The man then left, so the Prophet called him back and said, “Except for debt; Gabriel informed me of that just now.” (1) Thus, taking debt lightly is neither rational nor sanctioned by the Sacred Law.

To summarize: a debtor is placed under restriction when his assets are less than his debts, but only if the creditors, or some of them, request it. If they do not request it, there is no harm in not placing him under restriction. However, the correct view is that he is under restriction by the Sacred Law, though not by judicial decree. The evidence is the Prophet’s saying, “Delaying payment by one who is able to pay is wrongdoing.” (2) Giving away his wealth would result in delay and non-payment, and would therefore be wrongdoing. Yet he differs from one placed under restriction by judicial decree in that he may validly dispose of his wealth in transactions other than gifts. Thus, he may buy and sell, for example, without any problem. This is the difference between the two.

Therefore, we say to the debtor whose assets are less than his debts but who has not been placed under restriction: “Buy and sell; there is nothing to prevent you. But do not give charity or make gifts.” If a friend comes to him and wishes to sell him something worth ten for eight, this is not permissible, because it is in reality a gift.

The author’s statement, “nor is his admission concerning it [valid],” means that after he has been placed under restriction, an admission concerning any property in his possession is invalid, whereas an admission establishing a personal liability is valid.

For example, after we have placed him under restriction, he says, “This car belongs to so-and-so.” His admission concerning the property is not accepted, but his admission establishing a personal liability is accepted. How is that so? We say: as for the car, it is now sold and the debt is paid from its proceeds. As for the person in whose favor he made the admission