation and counts as an acknowledgment. It does not prove the coins passed inspection or were delivered.

14. Ajjilni biha: asking for an extension

Ajjilni biha means “Grant me time regarding that sum.” Asking for more time to satisfy a particular claimed obligation ordinarily recognizes its existence.
If Khalid demands 1,000 and Zayd replies, “Give me one more month for it,” Zayd acknowledges the debt. But the request alone does not show that Khalid agreed to the extension. Request and grant are distinct events.

15. Qad qadaytukaha: I have paid it

Qad qadaytukaha means “I have already paid it to you.” Although intended as a defense, it presupposes that the amount was owed in the first place.
Thus the statement acknowledges the underlying debt, while alleging subsequent discharge. If the creditor denies receiving payment, the debtor's bare assertion does not automatically establish repayment; the separate evidentiary rules must be applied.

16. Admission and alleged repayment are distinct

Two propositions may be litigated separately:
First: Zayd owed Khalid 1,000 dirhams.
Second: Zayd later paid those 1,000 dirhams.
Qad qadaytukaha acknowledges the first but asserts the second. Repayment may still require proof or the creditor's admission. Similarly ajjilni biha acknowledges the debt but does not itself establish a mutually accepted extension.

17. Why the pronoun -ha matters

The original examples link the reply to the earlier claim through the pronoun -ha or bi-ha. For instance, ittazinha more clearly refers to the disputed sum than a bare imperative ittazin.
*Al-Ikhtiyar* explains that where an utterance may stand independently, an acknowledgment should not be imposed on mere doubt. The grammatical link to the demand is therefore legally significant.

18. Why an ambiguous reply is not automatically an admission

Acknowledgment establishes a right against its speaker, so its indication must be assessed carefully. If a reply could equally be a general, independent instruction unrelated to the claimant's figure, it cannot always be treated as an admission.
Work in sequence: identify the claim, analyze the reply's wording and pronouns, consider its connection to the occasion, and then decide whether the statement sufficiently recognizes the debt.

19. Commentarial extension: ajjaltuka biha

*Al-Ikhtiyar* adds ajjaltuka biha—“I granted you time concerning it.” In a connected exchange, that can also imply recognition of the underlying right.
Do not confuse it with ajjilni biha: in the first of these expressions, the speaker claims to grant time to the other person; in the second, the debtor requests time. This is a commentarial extension, not one of the four responses quoted in Al-Quduri's clause.

20. Text: disputing the due date of an admitted debt

وَمَنْ أَقَرَّ بِدَيْنٍ مُؤَجَّلٍ فَصَدَّقَهُ الْمُقَرُّ لَهُ فِي الدَّيْنِ وَكَذَّبَهُ فِي التَّأْجِيلِ لَزِمَهُ الدَّيْنُ حَالًّا، وَيُسْتَحْلَفُ الْمُقَرُّ لَهُ فِي الْأَجَلِ
If someone admits a deferred debt and the creditor accepts the debt but denies its deferment, the debt is treated as presently due, and the creditor is asked to swear concerning the claimed term.
The rule depends on separating acknowledgment of the obligation from the debtor's further assertion that collection is postponed.

21. Admitting the principal versus claiming a term

Suppose Zayd says, “I owe Khalid 1,000 dirhams, but payment falls due in three months.” Khalid agrees that the debt exists but denies granting three months.
The debtor's own words establish the debt. The further allegation of deferment remains contested. Under the Hanafi ruling stated here, Zayd's unproved claim of a term does not itself postpone collection.

22. Hallan: the debt is presently due

Hallan means the acknowledged debt is treated as immediately claimable in this dispute. The court is not creating a new debt; the admission already established it. What remains disputed is when it may be demanded.
If the term is duly proved, or the creditor acknowledges it, the factual position changes. The core structure is: debt admitted + deferment disputed and unproved = immediately payable.

23. Why the creditor is asked to swear

The text says وَيُسْتَحْلَفُ الْمُقَرُّ لَهُ فِي الْأَجَلِ: the creditor (muqarr lahu) is asked to swear about the disputed term, not the debtor.
The debtor alleges a right to postpone payment, while the creditor denies that term. Under the rule governing oaths, the denier may be required to swear. The oath addresses whether deferment was agreed, not whether the debt exists at all, since that is admitted.

24. Fath al-Qadir: the term benefits the debtor

*Fath al-Qadir* explains that the debtor admits a liability against himself, while also claiming a further benefit to himself: postponement of the creditor's demand.
The debt is established by admission, but the claimed payment term is an additional matter benefiting the debtor. Therefore the existence of the obligation must be separated from its maturity. The commentary also distinguishes this ordinary-debt question from particular forms of suretyship.

25. Worked dialogue: interpreting the reply

Case 1: Khalid demands 1,000; Zayd answers “Inspect the coins.” This acknowledges the claim.
Case 2: Khalid demands 1,000; Zayd requests more time for that amount. This acknowledges the claim but does not prove the extension was granted.
Case 3: Khalid demands 1,000; Zayd says “I already paid you.” This acknowledges a former debt while separately alleging its discharge.
Each ruling depends on how the reply connects to the demand.

26. A practical reasoning sequence for the judge

Ask four questions before classifying the dispute:
1. Does the statement use ʿalayya/qibali or ʿindi/maʿi?
2. If a reply is alleged to be an admission, what was demanded and does the response refer back to it?
3. Is the person admitting the debt while separately alleging repayment, release or deferment?
4. Which proposition is admitted, which is contested, and which may require evidence or an oath?

27. Lesson synthesis and next rule

ʿAlayya / qibali acknowledge a debt; ʿindi / maʿi acknowledge trust property.
Ittazinha, intaqidha, ajjilni biha, qad qadaytukaha can operate as admissions when tied to a preceding claim.
If the debtor admits the debt but alleges a term rejected by the creditor, Al-Quduri treats the debt as immediately claimable and directs an oath to the creditor on denial of the term.
The next level addresses continuous exceptions from an acknowledgment and how the remaining amount is calculated.

Practice questions

Question 1

What kind of right is admitted by “lahu ʿalayya”?

  • A debt or personal obligation
  • Only a specific item held in trust
  • Only a non-binding promise
  • Only a promise to lend in future rather than an existing liability

Question 2

Al-Quduri treats “lahu qibali” as equivalent to which admission?

  • Admission of custody only
  • An admission of receiving a sum for safekeeping
  • Acknowledgment of debt
  • A promise to pay in the future, without admitting an existing debt

Question 3

What is initially admitted by saying another person’s garment is “ʿindi”?

  • A necessary debt for its price
  • Holding the garment as trust property
  • Acknowledging a credit purchase of the garment
  • An assertion that the garment belongs to the speaker

Question 4

In this context, what does “maʿi” indicate?

  • The value of that property has already been paid
  • The money is owed personally
  • A third person has an obligation to deliver the property
  • Another person’s property is with me

Question 5

What is the core distinction between debt and trust admissions?

  • Personal liability versus custody of specific property
  • A debt requires specific property; a trust only monetary value
  • Debt always arises from sale and trust always from gift
  • Trust custody can never generate liability, even after misconduct

Question 6

As a general rule, what if entrusted property is lost without misconduct or neglect?

  • The trustee compensates every loss regardless of fault
  • Any loss automatically converts the trust to debt
  • The custodian is generally not liable
  • A matching replacement is always owed by the custodian

Question 7

A custodian used trust property without authorization and it was lost. What matters next?

  • Whether the deposit was documented in writing
  • Whether misconduct created liability
  • Whether the property was fungible or individually valued
  • Whether the owner urgently needed the property returned

Question 8

Khalid claims “li ʿalayka alf”; Zayd replies “ittazinha.” What follows?

  • It proves payment occurred
  • It is a promise, not acceptance of immediate payment
  • It merely asks what type of coins are involved
  • It is an admission connected to the demand

Question 9

What does “ittazinha” literally instruct?

  • Weigh them
  • Count and keep them with me
  • Defer them for an agreed term
  • Exchange them for another class of goods

Question 10

What does “intaqidha” primarily mean here?

  • Count and preserve them
  • Make a further loan secured by them
  • Inspect or test the coins
  • Specify when payment will be due

Question 11

Why can “intaqidha” in a response count as an admission?

  • Because it explicitly says ʿalayya
  • Because it refers to the particular demanded payment
  • Because every imperative is an admission
  • Because it is an explicit direct statement of accepting a debt

Question 12

What does “ajjilni biha” establish?

  • The debtor has been permanently released from paying
  • The debt has become unquantified
  • The due date is binding without the creditor agreeing
  • The debt was acknowledged while an extension was requested

Question 13

How do requesting and receiving an extension differ?

  • The former is a request; the latter requires acceptance
  • The debtor’s statement is decisive in both cases
  • Merely asking for time cancels the underlying debt
  • Granting time necessarily transfers ownership of property

Question 14

Why is “qad qadaytukaha” treated as an admission?

  • Because it categorically denies ever owing
  • Because the reply denies the creditor’s underlying right
  • Because alleging payment presupposes an earlier debt
  • Because repayment converts debt into trust property

Question 15

Creditor denies receipt; debtor says “I paid.” What remains separately to be proved?

  • Whether the same amount was specified in the initial demand
  • Whether repayment actually occurred
  • Whether the funds were held as a trust deposit
  • Whether a separate deferred term had been agreed

Question 16

What do “qad qadaytukaha” and “ajjilni biha” share?

  • Both are unrelated to any underlying debt
  • Both concern only trust custody
  • Both prove actual payment
  • Both acknowledge debt while making different further claims

Question 17

To what does the pronoun “-ha” in the four replies refer?

  • The specific amount in the preceding demand
  • The payment term previously alleged by the debtor
  • A specific separate item held in someone else’s custody
  • A different fresh loan not mentioned in the exchange

Question 18

Why does a generic ambiguous response not invariably count as an admission?

  • Because every imperative must be a mere promise
  • Because the literal word iqrar must always be spoken
  • Because liability is not imposed solely on doubtful linkage
  • Because pronouns in replies can never establish a link

Question 19

Where is “ajjaltuka biha” used as a further illustrative expression?

  • Only among Al-Quduri’s four quoted responses
  • As a further example in Al-Ikhtiyar
  • In the original deferred-debt discussion of Fath al-Qadir
  • In the debtor-imprisonment example of Kitab al-Hajr

Question 20

What is the key difference between “ajjilni biha” and “ajjaltuka biha”?

  • Payment in the former, release from liability in the latter
  • Two forms of denial versus two admissions
  • Trust acknowledgment in the former, collection in the latter
  • The first asks for time; the second asserts granting time

Question 21

Debtor admits 1,000 due in three months; creditor denies only the term. What is disputed?

  • Only the time of payment
  • The underlying cause and legal type of the debt
  • The creditor’s ownership and legal capacity
  • Whether the debt exists and its amount

Question 22

Under Al-Quduri, if the creditor denies the debtor’s unproved claim of a term, how is the debt treated?

  • The entire claim is dismissed despite acknowledging the debt
  • The debt is owed but must in every case await the stated term
  • Immediately payable (hall)
  • The debt becomes trust property pending verification of the term

Question 23

What does “hallan” specify in “lazimahu al-dayn hallan”?

  • The original cause giving rise to the debt
  • That payment is due now
  • Reducing the amount legally owed
  • Reclassifying the debt as trust property

Question 24

Why distinguish existence of a debt from its term?

  • They are always identical
  • Any term eliminates the debt
  • Admitting debt proves every extra assertion
  • Debt may be admitted while the term requires separate proof

Question 25

According to “wa yustahlafu al-muqarr lahu fi al-ajal,” who is asked to swear?

  • The creditor (muqarr lahu)
  • Necessarily the debtor
  • Two witnesses establishing the underlying debt
  • Always from the creditor’s representative

Question 26

In this dispute, what is the oath specifically about?

  • When the original debt arose
  • Whether both parties agree on the amount
  • Whether deferment was granted
  • Whether the debtor clearly acknowledged the debt

Question 27

How does Fath al-Qadir characterize the debtor’s claimed term?

  • A claim that the obligation is fully extinguished
  • A further right benefiting the debtor by postponing demand
  • A claim that the sum was merely trust property
  • A claim that the currency class of the debt changed

Question 28

Why does the case differ if the creditor also acknowledges a three-month term?

  • Because capacity to acknowledge ends
  • Because the creditor relinquishes the whole debt
  • Because a debt can only be admitted through express words
  • Because there is no longer a dispute denying the term

Question 29

When demanding return of property admitted by “ʿindi,” what is the primary focus?

  • Return and condition of the identified property
  • Demanding its value even when the specified property exists
  • Converting every trust loss into a debt
  • An unmentioned deferral term

Question 30

What does admitting custody of 1,000 dirhams not automatically establish?

  • The other person’s right to that money
  • An assertion of possession
  • That the holder borrowed and spent it as personal debt
  • A possible request for its return

Question 31

A reply of “qad qadaytukaha” follows “li ʿalayka alf.” What is the best analysis?

  • No admission, so the case ends
  • Admission of an earlier debt plus separate allegation of payment
  • Payment conclusively proved without evidence
  • It is only an admission of trust

Question 32

Why can debt acknowledgment and a claimed future term be assessed separately?

  • Because statements never establish rights
  • Because every financial admission inherently includes a term
  • Because every statement of a debtor must be rejected without proof
  • Because debt admission is against the speaker while deferment benefits him

Open the interactive quiz