What is the ruling when a person admits liability for Dirhams without specifying the currency type?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Acknowledgment of Rights
Primary text
If a person admits liability for a sum of Dirhams and uses an unqualified term, and subsequently specifies that it refers to the coinage (*sikkah*) of the town where the admission occurred, the specification is accepted. This acceptance is because the unqualified admission naturally defaults to the local currency. Furthermore, if the specified currency is of higher value than the local standard, the specification is accepted because the person is affirming a greater liability against themselves. If the specified currency is of equivalent value to the local standard, the specification is also accepted because there is no suspicion regarding the declaration in this regard.
Supporting text
If the specified currency is of lower value than the local standard but has an equal weight, there is a view that the specification should not be accepted. This is because the unqualified term implies the town's currency and its current medium of exchange, thus one cannot accept a lesser value in its place, similar to invalidity in a sale transaction. Moreover, because it is deficient in value, the specification with it is not accepted, similar to a deficiency in weight. However, another view holds that it should be accepted, which is the position of Imam Al-Shafi'i, because what he specified is a possibility for the general term 'Dirhams.' This differs from a deficient denomination because the general reference in Sharia law to 'Dirhams' does not necessarily include the deficient one, unlike the current case where the specified currency is still considered Dirhams, and it pertains to obligations like the *Nisab* threshold for Zakat. It also differs from the price in a sale because the price establishes an immediate obligation, whereas this statement is a report concerning a past right.