it only attaches to his property, not his personal liability. However, the owners of these debts do not participate with the creditors because they were content with that when they knew he was insolvent and transacted with him, and whoever did not know has been negligent in that, for this is in a position where it is commonly known, and he is pursued for it after the interdiction is lifted from him. If he acknowledges a debt, it becomes binding upon him after the interdiction is lifted. Ahmad explicitly stated this, and it is the view of Malik, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, al-Thawri, and al-Shafi'i in one opinion. In his other opinion, he said: He participates with them, and Ibn al-Mundhir chose this; because it is an established debt linked to what was before the interdiction, so its owner participates with the creditors, just as if it were established by evidence. Our position is that he is interdicted, so his acknowledgement is not valid regarding that for which he was interdicted, like a feeble-minded person, or like a mortgagor who acknowledges [a debt] against the mortgage. Also, it is an acknowledgement whose establishment would invalidate the right of someone other than the acknowledger, so it is not accepted; or it is an acknowledgement against the creditors, so it is not accepted, like the acknowledgement of a mortgagor. Furthermore, he is suspected regarding his acknowledgement, so it is like an acknowledgement against someone else, and it differs from evidence, for there is no suspicion in the latter.

If the insolvent person is a craftsman, such as a fuller or a weaver, and he has goods in his possession, and he acknowledges them for their owners, his acknowledgement is not accepted, and the ruling regarding it is the same as the one before it. The specific item in his possession is sold and divided among the creditors, and its value becomes an obligation upon the insolvent person if he is able to pay it; because it was directed toward his debt for a reason from his side, so its value is upon him, as if he had permitted that. If an oath is directed toward the insolvent person and he refuses to take it, and a judgment is passed against him, his ruling is the ruling of his acknowledgement; it is binding upon him, but he does not share with the creditors.

Section: If the insolvent person emancipates some of his slaves, is it valid? There are two narrations: One of them is that it is valid and effective. This is the view of Abu Yusuf and Ishaq; because it is an emancipation from a sane owner, so it is effective, just as it was before the interdiction. It differs from other dispositions because emancipation has a sense of dominance and extension (sariyah), which is why it extends to the property of others and its effect persists, unlike others. The other narration is that his emancipation is not effective. This was the view of Malik, Ibn Abi Layla, al-Thawri, and al-Shafi'i, and it was chosen by Abu al-Khattab.