In a dispute over debt originating from an unreceived sale price, whose claim is upheld when the debtor asserts a counterclaim?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Acknowledgment of Rights
Primary text
When a claimant states, 'I owe you one thousand from the price of a sale I have not received,' and the defendant replies, 'No, you owe me one thousand, and you have nothing of mine,' there are two views. One view supports the claimant (the one to whom the debt is acknowledged) because the defendant acknowledged the thousand owed and simultaneously claimed ownership of an unreceived sale item, akin to a pawn becoming a deposit. The second view supports the defendant (the one making the counterclaim).
Supporting text
The prevailing view, consistent with the established Madhhab, the position of Al-Qadi, Ash-Shafi'i, and Abu Yusuf, is that the defendant's statement is accepted. This is because the defendant acknowledged a right (the debt) in exchange for a right (the sale item) that cannot be separated. If the sale item is not handed over, the debt is not due. This is contrasted with a scenario where the owner claims a pawn and the holder claims it is merely a deposit, as the debt can be separated from the pawn.