Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/277)

or through gifting, pledging collateral, or endowing property. Any disposition of his property is therefore not enforceable, because he has been placed under legal interdiction and his assets have become subject to the claims of his creditors. He is like one who sells pledged collateral, and, as mentioned previously, the sale of pledged collateral is invalid. This is the benefit of legal interdiction: we prevent him from disposing of his property in order to protect the rights of his creditors. Thus, he is under legal interdiction for the sake of another’s right.

An example of this is a man whom we have placed under legal interdiction and who has a car that he placed in a showroom before the interdiction. Can he sell it?

The answer is: No, he cannot, because once he has been placed under legal interdiction, he may not dispose of it.

His statement, “of his property,” indicates that his transactions involving his liability are valid—for example, if he purchases something on deferred payment terms. This is indeed the case: if the person under legal interdiction makes a purchase on his own liability, we do not prevent him from doing so, because the property over which the interdiction was imposed is not harmed by that. However, the seller does not join the creditors with respect to the property over which this person was placed under legal interdiction. Thus, if he buys a car from someone, we say: the purchase is valid, but its price is not to be paid from the property he presently possesses, and the car belongs to the person under legal interdiction.

The owner of the car does not join the creditors in claiming against his pre-existing property, because the legal interdiction was imposed before this transaction.

His statement, “after the legal interdiction,” indicates that his disposition before the interdiction is valid, even if it harms the creditors. Thus, if he is in debt and his property is less than his debt, and he disposes of it by gifting it away—giving gifts to whoever he finds among the people—his disposition is valid.

ولا هبة ولا رهن ولا وقف، فأي تصرف في المال لا ينفذ؛ لأنه محجور عليه فأصبحت أمواله مشغولة بحقوق الغرماء، فصار كالراهن يبيع الرهن، وبيع الرهن ـ كما سبق ـ غير صحيح، وهذه فائدة الحجر، أن نمنعه من التصرف في ماله لحق الغرماء، فهذا محجور عليه لحق غيره. مثال ذلك: رجل حجرنا عليه وعنده سيارة قد وضعها في المعرض قبل الحجر عليه، فهل يمكن أن يبيعها؟ الجواب: لا يمكن؛ لأنه إذا حجر عليه لا يمكن أن يتصرف. وقوله: «في ماله» يؤخذ منه أنه يصح تصرفه في ذمته، بأن يشتري شيئاً بثمن مؤجل، وهو كذلك، فلو اشترى المحجور عليه في ذمته لم نمنعه؛ لأن المال الذي حجر عليه لا يتضرر بذلك، ولكن البائع لا يدخل مع الغرماء فيما حجر عليه فيه هذا الشخص، فإذا اشترى من شخص سيارة فنقول: الشراء صحيح، لكن لا ينقد ثمنها من المال الذي عنده، وتكون السيارة للمحجور عليه. وصاحب السيارة لا يدخل مع الغرماء في ماله السابق؛ وذلك لأنه حجر عليه قبل هذا التصرف. وقوله: «بعد الحجر» يؤخذ منه أن تصرفه قبل الحجر صحيح، ولو أضر بالغرماء، فلو كان عليه دين وماله أقل من دينه، وتصرف فيه بالهبة بأن وهب من وجد من الناس، فتصرفه صحيح.