The author stated this without qualifying whether the interdiction applies to their property or to their liability. These people are placed under interdiction with respect to their property, meaning that they may not dispose of their wealth; and with respect to their liability, meaning that they may not incur loans or purchase anything on credit, because they are under interdiction in both property and liability.

His statement, “for their own welfare,” indicates the wisdom behind placing them under interdiction: it is for their benefit and welfare. We do not place these people under interdiction in order to restrict them, but rather for the sake of their welfare.

His statement: “Whoever gives them his property through a sale or a loan may reclaim the very item itself; but if they destroy it, they are not liable.” “Whoever gives them”: “whoever” is a conditional noun, and a conditional noun conveys generality. That is, any person who gives them his property through a sale or a loan may reclaim the very item itself; but if they destroy it, they are not liable.

An example of this is a man who sells a watch to a legally incompetent person, who then destroys it. Is the sale valid?

The answer is: it is not valid. If the seller took its price from the legally incompetent person, he must return it. But is that legally incompetent person liable for the watch?

The answer is: he is not liable, because the man himself placed his property at his disposal; therefore, he is not liable. Likewise, if a legally incompetent person comes to someone and says, “Lend me one hundred riyals,” and the other person, knowing his condition, says, “Here are one hundred riyals,” then if that legally incompetent person destroys the one hundred riyals, he is not liable for them. However, if the one hundred remains in his possession, the person who lent it to him may take it back from him, because this transaction is invalid,