that ruling. It would only be reasonable to say that the evidence of solvency carries greater weight if the disagreement between the two sets of witnesses arose after he had sworn and been released. In that case, the evidence attesting to his solvency would be what establishes the ruling—namely, his return to prison. Allah knows best.
The report transmitted by Abū Zayd appears in the Book of Debtors and Insolvency in some versions. In it, he says that neither group of witnesses should be relied upon; rather, upright and virtuous people should be discreetly sent to investigate. If the debtor has property, pressure should be brought to bear on him until payment is recovered; if he has nothing, he should be left alone until Allah Most High provides for him. According to this report, the two sets of testimony are treated as contradictory and cancel one another out when the witnesses are equally upright, and the debtor’s prior circumstances are then taken as the basis. If he was suspected of concealing property, he remains imprisoned until he produces witnesses to his insolvency who are more upright than those who testified to his solvency. If, however, he was imprisoned merely to allow time for inquiry and investigation, he is released once that period has elapsed, in accordance with the distinctions we have related from Ibn al-Mājishūn.
Section
A person whose debts equal or exceed his assets may not give gifts or charity, free slaves, or acknowledge a debt to someone whom he is suspected of favouring. He may, however, buy and sell so long as he has not been placed under a legal restriction on disposing of his property. Likewise, he may provide maintenance for his wife and everyone else whom he is obliged to maintain, and may use the property in his possession to marry, until he is restrained and placed under such a restriction.
If he commits an intentional offence subject to legal retaliation, he may not use the property in his possession that is owed to his creditors to negotiate a settlement securing a waiver of retaliation. If, however, the offence was unintentional, or intentional but not subject to retaliation, he may do so.
If he gives a gift or charity while heavily indebted, possessing property that he does not know to be sufficient to cover his debts, the gift or charity is valid until it is known that his debts exhaust his assets. This was stated by Ibn Zarb. In support, he cited the report transmitted by ʿĪsā from Ibn al-Qāsim in the Book of Breastfeeding concerning a man who pays his divorced wife a year’s maintenance and then becomes insolvent after six months: if, when he paid the maintenance, he was apparently solvent and legally entitled to dispose of his property, and his conduct showed no extravagance or favouritism, the payment is valid. Allah grants success.