The effect of lifting the legal restraint (Hajr) on a prior admission concerning property made by an incompetent person.
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Legal Interdiction
Primary text
The dominant opinion suggests that the obligation arising from the admission made while under restraint becomes binding upon the incompetent person after the restraint is lifted. This is because the incompetent person admitted to something that was not immediately binding upon him, making it binding upon the removal of the impediment, as seen with a slave admitting a debt or a mortgagor admitting against the collateral.
Supporting text
An alternative view posits that the admission is never valid and cannot be enforced even after the restraint is lifted. The rationale is that the restraint was imposed due to a defect in his intellect and poor management, which requires nullifying the admission entirely, similar to a minor or an insane person. The restraint imposed for the sake of another party (e.g., creditors) does not prevent them from dealing with their liabilities, allowing for correction of their admission after the third party's right ceases; however, restraint imposed for one's self interest demands complete nullification of the admission when the defect remains.