Is the admission (*iqrar*) of a restricted person regarding offenses that incur fixed punishments or retaliation (*qisas*) accepted?

Primary text

The admission of a person restricted due to bankruptcy (*fals*) or foolishness regarding matters that necessitate a fixed punishment (*hadd*) or retaliation—such as adultery, theft, drinking alcohol, slander, intentional homicide, or amputation of the hand—is accepted, and the corresponding ruling is immediately binding upon him. There is no known disagreement on this matter. Scholars whose opinions we can recall, including Al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the proponents of the opinion of Al-Ra'y (Hanafi school), agree that the admission of a restricted person concerning adultery, theft, drinking alcohol, slander, or homicide is valid, and the fixed punishments are carried out. The evidence is that the restricted person is not suspected regarding his own liability (*haqq fi nafsih*), and the restriction pertains to his wealth; thus, his admission regarding matters not connected to wealth is accepted.