so after the group had reached an agreement with him. May he recover what he is owed ahead of the others, or not?

He replied:

Having agreed with the others to grant him respite, he may not recover his money immediately to their exclusion, according to the view that an extension granted on a debt already due is binding. This is the view of Mālik and one of Ahmad’s opinions.

As for the view that such an extension is not binding, held by al-Shāfiʿī and by Ahmad in one opinion, or the view that it is binding in transactions involving an exchange but not in gratuitous transactions, held by Abū Hanīfah and by Ahmad in one reported opinion: in the schools of Ahmad, Mālik and others, no distinction is made between his having agreed with them to defer payment until a specified date, to arrange payment in instalments, or to make such arrangements later. He has no right to betray or deceive them. Indeed, even supposing that the extension were not binding, they all share the right to recover payment from the funds remaining in the debtor’s possession.

He was also asked:

A man owes a debt and has been imprisoned for some time. He has no means other than what he earns through his own labour. Is it lawful for his creditors to beat or imprison him, or must they be patient with him and collect payment little by little, according to his earnings?

He replied:

It is not lawful to imprison or beat him under these circumstances. Rather, he must be allowed to work so that he can repay his debt to the extent possible. And Allah knows best.