or by any other means. It has been legislated—subject to its own conditions—to safeguard the creditors’ rights. The practical upshot of the interdiction is that any act of disposal he undertakes with respect to the aforesaid property is invalid and of no legal effect, and any admission he makes concerning it is likewise non-binding.

2 – The interdiction is only valid when pronounced by the judge, whether at the request of all the insolvent debtor’s creditors or only some of them. Imposing the interdiction requires ijtihad in reaching a ruling and the possession of both legislative and executive authority—capacities held solely by the judge.

3 – No debtor is to be interdicted unless his liabilities exceed his assets.

4 – Before the judge has issued an interdiction, the insolvent debtor’s dealings with his property remain legally valid, for he is competent. Nonetheless, it is forbidden for him to engage in transactions that harm his creditors; this is the position of the school.

Ibn al-Qayyim, however, held that once the debts consume all of his wealth, any transaction or gratuitous transfer that prejudices the creditors is invalid, whether or not the judge has formally interdicted him. This is also the view of Mālik and the preference of our shaykh, and it is the correct opinion that accords with the principles of the school—indeed, it follows from the foundations and maxims of the Sharia. The creditors’ rights have attached to his property, and the Sacred Law has come to safeguard those rights by every possible means and to block every path that would lead to their loss.

I say: more than one of the verifying scholars has championed this view; Ibn Rajab and others adopted it categorically, and it is deemed correct in al-Insāf.

Shaykh ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Saʿdī said: according to Shaykh Taqī al-Dīn, any harmful transaction carried out by an insolvent debtor against a creditor is ineffectual, even if no judicial interdiction has been issued. This view is stronger and closer to justice, for such a transaction is prohibited oppression—how, then, could prohibited oppression be given legal force? The judge’s decree of interdiction is nothing more than a public declaration of his situation, enforcing something that was already incumbent before the decree.

5 – The judge must sell the insolvent debtor’s property and distribute the proceeds among the creditors pro rata, each in proportion to his claim. The method of pro rata distribution is to total the debts, compare that total to the debtor’s estate, and each creditor is then given