What is the ruling regarding imprisonment and oaths when the debt arises from non-compensatory obligations or when no wealth is known?

Primary text

If the right against the debtor is established without him receiving compensating wealth—such as compensation for injury (Arsh Janayah), value of destroyed property, dower (Mahr), guarantee (Daman), surety (Kafalah), or compensation for Khul' (divorce settlement) if the debtor is a woman—and no wealth is known for him, he swears that he has no wealth and is released, not imprisoned. This is the position of Al-Shafi'i and Ibn al-Mundhir. If evidence testifies to his insolvency, it is accepted, and no oath is required alongside it, based on the preceding principle. If evidence testifies that he previously had wealth that was lost, this does not negate the need for his oath, as established previously. This also applies if his creditor admits to that wealth. The reliance on his oath alone occurs because the default state is the absence of wealth, based on the hadith where the Prophet, peace be upon him, said to two companions: 'Do not despair of provision as long as your heads are shaking, for the son of Adam is created having nothing but his skin, then Allah provides for him.' Ibn al-Mundhir states that imprisonment is a punishment, and we do not know of a sin for which he should be punished, and the default is the absence of his wealth, unlike the first scenario where the default is the establishment of his wealth, necessitating imprisonment until its loss is known.