he shall not interdict him, and he shall order him to pay his debt. If he refuses, he shall imprison him. If he still does not pay and remains patient in prison, the judge shall pay his debt from his property; and if it is necessary to sell his property to pay his debt, he shall sell it. If his property is less than his debt and his debts are deferred, he shall not interdict him because his demand for them is not yet due, so he shall not interdict him on their account. If some are deferred and some are immediate, and his property suffices for the immediate ones, he shall not interdict him for that either. Some of the followers of Al-Shafi'i said: If the signs of insolvency appear because his property is commensurate with his debt and he has no maintenance except from his property, there are two views. One is that he is interdicted because the appearance is that his property will fall short of his debts, so it is as if his property were deficient. Our position is that his property is sufficient for what he is obligated to pay, so he is not interdicted, just as if the signs of insolvency had not appeared, and because the creditors cannot demand their rights immediately, so there is no need for interdiction. However, if his debts are immediate and his property falls short of paying them, and his creditors ask to interdict him, he is obligated to grant their request. Interdiction against him is not permissible without the request of his creditors, because he [the judge] has no authority over that, and he only does it for the sake of the creditors, so their satisfaction with it is considered. If they differ, and some request it while others do not, the one who requested it is granted his wish, because it is his right. Malik and Al-Shafi'i said this. Abu Hanifa said: The judge does not have the right to interdict him. When his ijtihad (legal reasoning) leads to the necessity of interdiction, it is established, because it is an act of ijtihad. He [the debtor] does not have the right to dispose of his property because he has no authority over him, except that the judge compels him to sell if satisfaction cannot be achieved otherwise. If he refuses, he [the judge] shall not sell it for him; similarly, if a wealthy person refuses to pay a debt, he [the judge] does not sell his property, but rather imprisons him so that he sells it himself, unless he possesses one of the two precious metals [gold/silver] and his property is of the other metal; in that case, he pays the dirhams for the dinars, and the dinars for the dirhams, because he is a person of sound judgment (rashid) over whom there is no authority, so it is not permissible for the judge to sell his property without his permission, like one who has no debt. His two companions differed with him on this. Our position is what Ka'b ibn Malik narrated,