in "Ru'us al-Masa'il"; because he is forbidden from voluntary donation for the sake of the creditors, so his emancipation does not take effect, like a sick person whose debt consumes his wealth. Furthermore, because the insolvent person is interdicted, his emancipation does not take effect, like a feeble-minded person, and he differs from an unrestrained person. As for its extension to the property of others, a condition of it is that he be wealthy, such that the value of his partner's share is taken from him, so that [the partner] is not harmed. If he were insolvent, his emancipation would not take effect except regarding what he owns, to protect the right of the other person and preserve it from loss, and the same applies here. This is the more correct view, if Allah the Almighty wills.

Section: It is recommended to publicize the interdiction upon him so that his transactions are avoided, so that people are not harmed by the loss of their wealth upon him, and to call witnesses to it so that it may be spread from him. Perhaps the judge will be dismissed or die, and thus the interdiction is established for the next judge, who will then enforce it, and it will not require the initiation of a second interdiction.

Section: If a right is established against him by evidence, its owner participates with the creditors because it is a debt established before his interdiction, so it is similar to if the evidence for it had been established before the interdiction. If the insolvent person commits an offense after the interdiction that necessitates wealth, the injured party participates with the creditors because the right of the injured party was established without his choice. If the offense is one that necessitates retaliation and its owner pardons it in exchange for wealth, or the insolvent person settles with him for wealth, he participates with the creditors because its cause was established without the choice of its owner, so it is similar to if it had necessitated wealth. If it is said: "Why did you not prioritize his right over the creditors, as you prioritized the right of one against whom some of the insolvent person's slaves committed an offense?" We say: Because the right in the offending slave attached to its specific essence, so it was prioritized for that reason, while this right attached to the personal liability, like other debts, so they are equal.

Section: If the judge divides his wealth among his creditors, then another creditor appears, he recovers his portion from the creditors. This is the view of al-Shafi'i, and it was narrated from Malik, though it was also narrated from him that: He does not participate with them, because it is an invalidation of the judge's ruling. Our position is that he is a creditor who, if he had been present, would have shared with them; so when he appears after that, he shares with them, like the creditor of a deceased person who appears after the division of his wealth. The judge's division of his wealth is not a definitive judgment; it is merely a division in which an error has become apparent, so it is similar to if he had divided the property of the deceased among his creditors and then another creditor appeared, or divided land among partners then another partner appeared, or divided an inheritance among heirs then another heir appeared, or a will [was divided] then another beneficiary appeared.