Section: Whenever his insolvency is established before the judge, no one has the right to demand payment from him or to persist in accompanying him (mulazamah). This is the position of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: His creditors may persist in accompanying him without preventing him from earning a living; if he returns to his house and permits them to enter, they enter with him, otherwise they prevent him from entering, based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The creditor has the hand and the tongue." We argue that whoever the creditor does not have the right to demand payment from, he does not have the right to persist in accompanying him, just as if his debt were deferred. And the saying of Allah the Exalted: "And if there is one in hardship, then [give him] a respite until [he is in] ease" (Quran 2:280). Whoever is obligated to be granted respite, it is forbidden to persist in accompanying him, just as in the case of one whose debt is deferred. As for the hadith, there is discussion regarding it, as stated by Ibn al-Mundhir. We then construe it to refer to the solvent person, based on the evidence we mentioned; for it has been established that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to the creditors of a man who suffered loss in fruits he had purchased, and whose debt had become heavy: "Take what you have found, and you have nothing else but that." Narrated by Muslim and al-Tirmidhi. If the interdiction is lifted from him, no one has the right to demand payment from him or to persist in accompanying him until he possesses wealth. If the creditors come immediately after the lifting of the interdiction and claim that he has wealth, their word is not heeded until they prove its source. [If they come after a period of time and claim that he has wealth in his possession, or if they claim that immediately after the lifting of the interdiction and explain its source], the judge shall summon him and ask him; if he denies it, his word is accepted along with his oath, because the interdiction was not lifted from him until he had nothing left. If he confesses and says: "It belongs to so-and-so, and I am his agent or his agent for profit (mudarib)," and the one to whom he confessed is present, the judge shall ask him. If he confirms it, then it is his, and the judge shall put him to the oath, because it is possible that they conspired to do so to fend off the demand from the insolvent person. If he says: "It is not mine," we recognize the falsehood of the insolvent person, and it becomes as if he had said: "The wealth is mine," and the interdiction is reinstated against him if the creditors request that. If he confesses on behalf of an absent person, it is kept in his hands until the absent person arrives, then he is asked, just as we ruled in the case of the person present.