before his insolvency, and they deny it, their statement is not accepted unless two upright persons among them testify to it. Their ruling regarding taking possession of the slave or taking his price if he offers it to them is the same as the ruling in the case where they acknowledge the price belongs to the seller. Likewise, if they acknowledge that an essence of what is in his possession is a usurped item, or an item lent, or the like, then the ruling is exactly as we mentioned. If they acknowledge that he emancipated his slave after his insolvency, this is based on the validity of the insolvent person's emancipation; if we say: "His emancipation is not valid," then their acknowledgement has no effect. If we say it is valid, then it is like their acknowledgement of his emancipation before his insolvency. If the judge rules on its validity or its invalidity, his ruling is executed in any case; because it is an action subject to ijtihad (legal reasoning), so the ruling of the judge must be adhered to, and it is not permissible to annul it or alter it.

Section: If the insolvent person confirms the seller's claim of reclamation before the pollination of the trees, but the creditors deny it, his acknowledgement is not accepted; because their rights have become attached to the fruit in appearance, so his acknowledgement is not accepted, just as if he acknowledged the palm trees. It is upon the creditors to swear an oath that they do not know that the seller reclaimed it before the pollination. This is because these creditors do not stand in for the insolvent person in this oath; rather, it is established in their own right primarily, unlike the case if he claimed a right and produced a witness but did not take an oath, then the creditors would not be able to take an oath with him; because the oath there is upon the insolvent person. If they were to swear, they would be swearing to establish a right for someone else, and a person does not swear to establish a right for another, nor is it permissible for him to be a deputy in it; because oaths do not accept deputyship. In our case, the principle is that their rights have become attached to this fruit due to its presence in the possession of their debtor and its connection to his palm trees, and the seller is claiming what would remove their rights from it, so it resembles the rest of the assets of his property. They swear regarding the negation of knowledge because it is an oath regarding the negation of debt from a deceased person. If the insolvent person acknowledges an essence from the assets of his property to a third party, or to some of his creditors, and the creditors deny it, then the statement is theirs, and they must swear an oath that they do not know of that. Likewise, if he acknowledges another creditor who deserves to share with them, and they deny it, then they must also swear an oath, which is upon the negation of knowledge thereof. If he acknowledges that he emancipated his slave, that is based on the validity of the insolvent person's emancipation. If we say: "His emancipation is valid," his acknowledgement is valid, and he is emancipated; because whoever owns something owns the right to acknowledge it, and because the emancipation occurs through the acknowledgement of it, so it is as if he emancipated him in the present. If we say: "His emancipation is not valid," his acknowledgement is not accepted, and it is upon the creditors to swear an oath that they do not know