It is also possible to infer that manumission suffices for him, based on our statement regarding its validity from him. If he vows a physical act of worship, he is obligated to perform it; because he is not restricted regarding his own person. If he vows the donation of wealth, it is not valid from him, and he performs expiation through fasting. If the interdiction is lifted from him before he performs the expiation in all these instances, he is obligated to perform manumission if he is capable of it. The implication of our colleagues' view is that he is obligated to fulfill his vow, based on their view regarding someone who makes an acknowledgment before the interdiction is lifted from him, then it is lifted from him, as he is then obligated to fulfill it. If the interdiction is lifted after he has performed the expiation, nothing is required of him, just as if he had performed the expiation for his oath through fasting and then the interdiction was lifted from him.

Section: If he acknowledges the lineage of a child, it is accepted from him; because it is not an acknowledgment of wealth, nor a disposition over it, so it is accepted, like his acknowledgment of hadd (prescribed penalty) and divorce. When the lineage is established, its rulings apply to him, such as maintenance and other things; because that occurred as an implication of what was valid from him, so it resembles the maintenance of a wife.

816 - Issue; he said: (And if he acknowledges a debt, it is not binding upon him during the state of his interdiction).

The entirety of this is that if the spendthrift (safih) acknowledges wealth, such as a debt, or what necessitates it, such as unintentional homicide (khata'), semi-intentional homicide, destruction of wealth, usurpation, or theft, his acknowledgment is not accepted regarding it; because he is under interdiction for his own benefit, so his acknowledgment of wealth is not valid, like that of a minor and an insane person. Furthermore, if we were to accept his acknowledgment regarding his wealth, the meaning of the interdiction would vanish; because he would dispose of his wealth, then acknowledge it, and the one to whom it is acknowledged would take it. Also, because he has acknowledged what he is prohibited from disposing of, [so it does not take effect], like the acknowledgment of a mortgagor regarding the mortgaged property, or the insolvent person regarding his wealth. The implication of al-Khiraqi's statement is that he is obligated by what he acknowledged after the interdiction is lifted from him. This is the apparent view of our colleagues and the view of Abu Thawr; because he is a legally responsible person who has acknowledged what is not binding upon him at the moment, so it becomes binding upon him after the interdiction is lifted from him, like a slave who acknowledges a debt, a mortgagor who acknowledges [regarding] mortgaged property, or an insolvent person [regarding wealth]. It is also possible that his acknowledgment is not valid and he is not to be held to it in