As for their saying that testimony to a negation is not accepted, we say: It is not rejected absolutely. For if the evidence testifies that this person is the heir of the deceased and that there is no other heir but him, it is accepted. Furthermore, although this contains a negation, it establishes a situation that is manifest and can be perceived through observation, unlike if it testified that he has no right [against him], for that is something which cannot be perceived, nor is there a state that can be testified to which leads to knowing it, unlike our issue. The evidence is heard in the present case, and this is the view of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: It is not heard in the present case, and he is imprisoned for a month—it has also been narrated as three months, and four months—until it prevails in the judge's opinion that if he had wealth, he would have disclosed it. Our argument is that every piece of evidence whose hearing is permissible after a period is permissible to be heard in the present case, like all other evidence; and what they mentioned, if it were correct, would dispense with the need for evidence. If the creditor says: "Make him swear for me," along with his oath that he has no wealth, he is not made to swear according to the apparent statement of Ahmad; for he said, in the narration of Ishaq ibn Ibrahim, concerning a man who brought witnesses for a right, and the creditor said: "Make him swear": He is not made to swear, because the apparent meaning of the hadith is: "The evidence is upon the claimant, and the oath is upon the denier." The judge (al-Qadi) said: This is the same whether the evidence testifies to the destruction of wealth or to insolvency. This is one of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i, because it is accepted evidence, so he is not made to swear along with it, as if it testified that this is his slave or this is his house. It is possible that he could be made to swear, and this is the second opinion of al-Shafi'i, because it is possible that he has wealth that was hidden from the evidence. In my view, it is correct to bind him to the oath regarding insolvency in the case where the evidence testifies to the destruction of wealth, and for it to lapse regarding him in the case where it testifies to insolvency; for if it testifies to destruction, he becomes like one for whom no original wealth has been proven, or in the position of one whose creditor has admitted to him the destruction of that wealth, but claims that he has other wealth, or that he has newly acquired wealth after its destruction. If the evidence was not established, and his creditor admitted to him the destruction of his wealth and claimed that he has other wealth, the oath is incumbent upon him; thus it is the same if evidence has been established for it, for it does not add anything more than the admission.