that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) interdicted Mu'adh and sold his property for his debt. Al-Khallal narrated it with his chain of transmission. It was narrated from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) that he addressed the people and said: "Beware, the Usayfi' of Juhayna was satisfied with his religion and his trustworthiness by being called 'he who beats the pilgrims,' so he incurred debt while turning away, and now he is beset by it. Whoever has a claim of property against him, let him present himself tomorrow, for we are going to sell his property and divide it among his creditors." This is because he is someone who is under interdiction and in need of paying off his debt, so it is permissible to sell his property without his consent, like a minor or a feeble-minded person (safih). Also, it is a type of property, so it is permissible to sell it to pay off his debt, like currencies. Their analogy is invalidated by the sale of silver coins for gold coins. When this is established, we return to the issue of the book and say: Whatever the insolvent person did before the judge interdicted him—such as a sale, gift, acknowledgement, paying off some creditors, or other actions—is permissible and effective. Abu Hanifa, Malik, and Al-Shafi'i held this view, and we do not know of anyone who disagreed with them. This is because he is a person of sound judgment who is not under interdiction, so his disposition is effective just like anyone else, and because the cause for the prohibition is the interdiction, so the cause cannot precede it. Furthermore, he is one who is legally competent to dispose of property and has not been interdicted, so he resembles one who is solvent. If he leased a specific camel or a house, his lease does not become void due to insolvency, and the lessee has a better right to it until his term expires.

Section: Whenever he is interdicted, his disposition of any of his property is not effective. If he disposes of it through a sale, gift, endowment (waqf), assigns property as a dowry for a woman, or the like, it is invalid. Malik and Al-Shafi'i held this view in one opinion, while he said in another: "His disposition remains in suspense; if what remains of his property suffices for the creditors, it is effective, otherwise it is void." Our position is that he is interdicted by the ruling of a judge, so his disposition is not valid, like that of a feeble-minded person, and because the rights of the creditors have become attached to the substance of his property, so his disposition of it is not valid, like mortgaged property. As for when he disposes of it on his own liability—such as buying, borrowing, or acting as a guarantor—his disposition is valid because he is competent to dispose of property, and the interdiction exists only in relation to him, and interdiction...