not sane, so his acknowledgment is not valid, like the insane person whose insanity was caused by a prohibited act. Furthermore, the drunkard is not to be trusted regarding the veracity of what he says, and suspicion is not removed from what he reports; thus, the essence of acknowledgment that necessitates the acceptance of his statement is not present. As for the coerced, his acknowledgment is not valid regarding that which he was coerced to acknowledge. This is the school of Ash-Shafi'i, due to the statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "My nation is forgiven for mistakes, forgetfulness, and what they are coerced into" (11). Additionally, it is a statement he was coerced into without right, so it is not valid, just like selling. If he acknowledges something other than what he was coerced into, such as being coerced into acknowledging for a certain man but he acknowledges for someone else, or [acknowledging] a type of wealth but he acknowledges a different one, or being coerced into acknowledging the divorce of a woman but he acknowledges the divorce of another, or acknowledges the manumission of a slave, it is valid; because he acknowledged what he was not coerced into, so it is valid, just as if he had acknowledged it initially. If he were coerced into paying money and sold some of his property to pay that, his sale is valid. This is explicitly stated, because he was not coerced into the sale. Whoever acknowledges a right and then claims he was coerced, his statement is not accepted except with evidence, whether he acknowledged it before a sultan or someone else; because the default principle is the absence of coercion, unless there is an indication of coercion, such as being shackled, imprisoned, or having someone assigned to guard him, in which case his statement is accepted with his oath, because this situation indicates coercion. If he claims that his intellect was absent at the time of his acknowledgment, his statement is not accepted except with evidence, because the default principle is a sound state until the contrary is known. If witnesses testify to his acknowledgment, the validity of the testimony does not depend on them saying "voluntarily and in a sound state of mind," because the apparent state is soundness of condition and validity of the testimony. We have previously mentioned the rulings on the acknowledgment of the fool, the bankrupt, and the sick person in their respective chapters. As for the slave, his acknowledgment is valid regarding hadd punishments and qisas (retributive justice) for offenses less than murder; because the right belongs to him, not to his master. The master's acknowledgment against him is not valid, because the master does not own anything of the slave except his wealth. It is possible that the master's acknowledgment against him might be valid regarding what necessitates qisas, and the wealth becomes due rather than the qisas; because the wealth relates to his person, which is the master's property, so his acknowledgment of it is valid, like accidental injury. As for his acknowledgment of what necessitates qisas for murder, the explicit view from Ahmad is that it is not accepted, and he is pursued for it after emancipation. This is the opinion of Zufar, Al-Muzani, Dawud, and Ibn Jarir al-Tabari; because he diminishes his master's right by his acknowledgment, so it resembles the acknowledgment of accidental killing, and because he is under suspicion that...