Islamic Fiqh > Judgment and testimony > Admission (iqrar): pillars, conditions and effects > The addressee and object of admission
Contents
Updated on 26 September 2026 at 7:12 PM
This section continues the study of the conditions of validity of confession (iqrar) in Islamic law, focusing on the recipient of the confession (al-muqarr lahu) and its subject matter (al-muqarr bih). The positions of the four schools, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali, are set out with their classical references. The topics include the seriousness required of the confessor, the capacity of the recipient, the cases of the fetus and the deceased, and the estimation of amounts described as small or great.
According to one view, the imam keeps the property until its owner appears, because by his confession it has left the confessor's ownership without entering the recipient's, each of the two denying that it belongs to him: it is then like lost property.
If the recipient goes back and confirms the confessor in what he confessed, his retraction is not accepted, for he would be contradicting himself. But if it is the confessor who goes back and claims the property for himself or for a third party, that is granted to him, because the property is in his hand and no competing claim stands against it. After the confessor has claimed it for himself or for a third party, the recipient can no longer return first to his claim; the same applies if his return to his claim takes place before the confessor's claim for himself or for another, for he would be contradicting himself (al-Kafi 4/573; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 6/728; Matalib Uli al-Nuha 6/665; Manar al-Sabil 3/533).
The Hanafi, Shafi'i and Hanbali jurists require the recipient of the confession to be known and specified, not unknown. The Hanafis say: the recipient must not be affected by gross ignorance; slight ignorance does not invalidate the confession. For example, if someone confesses that this property belongs to a man, pointing to a specific property in his hand, or if he declares that this property belongs to one of the inhabitants of such-and-such a town whose inhabitants are countless, his confession is not valid.
But if he says that this property belongs to one of these two men, or to one of the inhabitants of such-and-such a quarter whose people are limited in number, his confession is valid.
If the confession took place in the manner described (this property belongs to one of these two men), the two men, if they agree, may take that property and own it jointly after taking it, by way of co-ownership. If they disagree, each of them may demand the confessor's oath that the property is not his. If the confessor declines the oath of both, the property remains undivided between them; if he declines the oath of one of them, the property becomes the exclusive property of the one whose oath he declined; and if he swears in favor of both, the confessor is released from both claims and the property remains in his hand (al-Mabsut 19/55; al-Ikhtiyar 2/154; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 5/4; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira 3/275; Durrar al-Hukkam, Sharh Majallat al-Ahkam 4/78-79; al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 4/171; al-Durr al-Mukhtar 5/591).
The Shafi'is say: the recipient must be specified in such a way that he can be claimed, as in the formula "I owe property to one of these ten men", as opposed to "I owe a thousand dirhams to someone from the town", unless these persons are limited in number and identifiable. If one of the ten says: "I am the one concerned, you owe me a thousand", the confessor is believed on his oath. If he confesses in favor of a specified but unknown person, saying: "I own property whose owner I do not know; it belongs to someone among the people of the town", the property is taken from him, that is, the official in charge of the public treasury (bayt al-mal) seizes it, because it is a confession concerning lost property which belongs to the bayt al-mal; this, if the confessor has despaired of identifying the owner. The soundest view is to restrict this to the case where he makes no other claim and no indication suggests that the thing is a found object (luqta) (Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 6/584-585).
Imam Ibn Qudama, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "mentioning the recipient is one of the conditions of validity of the confession" (al-Mughni 5/9).
The Hanafis say: seriousness is a condition of the confession; a confession made by way of mockery or contempt is therefore not valid. For example, if someone says to another: "you owe me ten dinars", and the latter replies mockingly: "yes", or: "sew your purse and collect it", there is no confession.
Likewise, if someone says to another: "hand over the ten dinars you owe me", and the other replies mockingly: "you will get them soon", there is no confession. But if someone says to another: "you owe me such-and-such", and the latter replies mockingly: "yes, well done", it is a confession and he is held to it.
If the confessor claims that his confession was mockery while the recipient claims that it was serious, and they differ, the confessor is not believed on his mere claim of mockery without proof: the mere claim of mockery is not accepted, and the indication of a nod of the head is not taken into account.
If the confessor cannot establish the mockery, the recipient is believed after swearing an oath that he does not know that the confession was mockery (Durrar al-Hukkam 4/81; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 8/114).
The jurists of the four schools agree: the recipient of the confession must be capable of benefiting from its object, for the confession then finds its proper locus and the truthfulness (of the confessor) is conceivable. If someone says: "I owe such-and-such to this beast of burden, or to the beast of burden of so-and-so, or to this stone", it is an idle statement, for it is not capable of benefiting from it: it cannot be owned either now or in the future, and it is inconceivable that it should acquire through a cause of ownership such as sale or the like.
This applies when it is owned by someone. But if he confesses in favor of horses left to graze freely or in favor of a mosque, the confession is valid according to the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, and it is interpreted as coming from the yield of a waqf established for them or a bequest in their favor (al-Mabsut of al-Shaybani 8/197; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 6/87; al-Sharh al-Kabir with the Hashiya of al-Dasuqi 5/85-86; al-Najm al-Wahhaj 5/89-90; Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/231; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 6/586-588; al-Mughni 5/89; al-Mubdi' 10/308; al-Insaf 12/145-146; Kashshaf al-Qina' 6/581).
The Shafi'is add: if he says: "because of it, I owe such-and-such to its owner", the confession is binding, for he confessed in favor of the owner, not in favor of the animal. This "cause" is either an injury he inflicted on it, or the fact of having benefited from it by hiring or by usurpation, and the object of the confession then becomes the property of the animal's owner at the time of the confession. If he does not say "to its owner" and confines himself to "because of it", the object of the confession is not necessarily due to its owner at once: he is questioned and judged according to his statement, for it may be that the object is owed to someone other than the owner, as when an animal in the confessor's hands destroyed someone's property (al-Najm al-Wahhaj 5/89-90; Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/231; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 6/586-588).
As for the Hanbalis, they say: if he confesses something in favor of an animal, the confession is not valid, for it does not own and has no capacity of ownership. If he says: "I owe a thousand dirhams because of this animal", then, according to the soundest view of the madhhab, he has not confessed in favor of anyone, for mentioning the recipient is one of the conditions of validity of the confession. But if he says: "to its owner, or to Zayd, I owe a thousand dirhams because of it", the confession is valid.
According to an opinion chosen by al-Mardawi and others, such a confession is valid and is like the formula "because of it". If he says: "I owe such-and-such because of the fetus of this animal", his confession is not valid, for no one can be made liable for something on account of a fetus unless it is delivered dead and its owner claims that the loss is due to it: what the confessor confessed then binds him.
If he confesses in favor of a mosque, a graveyard, a road or the like, such as a bridge or a drinking fountain, the confession is valid, even if he does not mention a cause such as the yield of a waqf or a bequest, for it is the confession of a legally responsible person acting of his own free will: he is bound by it as if he had specified the cause, and it serves their interests.
Confession in favor of a house or the like, however, is valid only with mention of the cause, such as usurpation or hiring, for charity (sadaqa) does not as a rule run for a house, unlike a mosque and the like (al-Mughni 5/89; al-Mubdi' 10/308; al-Insaf 12/145-146; Kashshaf al-Qina' 6/581).
The jurists of the four schools state explicitly: when the confessor confesses in favor of an existing fetus a sum of money, attributing it to an inheritance or a bequest, the confession is valid, for his statement is conceivable and the opponent in this matter is the guardian of the fetus.
They differ if he leaves the confession unspecified: is it valid or not? The Malikis, the Shafi'is according to the most apparent view, the Hanbalis according to the madhhab, and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan among the Hanafis, hold that if he confesses in favor of a fetus without specifying, the confession is valid: the statement is carried to what is possible. On this basis, if the mother gives birth to a boy or a girl, what was confessed is divided into two halves between the confessor and the child; and if he had attributed it to an inheritance or a bequest, the division is made according to each one's entitlement to it.
Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf, the Shafi'is according to the view opposed to the most apparent one, and the Hanbalis according to another view, hold that the confession is not valid unless it is attributed to an inheritance or a bequest, for the confessor cannot own on behalf of the fetus without them.
If the child is stillborn and the confession had been attributed to an inheritance or a bequest, the property returns to the heirs of the testator and to the heirs of the child. If he had left the confession unspecified, he is asked to mention the cause and his statement is acted upon; if the interpretation becomes impossible, through his death or otherwise, his confession is void, like that of a man who confesses in favor of someone without knowing whom he meant by his confession.
If he attributes the confession to an invalid cause, saying: "I owe a thousand dirhams to this fetus which lent them to me, or a deposit that I received from it", is the confession valid or void? The Hanafis, the Malikis according to one view (which some say is the madhhab), the Shafi'is according to the madhhab and the Hanbalis according to one view, hold that the confession is void and not valid.
The Malikis according to another view, the Hanbalis according to the madhhab and the Shafi'is according to one view, hold that his confession is valid, for he joined to his confession what nullifies it: the nullifier nullifies it, as if he said: "I owe you a thousand dirhams that do not bind me". And if he says: "I owe it a thousand dirhams that I gave it", or similar words, it is a mere expression that is not taken into account (al-Tajrid of al-Quduri 7/3210, 3212; Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 7/223; al-Hidaya 3/183; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira 3/303-305; al-Lubab 1/465-466; al-Bunaya 9/447; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 4/228; Mawahib al-Jalil 7/190; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 6/190; al-Sharh al-Kabir with the Hashiya of al-Dasuqi 5/91; Tahrir al-Mukhtasar 4/307-308; al-Najm al-Wahhaj 5/89-90; Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/231-232; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 6/588-589; al-Mughni 5/89; al-Mubdi' 10/308; al-Insaf 12/145-146; Kashshaf al-Qina' 6/586-587; Matalib Uli al-Nuha 6/665).
Whoever confesses a debt in favor of a deceased person must pay it to his heir. If the conditions described are met and he confesses a debt in favor of a deceased person, saying: "this is his son and this is his wife", the deceased's situation is either that another heir besides these two is known to him, or that none is known. If no other heir is known to him, he must hand over the property to these two persons according to the shares fixed by Allah, the Most High: one eighth to the wife, the rest to the son.
If another heir of the deceased is known, besides those mentioned by the confessor, the judge orders him to pay the debt to the known heir. If the known heir confirms what the confessor mentioned, they share in the inheritance; if he does not confirm it, the confessor pays the whole debt to him alone. If he pays by order of the judge, he owes nothing to the first one in whose favor he confessed, for the judge's order to pay everything to the known heir amounts to a ruling that invalidates the inheritance of the others. But if he pays without the judge's order, he is liable to the first one in whose favor he confessed for the amount of that person's estimated share, for the right of the known heir is established only by a single statement, whether it is a specific item or a debt, the confession in favor of the first having precedence.
If he pays the confessed debt to those heirs in whose favor he confessed, and the creditor then appears alive, the latter may claim the entire debt from the confessor; the recipient of the confession may then recover what he took, if he is able to.
If he confesses property in favor of the heirs of so-and-so, it belongs to them in equal shares, for the plural is a descriptive specification; nothing between them therefore falls upon the heir. If he says: "I meant the inheritance", and the one whose share is small denies it, the matter follows the confessor's word, for it is admissible (al-Hawi al-Kabir 7/65-66).
If the confessor specifies the amount and refuses to pay it, this is the madhhab of the Malikis and the Hanbalis, and one view among the Shafi'is. In the second case, he is treated as retracted (nakil): this is the soundest view among the Shafi'is and one view among the Hanbalis. The recipient of the confession is then ordered to specify: if he specifies something and the confessor confirms it, it is established; if he denies it and refuses to specify, he is told: "specify, or we will treat you as retracted and rule against you".
If he interprets the confession as something that is not customarily owned, such as a walnut shell or an eggplant peel, his confession is not accepted, for his confession is an acknowledgment of a right established against him in his liability (dhimma), and this cannot be established in the dhimma. The same applies if he interprets it as something that cannot be owned under the Law, such as wine, the pig and carrion.
If he says: "I owe him something" or "I owe him money", and he specifies something of value and the recipient confirms it, there is no problem; if he claims something else or claims nothing, the confession is void.
If the recipient claims from him more than the confessor confessed, the latter takes what was confessed and must establish evidence for the excess; otherwise he is made to swear concerning the excess, for the word belongs to the denier with his oath.
When someone confesses to money, is his interpretation accepted for a small or a large amount? The confessor is then in one of three cases.
First case: he says "I owe a trifling amount". The jurists agree: if he says "I owe a trifling, or small, or paltry, or worthless, or insignificant amount", his interpretation is accepted, whether it is a small or a large amount.
Second case: he says "I owe money", without further specification. The jurists differ if someone says "I owe money to so-and-so", or confesses to money without mentioning its amount: is he believed for a small as well as a large amount, or is he believed only if he mentions something of value? The Hanafis, the Malikis according to one view (preferred by most Malikis), the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis hold that if he confesses to money, recourse is made to his interpretation: if he interprets it as a small or a large amount, his statement is accepted in his interpretation, for his wording is ambiguous (mujmal); when it has no determination in linguistic or legal usage, recourse is made to his interpretation, as if he had said "I owe something, or a right"; and because the little falls under the notion of money just as the much does, since all of that is money (al-Jawhara al-Nayyira 3/276; al-Lubab 1/456; al-Ishraf 'ala Nukat Masa'il al-Khilaf 3/87-88; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 4/236; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 6/94; al-Sharh al-Kabir with the Hashiya of al-Dasuqi 5/98; al-Bayan 13/439; Rawdat al-Talibin 3/563, 566; al-Najm al-Wahhaj 5/98, 100; Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/241-242; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 6/613-614; al-Mughni 5/109-110; al-Kafi 4/591; Kashshaf al-Qina' 6/606-607; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 6/756-757; Manar al-Sabil 3/544).
The Malikis according to the madhhab hold that the least nisab among the zakat thresholds of the types of property he owns is binding on him, for money has a determination in language and in the Law. In language: when a man is described as "one of the wealthy", it is not understood that he owns a danq or a dirham; what is understood is rather more than that, with proof. In the Law: it is established that the nisab is money, according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):
There is no zakat on property until a year has passed over it.Hadith
The name of "money" is therefore not established for what is below it (the nisab) in a way that would direct the wording to it.
On this basis, the least amount called a nisab of the confessor's kind of property is binding on him: twenty dinars if he is of the people of gold, two hundred dirhams if he is of the people of silver.
Likewise: five camels if he is of the people of camels, thirty cattle if he is of the people of cattle, forty sheep or goats if he is of the people of sheep or goats, and five wasqs of grain if he is of the people of cultivation (al-Ishraf 'ala Nukat Masa'il al-Khilaf 3/87-88; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 4/236; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 6/94; al-Sharh al-Kabir with the Hashiya of al-Dasuqi 5/98).
The Malikis, according to a third view, hold that the least that makes intimacy and the cutting of the hand lawful is binding on him, for if determination is established by what we have mentioned, and money is a name for a quantity of abundance exceeding the insignificant little, then the least determination that can be carried to what we have mentioned is due to him, according to the word of Allah, the Most High:
"...that you seek (wives) by means of your wealth..."
Surah An-Nisa, 24
and it is established that the smallest of dowries is a quarter of a dinar; and according to the word of Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her:
The Messenger of Allah did not cut (the thief's hand) for what is insignificant, and he cut for a quarter of a dinar.Narrated by Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her
This statement was narrated by al-Bukhari (6407) and Muslim (1684) in a similar wording: "the hand of the thief is not cut except for a quarter of a dinar or more" (al-Ishraf 'ala Nukat Masa'il al-Khilaf 3/87-88).
Third case: if he says to him "I owe a great amount". The jurists differ if someone confesses a great amount in favor of another, saying: "I owe you a great amount, or an abundant, or illustrious, or precious amount, or a very great amount": is it estimated at a specific quantity, or is it not estimated and recourse is made to his interpretation?
The Hanafis hold that if he says "I owe you a great amount", he is not believed for less than two hundred dirhams, for it is a confession concerning described money, and a description cannot be nullified; the nisab is great, to the point that its owner is considered rich by it, and the rich man is great in people's eyes. This applies if he says "a great amount in dirhams"; if he says "in dinars", the estimation is twenty mithqals, and for camels twenty-five, for that is the lowest nisab on which zakat is due of its kind; for property not subject to zakat, the estimation is made at the value of the nisab. Likewise, if he says "an abundant or illustrious amount", it is like his saying "great". According to Abu Hanifa, he is believed for ten dirhams if he says "in dirhams", for that is the threshold of theft: it is therefore great where the honored hand is cut for it. Al-Sarakhsi said: the soundest view is to rely on the confessor's state, in poverty or wealth, for the little in the eyes of a poor man is great; just as two hundred dirhams are great in the ruling of zakat, ten dirhams are great for cutting the thief's hand and estimating the dowry; the two conflict and the matter reverts to the man's state.
If he says: "I owe you a precious, or considerable, or abundant amount", ten dirhams are binding on him according to Abu Hanifa (al-Jawhara al-Nayyira 3/277-278; al-Lubab 1/456-457).
Among the Malikis there are five views in the madhhab concerning one who says: "I owe you a great amount". The soundest of them is that the least nisab among the zakat thresholds of the types of property he owns is binding on him, for money has a determination in language and in the Law. In language: when a man is described as "one of the wealthy", it is not understood that he owns a danq or a dirham; what is understood is rather more than that, with proof. In the Law: it is established that the nisab is money, according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "there is no zakat on property until a year has passed over it"; the name of money is therefore not established for what is below it in a way that would direct the wording to it.
On this basis, the least amount called a nisab of the confessor's kind of property is binding on him: twenty dinars if he is of the people of gold, two hundred dirhams if he is of the people of silver, five camels if he is of the people of camels, thirty cattle if he is of the people of cattle, forty sheep or goats if he is of the people of sheep or goats, five wasqs of grain if he is of the people of cultivation (al-Ishraf 'ala Nukat Masa'il al-Khilaf 3/87-88; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 4/236; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 6/94; al-Sharh al-Kabir with the Hashiya of al-Dasuqi 5/98).
The second view: recourse is made in this case to his interpretation of the wording, for there is no defined limit: it is an ambiguous expression (mujmal) which he must be asked to clarify. Its basis is his saying "I owe something or a right"; and just as the ambiguous expressions of the Lawgiver must be interpreted by him, so it is with the confession and every ambiguous expression to which a ruling is attached; and because "great" has no limit in language, nor in the Law, nor in custom: if no determination is established from any of these three sources, recourse must be made to the confessor, as if he had said "I owe you known or described money".
The third view: an added quality is required, constituting an increase over the least amount of money, and recourse is made to him for its interpretation; for he described it as "great" and "abundant", which requires adding a quality to the bare name, just as saying "a tall man or a short man" requires establishing additional qualities over the absolute name; and if we said that what binds him is what binds him by the mere word "money", we would nullify the quality, which is unacceptable; and because no one, in language or in the Law, describes the qirat or the grain of dust as "great" or "abundant", so no ruling can attach to it; and because if he had said "I owe you a trifling, or small, or insignificant amount", then described it as a danq and a qirat, that would be accepted from him, which requires that his description as great and abundant is the opposite of insignificance and smallness.
The support of the (retained) view is that recourse is made to his interpretation in absolute terms; the existence of an increase over the absolute name is established, and no determination is established for it: recourse must therefore be made to him for its determination.
The fourth view: less than the threshold of theft is not accepted from him.
The fifth view: what corresponds to the diyah is binding on him, for his description of it as "great" requires exaggeration; the highest determination in its category must therefore be sought for him; for that is great from one angle and little from another, and describing it as great requires selecting it for this meaning and excluding what is opposed to it (al-Ishraf 'ala Nukat Masa'il al-Khilaf 3/88-89; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 4/236; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 6/94; al-Sharh al-Kabir with the Hashiya of al-Dasuqi 5/98).
The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis hold that if he says: "I owe you a great amount, or an abundant, or illustrious, or precious amount, or a great amount, or a very great amount", nothing is estimated and his interpretation as a small or a large amount is possible, as if he had only said "money"; for "great" and "abundant" have no limit in the Law, language or custom: people differ on this, some consider the little great, others consider the much great, and others still belittle the much; no fixed limit is established for it to which recourse could be made; and because there is no money that is not great and abundant in relation to what is below it; and it is possible that he meant "great" according to himself, given his poverty and low condition (al-Bayan 13/439-440; Rawdat al-Talibin 3/563, 566; al-Najm al-Wahhaj 5/100; Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/242; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 6/618; al-Mughni 5/110; al-Kafi 4/591; Kashshaf al-Qina' 6/606-607; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 6/756-757; Manar al-Sabil 3/544).
The Shafi'i jurists require, concerning the object of the confession, that is, everything the claim of which is lawful, that it not be the property of the confessor at the time of his confession, for the confession is not a removal from ownership: it is an informing that the thing is owned by the recipient. The informer must therefore precede the information. If he says: "my houses, or my garment, or my debt that Zayd owes me, belong to Amr", it is an idle statement, for the annexation to what belongs to him implies ownership in his favor, which contradicts his confession in favor of another; the confession being the informing of a pre-existing right, the statement is carried to promise or gift.
If he says: "the house I bought for myself or inherited from my father belongs to Zayd", this is likewise not valid, unless he intended the confession, in which case it is valid; the same applies if he says "my house for so-and-so" intending the confession, for he meant by this annexation the annexation of dwelling, as al-Baghawi mentioned in his fatawa.
Al-Azhari, after transmitting al-Baghawi's words, said: it is appropriate to question him when he leaves the formula unspecified, and his statement is acted upon, unlike his saying "my house which is my property belongs to him", because of the outright contradiction.
If he says: "the debt I recorded against Zayd belongs to Amr", the confession is valid, for it is possible that he is an agent. Thus, if Amr claims from Zayd and the latter denies it, Amr may, if he wishes, establish evidence by the confessor's confession that the debt thus recorded against Zayd is indeed owed to him.