What is the ruling when a person admits to owing another a furnished dwelling, a saddled animal, or a slave wearing a turban?

Primary text

There are two differing views regarding an admission of owing a furnished dwelling (*dar mafroosh*), a saddled animal (*dabba musarraja*), or a slave wearing a turban (*'imama*). The companions of Al-Shafi'i hold that only the turban of the slave is due, not the furnishings or the saddle. This is based on the premise that the slave's hand is upon his turban, making his possession akin to the master's possession, whereas the animal and the dwelling have no analogous possessory attachment in this context. However, the established position maintains that the saddle is presumed to belong to the animal's owner, similar to the case where two men dispute the saddle on one man's animal; it belongs to the owner. Thus, the saddle is treated like the slave's turban.