The summary of this is that the insolvent person in a lawsuit is like anyone else. If he claims a right for which he has a just witness, and he takes an oath along with his witness, the money is established, and the rights of the creditors become attached to it. If he refrains, he shall not be compelled; because we do not know the truthfulness of the witness, and if the right were established by his testimony, he would not need an oath along with it, so he is not compelled to take an oath regarding that whose truthfulness he does not know, like anyone else. If the creditors say: "We will take an oath with the witness," they are not permitted to do so. This is the view of al-Shafi'i in the New School (al-Jadid), while he said in the Old School (al-Qadim): They may take an oath with him; because their rights have attached to the money, so it is permitted for them to take an oath, like the heirs taking an oath regarding the property of the one from whom they inherit. Our argument is that they are establishing ownership for someone else due to the attachment of their rights to it after its establishment, so this is not permitted for them, like a woman taking an oath to establish ownership for her husband due to the attachment of her maintenance to it, and like heirs before the death of the person they inherit from. It differs from the situation after death, for the money has transferred to them, and they are establishing through their oaths ownership for themselves.
The summary of this is that deferred debt does not become due upon the insolvency of the one upon whom it rests, according to one narration. This was stated by al-Qadi. Abu al-Khattab mentioned another narration regarding it, that it does become due, and this is the view of Malik. From al-Shafi'i, there are two positions like the [aforementioned] two schools. They argued that insolvency causes the debt to attach to the property, so it drops the deferment, just like death. Our argument is that the deferment is a right of the insolvent person, so it does not lapse upon his insolvency, like his other rights; and because it does not necessitate the acceleration of his money, so it does not necessitate the acceleration of what is upon him, like insanity or fainting; and because it is a deferred debt upon a living person, so it does not become due before its term, like that of a non-insolvent person. We do not concede that debt becomes due upon death, so it is like our issue. Even if we were to concede it, the difference between them is that [the deceased's] liability has been destroyed and invalidated, unlike the insolvent person. Once this is established, when the insolvent person is placed under interdiction (hajr), our companions said: The creditors of deferred debts do not share with the creditors of current debts, but rather the existing property is distributed
