What is the legal consequence when a debtor admits an obligation of one thousand (currency unit) and then immediately states, "I paid it to him"?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Acknowledgment of Rights
Primary text
If a debtor admits, "He has a thousand upon me, I paid it to him," the thousand is due upon him, and the subsequent claim of payment is not accepted. The primary reasoning dictates that this statement is self-contradictory and impossible to sustain simultaneously. The assertion that the debt is owed implies its persistence in his liability and the permissibility of demanding it, whereas the assertion of payment implies his exoneration from it and the prohibition of demanding it. These two states—debt existing and debt being paid—are contradictory at the same moment. This differs from stating, "He had a thousand upon me, and I paid it," which describes two separate time periods where payment could legitimately extinguish a previous obligation.
Supporting text
The view of Al-Qadi accepts the claim of payment in this instance because the debtor is presenting the discharge of the debt immediately following its affirmation, making it analogous to saying, "He had a debt upon me, and I paid it." Furthermore, Ibn Abi Musa holds that if the debtor states, "I paid all of it," the claim is not accepted without proof, but the amount acknowledged remains due, and the creditor may require an oath from the debtor. If the debtor states, "I paid part of it," one narration accepts this, as it resembles an exception (Istithna), being a removal of only a portion of the acknowledged amount. This is distinguished from claiming full payment because claiming full payment attempts to nullify the entire established liability, akin to excepting the whole amount.