that. In every situation where we have stated that the oath is upon the creditors, it is upon all of them; if they swear, they take [their right], and if they refuse, judgment is given for the claimant in accordance with what he claimed, unless we assert that the oath should be turned back [to the claimant], in which case it is turned back to the claimant, so he swears and becomes entitled to his claim. If some of them swear while others do not, the one who swore takes his share, and the ruling for the one who refused is what we have already mentioned.

Section: If the insolvent person acknowledges that he emancipated his slave a month ago, and the slave had acquired property after that, and the creditors deny it, then if we say: "His acknowledgement is not accepted," they take an oath and are entitled to the slave and his earnings. If we say: "His acknowledgement is accepted," it is not accepted regarding his earnings, and it is for the creditors to swear that they do not know that he emancipated him before the earnings, and they take his earnings; because his acknowledgement was only accepted regarding the emancipation and not regarding anything else due to the validity of it coming from him, and because it is based on predominance and the extension of freedom, so it is not accepted regarding the property due to the absence of that factor in it, and because we have placed his acknowledgement in the position of him emancipating in the present, so freedom is not established for him in the past, and thus his earnings are judged to belong to his master, just as if he acknowledged his emancipation, then acknowledged that an item in his possession belongs to him.

Section: If the sold item is land and the buyer built on it or planted on it, then he becomes insolvent, and the seller wishes to reclaim the land, you should consider: if the insolvent person and the creditors agree to remove the plants and the structure, they have the right to do so; because the right belongs to them and does not depart from them. If they remove it, the seller may reclaim his land; because he has found his property in its original state. Our companions said that he is entitled to reclamation before removal, and this is the school of al-Shafi'i. It is possible that he is not entitled to it until the removal takes place; because before removal, he did not reach his property except while it was occupied by the property of the buyer, so it resembles the case where there are nails in a door belonging to the buyer. If we say: "He has the right to reclaim before removal," and they remove it, they are obligated to level the land from the digging and pay the damage for the decrease in the land resulting from it; because that is a decrease that occurred to free the property of the insolvent person, so it is upon him, just as if his young camel entered a person's house and grew large, and its owner wanted to remove it, and it was not possible except by demolishing its door; the door is demolished for it to exit, and its owner compensates for what was diminished, unlike when the seller finds his own property diminished and reclaims it, for he does not reclaim the decrease; because the decrease was in the property of the insolvent person, whereas here it occurred after his reclamation of the essence, so they compensated for it, and he claims the decrease along with the creditors. And if we say: "He does not have the right to reclaim before removal,"