What is the ruling when a person acknowledges unlawfully seizing (ghasb) a garment inside a napkin or oil inside a waterskin?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Acknowledgment of Rights
Primary text
When acknowledging the unlawful seizure of an item within a container, two views exist. One view accepts liability only for the seized item, excluding the container. The dissenting opinion, attributed to Abu Hanifa specifically in cases of *ghasb*, holds that the container becomes obligatory only if it naturally serves as a container for the seized item, such as a napkin for a garment, making it as if the person said, 'I unlawfully seized a garment and a napkin.'
Supporting text
The stronger position holds that the napkin could belong to the usurper and merely be a container for the garment. If the statement implied ownership of the container by the usurper ('I unlawfully seized a garment in my napkin'), it would not constitute an acknowledgment of seizing the napkin itself, similar to saying, 'I unlawfully seized a beast in its stable' or 'I owe you a garment in a napkin.'