According to Mālik—and a number of his companions—the decisive word in this case belongs to the confessor, provided he supports it with an oath; this, they say, is the sounder analogy, for his admission already includes the statement that the property has been lost.

If he admits that he seized a purse containing 1,000 dirhams while its owner maintains that it held 2,000, the confessor’s word prevails: that is the distilled position of the school. Likewise, should the owner say, “You wrongfully took it,” and the confessor answer, “Rather, you deposited it with me,” his word is accepted, backed by his oath.

Anyone who acknowledges a number and, in the very same utterance, makes an exception from it, has that exception upheld, provided such wording is familiar in ordinary speech. If the confessor is an Arab or well-versed in Arabic, his words are interpreted in accordance with what the language permits.

If a man affirms that a person now in his possession is in fact the slave of someone else, he is not believed. Similarly, if one concedes to another the right to live in a house, together with the rent due for it, that acknowledgment does not establish the other’s ownership should he claim it—until witnesses testify to his original title.

When a man possesses a female slave and admits that she bore a child by her seller, she is thereby emancipated, just as a male slave is set free if the buyer acknowledges that the seller had already emancipated him. If a debtor claims that his slave-girl has borne him a child and this is known only from his statement, he is not believed; but once he settles his debt she becomes an umm walad, a slave who has borne her master a child.

If a person acknowledges a brother, and that brother—or the remaining brothers—deny the relationship, the claimant receives nothing from the shares of those who repudiate him, and his lineage is not established. Nevertheless, the one who made the acknowledgment must give him, from his own portion, the amount he would have obtained had all the heirs accepted him.

Should someone confess to a debt upon his son, the creditor—provided he is upright—must swear an oath alongside that confession, and his claim is then confirmed. If the creditor is not upright, or if the judge is one who does not rule by combining an oath with a single witness, the confessor becomes liable for a share of the debt equal to his own prospective inheritance.

If a woman acknowledges a debt owed by her husband, she is answerable for a portion of that debt corresponding to what she would have owed had all the heirs concurred. The same principle applies to anyone who confirms a bequest, and to whoever acknowledges in—