he may demand payment after the restriction has been lifted, saying, “Give me the value of the car.” His admission concerning a specific item of his property is not accepted.
The wisdom behind not accepting it is to prevent collusion between the creditor and another person, whereby they agree that he will admit that the item belongs to that other person so that it will not be sold to settle his debt.
For example, we place a man under restriction who owns a car worth fifty thousand. Then a friend comes to him and says, “So-and-so, admit that the car belongs to me so that it will not be sold to pay the debt.” This is undoubtedly possible, and for this reason the door is closed.
Likewise, if, after we have placed him under restriction, he says to someone, “I owe him one thousand dirhams,” then he has not admitted ownership of a specific item; rather, he has admitted a debt.
We say: his admission is not accepted in the sense that the person concerned does not join the other creditors, but he may demand payment after the restriction has been lifted, because the possibility of deception exists. A friend may come to him and say, “You owe money to people, so admit that you owe me something, so that I may share with them; and when I receive it, I will give it to you.” This is possible. Thus, we say that his admission is not accepted with respect to joining the creditors, but as for the debt remaining as a liability upon him, it remains. This is why the author said, “nor is his admission concerning it [valid],” meaning: an admission concerning his property—namely, specific items of his property—is not accepted.
His statement, “And whoever sells him something or lends him something after that,” means: after the restriction has been imposed.
His statement, “may recover it,” means: he may recover what he sold or lent.
His statement, “if he was unaware of the restriction; otherwise, not,” means that a person sold something to one under restriction without knowing it—what is meant is that he sold it to him on credit, because