al-Qattān of the practice in Toledo concerning this matter. He said to me, ‘That is not implausible,’ and did not disapprove of it.” I consider it appropriate where a person’s outward conduct reveals dishonesty, deliberate delay in payment, and a readiness to lie. Allah knows best what is correct.
Section
Once the debtor’s insolvency has been established and the term of his imprisonment has expired, he is not released until he swears that he has no property, whether disclosed or concealed, and that, should he acquire any, he will discharge what he owes the creditor. This oath is required despite his insolvency having been established because the witnesses testify only to the best of their knowledge. This is like someone who establishes his entitlement to an item of property through witness testimony: he must still swear that he has neither sold it nor given it away, since the witnesses’ testimony concerning this rests on their knowledge, not on certainty.
Section
Once he has sworn, he is released, and the creditor has no further recourse against him until it becomes apparent that he has acquired property. If the creditor subsequently brings proceedings against him, alleging that he has acquired property, but produces no evidence and asks that he be made to swear that he has acquired none since then, he is not entitled to this. The debtor has already been required to swear concerning that, and he must not be harassed with an oath every day. This, then, is the purpose of adding to his oath the words: “Should he acquire any property, he will discharge what he owes the creditor.” Allah knows best.
Section
If some witnesses testify to his insolvency, while others testify to his solvency without identifying any particular property belonging to him, Ibn Ziyād’s rulings state that the testimony of those affirming his solvency carries greater weight, even if they are of lesser probity. He is imprisoned on the strength of their testimony until he produces evidence that he subsequently became insolvent owing to some need that exhausted his resources. In my view, this is far-fetched. The only sound position on this question, in my view, is the report transmitted by Abū Zayd: the two testimonies contradict and cancel one another out, but the evidence of insolvency carries greater weight, because it establishes a ruling—namely, that he be required to swear and then released—whereas the second negates