80 — regarding their property, as it is not permissible for them to mortgage those lands for a period exceeding ten years except with the permission of the government. It is also not permissible, in addition to what is owed to the farmer from the lands, to terminate what he owes in debts. It is also forbidden to report on the lands of the farmers themselves or where all the debt is paid by selling a part of the land.

Recently, some writers, far from bias due to their lack of connection with the government, have said that the aforementioned law, despite its shortcomings that make it easy to circumvent its provisions, has been greatly appreciated in India. "And despite the dissatisfaction of the insane and the merchants." For my part, I believe that in this region and its circumstances, nothing is useful except a law similar to the Indian law, which differs fundamentally from the laws protecting small properties adopted in some regions of the United States of America, from which France took inspiration for this purpose on July 12, 1909, and other countries have also followed. The difference is that the laws of the United States made the prohibition of seizing property optional, which the capitalist benefits from if he wishes to sell his property. As for this country, the law must protect the capital from the consequences of its mismanagement and tendency towards extravagance, and this can only be achieved if the prohibition of seizure is made mandatory. In Islamic Sharia, there are texts similar to this law. One of the established rules is that it is not permissible to sell the debtor's dwelling house to pay off his debts. The jurists decided that if the house exceeds the need for the dwelling of the debtor and his family, what can be dispensed with is sold, or the whole house is sold and part of its price is used to buy a dwelling sufficient for him, and the rest is used to pay off the debt.

"This is a rule based on humanitarian considerations. Therefore, it is based on the same principle on which the law prohibiting the seizure of small agricultural properties is based. This rule has been incorporated into the Regulation for the Execution of Sharia Court Judgments issued on April 4, 1907, where Article Ten states: 'It is not permissible to sell a dwelling house.' It is also stated in the draft regulation of judicial fees for summary courts that it is not permissible to seize a dwelling for the fees owed to that judge (see Article 24 of the aforementioned regulation currently before the Legislative Council): "These are the provisions of the law that was enacted in this regard."