and it was likewise the view adopted by Ahmad—one of the leading jurists of the provincial schools.

All of them are unanimously agreed that when a debtor pleads insolvency and the truth of his claim is not yet established, he is to be detained until his insolvency is verified or the creditor himself acknowledges it; once that is done, he is to be released.

It is reported from Abū Ḥanīfah that the creditors are entitled to accompany him wherever he goes.

The jurists resorted to imprisonment in matters of debt—despite the absence of any sound textual proof—because it is a practical necessity for people to recover their rights from one another. This constitutes evidence for employing analogy that serves the public interest, the method known as unrestricted analogy (qiyās mursal).

A report states: “The Prophet—may blessings and peace be upon him—detained a man on mere suspicion,” a tradition that, as far as I know, was recorded by Abū Dāwūd.

Those whom Mālik considers subject to legal interdiction are: the spendthrifts, the insolvent, slaves, the terminally ill, and a wife with respect to any disposition exceeding one-third of the marital property, for he holds that the husband has a right in that wealth—a view from which the majority dissents.

This much detail is sufficient for the purpose of the present work.