Once he is placed under interdiction in this circumstance, the fact is publicly announced so that everyone knows he is under restriction. This prevents people from being taken in, entering transactions with him, and thereby losing their money.

Four legal rulings follow from placing a debtor under interdiction:

Ruling One: The creditors’ claim attaches both to the assets he possessed before the interdiction and to anything that comes to him afterward—whether through inheritance, compensation for injury, gift, bequest, or the like. Whatever is newly acquired is treated exactly like the property he held earlier; therefore, no act of disposal undertaken by the interdicted person after the ruling is valid in any form, nor is any acknowledgment he makes regarding his estate binding, because the creditors’ rights are tied to the very substance of his assets. Even prior to the formal interdiction he is forbidden to conduct any transaction that harms his creditors.

Imam Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “When a man’s debts exhaust all of his wealth, any voluntary transfer that harms the creditors is invalid, whether or not the judge has formally interdicted him. This is the position of Mālik and the preference of our teacher—Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah—who said: ‘It is the correct view, the only one consistent with the principles of the school, and indeed demanded by the foundations and maxims of the Sacred Law. The creditors’ rights have become attached to his property; for that very reason the judge imposes the interdiction. Were their rights not so attached, the judge would have no grounds to restrict him. In this respect he is like a person on his death-bed. Allowing such a debtor to make gratuitous transfers would nullify the creditors’ rights, and the Sharia does not sanction that; rather, it exists to safeguard rightful claims by every possible means and to block every path that would lead to their loss.’”