Whenever the interdiction is reinstated against him due to debts that have accrued to him, the creditors of the first interdiction participate with the creditors of the second interdiction, except that the former are entitled to receive a share based on the remainder of their debts, while the latter are entitled to receive a share based on the entirety of their debts. This is the position of al-Shafi'i. Malik said: The creditors of the first interdiction do not participate with those whose rights have newly accrued until they have been paid in full, unless he has a benefit from an inheritance, or a crime is committed against him, in which case the creditors shall share in it. We argue that they are equal in the establishment of their rights against his liability, and therefore they are equal in entitlement, just like those whose rights are established within a single interdiction, and like their equality in inheritance and the blood money (arsh) of a crime. Furthermore, his earnings are wealth that belongs to him, so they are equal regarding it, just as in the case of inheritance.

807 - Issue: He said: "And whoever is obligated to fulfill a right, and claims that he is insolvent regarding it, shall be imprisoned until he brings evidence to testify to his insolvency."

In summary, whoever is obligated to pay an immediate debt and is demanded to fulfill it, but does not do so, the judge shall examine the case. If he has apparent wealth in his possession, he orders him to pay. If he claims that it belongs to someone else, we have already mentioned the ruling for this in the section preceding this one. If the judge does not find any apparent wealth, and the debtor claims insolvency, and his creditor confirms his claim, he shall not be imprisoned, it is mandatory to grant him respite, and it is not permissible to persist in accompanying him, based on the saying of Allah the Exalted: "And if there is one in hardship, then [give him] a respite until [he is in] ease" (Quran 2:280). And because of the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to the creditors of the man whose debt had become heavy: "Take what you have found, and you have nothing else but that." And because imprisonment is either for the purpose of establishing his insolvency or for the fulfillment of his debt; and since his insolvency is established and the fulfillment of the debt is impossible, there is no benefit in imprisonment. If his creditor denies his claim, then there are two possibilities: either he is known to have wealth or he is not known to have wealth. If he is known to have wealth because the debt was established through a transaction, such as a loan or a sale, or he is known to have original wealth other than this, the word is that of his creditor along with his oath. So when he swears that he is a person of wealth, he is imprisoned until...