Islamic Fiqh > Judgment and testimony > Guardianship of the incapable: minors, spendthrifts and the insane > The signs of puberty
Contents
Updated on 26 September 2026 at 7:12 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
Puberty (bulugh), in language, means arrival; and in technical usage, the end of the state of minority. It occurs either through the natural signs and indications, or through age; among these signs, some are agreed upon and others disputed. Some signs are shared by the boy and the girl, others are specific to the boy and others specific to the girl.
The puberty of the minor is realized by what follows.
'Atiyya al-Qurazi reported: "We were presented to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) at the time of Qurayza: whoever had reached puberty or whose pubic hair had grown was killed" (reported by Abu Dawud, 4404 and 4405; al-Tirmidhi, 1584; al-Nasa'i, 4981; Ibn Majah, 2541; Ahmad in the Musnad 4/310; Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, 4781); had he not been an adult, he would not have been killed. The minimum time of puberty among boys is ten years, and among girls nine years. Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the people of knowledge agreed that the legal obligations and rulings become obligatory upon the rational pubescent person (al-Ishraf 7/227).
Ibn Battal (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the scholars agreed that puberty among men and menstruation among women constitute the age at which acts of worship, legal punishments, seeking permission and the like become obligatory, and that whoever has reached maturity and whose sound conduct is perceived, his testimony is valid and the legal obligations and the rulings of the Law become obligatory upon him, by the word of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "The washing of Friday is a duty upon every pubescent person": for he indeed made the washing conditional on puberty (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari 8/49). Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the scholars agreed that puberty among men and women makes obligatory the acts of worship, the legal punishments and the rest of the rulings; it is the emission of the gushing water, whether through intercourse or otherwise, in wakefulness or sleep, and they agreed that nocturnal intercourse has no effect without emission (Fath al-Bari 7/277; see al-Jawhara al-Nayyira 3/256; al-Lubab 1/447; al-Ikhtiyar 2/114; Mukhtasar al-Wiqaya 2/412; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 5/203; al-Bahr al-Raiq 8/96; al-Binaya, commentary on al-Hidaya, 11/109; Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 4/161; al-Sharh al-Kabir 4/476; al-Ishraf 3/37; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 5/291; Minah al-Jalil 6/87; Mawahib al-Jalil 6/477-478; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 4/76; Bulghat al-Salik 3/240; al-Dhakhira 8/237-238; al-Muhadhdhab 1/330-331; Raudat al-Talibin 3/382-383; al-Bayan 6/218-222; al-Hawi al-Kabir 6/343-348; Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/110-112; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 4/411-412; al-Najm al-Wahaj 4/399-400; al-Dibaj 2/234-235; al-Mughni 4/297; Sharh al-Zarkashi 2/231; al-Mubda' 4/332; Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/517-518; al-Ifsah 1/426-427; Umdat al-Qari 13/239).
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Allah does not accept the prayer of a menstruating woman except with a head cover" (reported by Abu Dawud, 641; al-Tirmidhi, 377; Ibn Majah, 655; Ahmad 6/150, 218 and 259), meaning when she has reached the age of menstruation, not that he meant her being in the period of menstruation; for from the woman in menstruation the prayer is not valid in any way. Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the people of knowledge agreed that the legal obligations become obligatory upon the woman through the appearance of menstruation in her (al-Ishraf 7/227). Ibn Battal (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the scholars agreed that puberty among men and menstruation among women constitute the age at which acts of worship, legal punishments, seeking permission and the like become obligatory (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari 8/49). Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: as for menstruation, it is a sign of puberty, and we know of no divergence regarding it (al-Mughni 4/298; see the previous sources).
'Atiyya al-Qurazi reported: "I was among the captives of the Banu Qurayza: they would look, and whoever had grown hair was killed, and whoever had not grown was not killed; I was among those who had not grown" (reported by Abu Dawud, 4404 and 4405; al-Tirmidhi, 1584; al-Nasa'i, 4981; Ibn Majah, 2541; Ahmad in the Musnad 4/310; Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, 4781). Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) wrote to his governor: "Do not take the tribute (jizya) except from one upon whom the hairs have grown"; and Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Hibban reported that a young man of the Ansar spoke amorously to a woman because of his hair; he was brought to Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), who did not find him having grown [the hair], and said: "Had you grown the hair, I would have applied the legal punishment to you"; and because hair is an external sign usually accompanied by puberty, in the male as in the female: it was therefore a sign of puberty like puberty (ihtilam). And because the external sign is of two kinds, attached and separate: when it was of the separate kind by which puberty is established, the attached kind was like it; and what was puberty regarding the polytheists is puberty regarding the Muslims, like puberty (ihtilam) and age.
The Hanafis in the madhhab among them, contrary to the previous narration of Abu Yusuf, an opinion reported from Imam Malik and Ibn al-Qasim, held that the growth of pubic hair is not taken into account for puberty, neither regarding the Muslim nor regarding the disbeliever; for it is a growth of hair resembling the growth of the hair of the rest of the body. The Shafi'is said: if the pubic hair grows on the disbeliever, his puberty is ruled; and is it a puberty in itself or an indication of puberty? There are two views. The first: it is a puberty in itself, for that by which puberty is ruled is a puberty in itself, like puberty (ihtilam). The second: it is not a puberty in itself, but an indication of puberty; for habit dictates that it appears only at the time of puberty.
They differed: is the growth of pubic hair regarding the Muslim a puberty or not? The soundest view is that it is not a puberty regarding the Muslim; for one can revert to the knowledge of the Muslim's age, born among the Muslims, which is impossible for the disbeliever's age: that is why growth was established as a sign of his puberty; and because growth can be induced by a medicine before its time: the Muslim may be suspected of treating himself to grow [the hair], for he thereby gains the lifting of interdiction, the completeness of his capacity and the acceptance of his testimony; and the disbeliever is not suspected of that, for he gains thereby only the obligation of being killed and the obligation of taking the tribute. According to the view opposite to the soundest, it is a puberty regarding the Muslim too. As for the hair of the armpit, the beard and the mustache, none of that is a puberty; for it may precede puberty or follow it, and is therefore not a sign of it; for the intended sign is that by which puberty is obtained without delay after it (see the previous sources).
The Malikis in the famous view and Imam Abu Hanifa held that when nothing of what was mentioned previously exists until eighteen years are complete for the boy, and likewise the girl among the Malikis, his puberty is then ruled, by the word of Allah: "until he reaches his maturity" (Surah Al-An'am, 6, 152); and the maturity (ashudd) of the boy is eighteen years, as Ibn 'Abbas said, and it is the least said of maturity: the ruling is therefore built on it with certainty. As for the girl, according to Abu Hanifa, until seventeen years are complete for her; for the growth and understanding of females are faster than those of males: they were therefore reduced by a year. Whoever has none of these previous signs is thus a minor (see the previous sources).
There is no divergence among the scholars on the fact that madness is among the causes of interdiction: the insane person is therefore interdicted if he is total, whether the madness is original or acquired. The insane person, in the rulings of interdiction, is like the minor, whether he is deprived of reason from the origin, to the point of rarely regaining his senses, or insane through epilepsy, or insane through obsession (waswas), the one to whom it seems he has done what he has not done; and there is no difference between total and intermittent madness in the three situations: his act is not valid in any way according to the majority, contrary to the Hanafis when his madness is intermittent, as will come.
The evidence for interdicting the insane is the word of Allah: "If the debtor is deficient in understanding or weak, or unable to dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate with justice" (Surah Al-Baqara, 2, 282); the argumentative way of the verse is that the Arabs apply the term safih sometimes to the one whose understanding is weak and sometimes to the one whose body is weak; likewise they apply da'if to the one whose understanding is weak and to the one whose body is weak; and the insane person is weak: he is therefore, by the diverted sense, interdicted. Al-Maziri (may Allah have mercy on him) said: there is no divergence among them that, when he becomes an adult while insane, his property is not handed over to him, for his sharing with the child the cause of the withholding of the handover; the insane person is even more warranted in the withholding than the adolescent, his reason being wholly absent and his having drawn near to the beasts (Sharh al-Talqin 3/198).
Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the requirement of puberty and the completeness of reason is because both are required in the validity of rashd and its completeness; for no valid rashd comes from a minor, due to the weakness of his discernment of the ways of his benefit, nor from an insane person, due to the fall of his discernment and the disappearance of his opinion: precaution for properties is therefore obligatory, by cutting off the material of harm from them, barring from disposal whoever is not fit for disposal, interdicting him from them and placing a separation between him and them, for fear that they be lost, in obedience to Allah's command regarding them (al-Muqaddimat al-Mumahhadat 2/345). Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) said: they agreed on the obligation of interdicting whoever has not reached puberty, as well as whoever is insane, feeble-minded or utterly deprived of reason, and on the nullity of everything the one we mentioned executes, in the state of loss of his reason or before his puberty, whether a gift, manumission, sale or charity (Maratib al-Ijma, p. 58). Al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: as for the child and the insane, there is no divergence on their interdiction (Tafsir al-Qurtubi 5/29).
The Hanafis, however, said: the insane person, if he regains his senses and understands in the state of lucidity, his act in that state is permitted. It has been said: if his lucidity has a known time and he contracts in that time, the ruling is execution, like the rational person; if he has no known time and contracts in the state of lucidity, the act is suspended on the guardian's ratification, like the minor.
As for the feeble-minded (ma'tuh), there are three opinions among the Hanafis: a view making him like the rational minor in his acts and in the lifting of legal responsibility; a second making him like the rational person; and a third making him like the insane. The feeble-minded is the one whose reason is deficient; it has been said: he is the bewildered one without madness; they differed much in its interpretation, and the soundest of what has been said about it is: the one who has little understanding, confused speech and bad management, but who neither strikes nor curses as the insane does (see Badai' al-Sanai' 7/169-172; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira 3/236; al-Lubab 1/440; al-Ikhtiyar 2/113; Mukhtasar al-Wiqaya 2/409; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 5/195; al-Inaya 13/195; al-Bahr al-Raiq 8/89; Ibn 'Abidin 6/144; Ahkam al-Qur'an by Ibn al-'Arabi 1/331; Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 4/161; Mawahib al-Jalil 6/476; al-Sharh al-Kabir 4/475; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 4/76; Raudat al-Talibin 3/381; Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/109; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 4/409; al-Dibaj 2/233-234; al-Najm al-Wahaj 4/398; al-Mughni 4/295-296; al-Sharh al-Kabir 4/510; al-Mubda' 4/330; al-Insaf 5/320; Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/487 and 517; al-Ifsah 1/426).
The majority of jurists, namely the Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, said: the insane person, if he regains his senses in a state of maturity, the interdiction dissolves from him and his property is handed over to him, and his disposal becomes permitted after that. The Hanafis and the Shafi'is, however, stated that the interdiction dissolves from him by lucidity alone, without mentioning maturity; and the statement of the Shafi'is requires that, as al-Damiri of the Shafi'is noted: "it is lifted, meaning the interdiction, by lucidity, by its mere occurrence, without any lifting, and there is no divergence in that; and the consideration of the author of the Tanbih that he regain his senses mature applies to the one who was not an adult mature then became insane; as for the one who became insane after his maturity, no" (al-Najm al-Wahaj 4/398).
As for Abu Hanifa, according to him the prodigal is not interdicted: when the insane person regains his senses, the interdiction dissolves from him and his property is handed over to him if he has reached twenty-five years, as will come in the interdiction of the prodigal and its divergence. As for the Hanbalis, they said: as soon as the insane person understands and becomes mature, the interdiction dissolves from him and his property is handed over to him, and it does not dissolve before that in any way: they thus required maturity along with lucidity.
The Malikis detailed, like the view of the author of the Tanbih among the Shafi'is mentioned previously: if the madness occurred after puberty, the interdiction dissolves from him by his lucidity, for he was upon maturity; if the madness precedes puberty, it does not dissolve from him except after the establishment of maturity; and likewise if he had become an adult prodigal then became insane: it does not dissolve by lucidity alone (see the previous sources).
There is no divergence among the scholars on the fact that the slave who has not been given authorization is interdicted, and that he owns nothing except what his master made him own, according to the opinion of the generality of the people of knowledge, and that his act is valid only with his master's authorization. The evidence of his interdiction is the word of Allah: "Allah has set forth a parable: a slave owned, powerless over anything, and the one whom We have provided from Ourselves with a good provision, and who spends from it secretly and openly: are they equal? Praise be to Allah! But most of them do not know" (Surah An-Nahl, 16, 75); and it is known that it is not a negation of ability, for slavery and freedom do not differ in ability: it is thus indicated that what is intended is the negation of the ruling of his words, his contracts, his disposal and his ownership; do you not see that He made it a parable of the idols the Arabs worshipped, intending the negation of their ownership and disposal, and the nullification of the validity of their words regarding the rights of servants?
Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Allah described the slave with incapacity and the absence of ability, and placed him opposed to the free man in extending his hand through spending of what he has been given as property; that therefore indicates that the affair of slaves in properties differs from the affair of free men, that their ownership of their properties is inferior to the ownership of free men, and that their masters have the right to interdict them by right of the ownership of their persons; it is thus not permitted to the slave to act upon his property without his master's order, and that property is an ownership for him until he snatches it from him. And because the master's right has attached to the slave's property, he has the right of interdiction over him (al-Muqaddimat al-Mumahhadat 2/339).
Al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: as for the slave, there is no divergence, meaning regarding his interdiction (Tafsir al-Qurtubi 5/29). Ibn Hubayra (may Allah have mercy on him) said: they agreed that the causes necessitating interdiction are minority, slavery and madness (al-Ifsah 1/426; see Ahkam al-Qur'an by al-Jassas 2/223; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira 3/236; Hashiyat al-'Adawi on Sharh al-Kharashi 5/301; al-Mughni 4/126).
The jurists differed: when the man becomes mature, his property is handed over to him, then wastefulness and imprudence occur to him, corrupting his property and destroying it in what procures him neither praise in this world nor reward in the hereafter: is he interdicted or not? The mass of the people of knowledge, namely the Malikis, the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis and the two companions of the Hanafis, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, said that he is interdicted if he returns to imprudence, by the word of Allah: "If the debtor is deficient in understanding or weak, or unable to dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate with justice": it is an explicit text on the establishment of guardianship over the prodigal, who thus has a guardian; and that can only be after his interdiction. And His word: "Do not hand over your properties, which Allah has made for you as a means of support, to the weak-minded; maintain them with it" (Surah An-Nisa, 4, 5); the weak-minded intended are the rational adults, for imprudence is a characteristic of a means of support that only applies to the legally responsible (mukallaf). This verse therefore indicates the merit of interdiction for imprudence from two angles.
The first: His word: "which Allah has made for you as a means of support", meaning that Allah has established for you the taking charge of their maintenance. The second: His word: "maintain them with it and clothe them": that can only be undertaken by the guardian. And His word: "your properties" means their properties: the attribution to the guardians is for their disposal over it; do you not see that He commanded spending on them from it? And spending is obligatory only upon their properties. And He said: "If the debtor is deficient in understanding or weak, or unable to dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate with justice": He thus established guardianship over the prodigal and distinguished him from the insane and the child.
It is reported from Anas that a man had a weakness in his discernment and used to conclude bargains; his family came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said: "O Prophet of Allah, interdict him!" He called him and forbade him [from selling]; he said: "O Prophet of Allah, I cannot bear to refrain from selling." He said: "When you sell, say: no deception."Authentic hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (3503), al-Tirmidhi (1250), al-Nasa'i (4485) and Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (5047)
This hadith indicates the merit of interdicting the adult from two angles. The first: he interdicted him like his like, by establishing the option (khiyar) for him in his contracts without making them irrevocable. The second: their request to interdict him and the Prophet's (peace be upon him) abstention from disapproving that request.
It is reported from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he said: "Take in hand the weak-minded among your dependents" (weak hadith, reported by al-Bayhaqi in Shu'ab al-Iman, 7577); and taking in hand is only done by interdicting them. It is reported that he interdicted Mu'adh on account of his creditors; the interdiction of the prodigal for his own right is thus more warranted, and it is the consensus of the Companions. 'Urwa ibn al-Zubayr reported: 'Abdallah ibn Ja'far came to al-Zubayr ibn al-'Awwam and said: "I have bought such and such, and 'Ali intends to go to the Commander of the Faithful 'Uthman to ask him to interdict me regarding it." Al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "I am your partner in this trade." 'Ali came to 'Uthman and mentioned that to him, and 'Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "How could I interdict [from disposal] a man in a trade in which al-Zubayr is a partner?" (reported by al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra, 11607, and al-Daraqutni, 4606).
Al-Zubayr was known for restraint and righteousness; his partnership thus constituted an uncertainty (shubha) that negates the merit of interdiction; and that conduct of theirs and of the rest of the Companions in their abstention constitutes a well-established consensus on the merit of interdicting the adult; for 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) seeks interdiction only while considering it warranted; and had interdiction been void, al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him) would have said: a free adult is not interdicted; and likewise 'Uthman; for they all knew interdiction.
Al-Zuhri said: 'Awf ibn Malik ibn al-Tufayl, the son of al-Harith and the maternal nephew of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), wife of the Prophet (peace be upon him), informed me that it was related to Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) that 'Abdallah ibn al-Zubayr had said concerning a sale or a gift that Aisha had given him: "By Allah, Aisha will stop, or I shall interdict her!" She said: "Did he say that?" They said: "Yes." She said: "It is a vow to Allah never to speak to Ibn al-Zubayr." Ibn al-Zubayr then sought her intercession when the estrangement lasted; she said: "No, by Allah, I shall never intercede for him, nor shall I break my vow." When that lasted long upon Ibn al-Zubayr, he spoke to al-Miswar ibn Makhrama and to 'Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Aswad ibn 'Abd Yaghuth, both of the Banu Zuhra, and said to them: "I adjure you by Allah to bring me in to Aisha: it is not permitted to her to vow my severance." Al-Miswar and 'Abd al-Rahman came to her wrapped in their cloaks, until they asked permission: "Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings; may we enter?" Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said: "Enter." They said: "All of us?" She said: "Yes, enter, all of you," not knowing that Ibn al-Zubayr was with them. When they entered, Ibn al-Zubayr entered behind the curtain, embraced Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) and began pleading with her and weeping, while al-Miswar and 'Abd al-Rahman begged her to address him; she accepted. They said: "The Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade the estrangement you know: it is not permitted to a Muslim to forsake his brother beyond three nights." When they multiplied reminder and urging upon Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), she began recalling to them her vow, weeping, and saying: "I have made a vow, and the vow is grave." They did not cease with her until she spoke to Ibn al-Zubayr and manumitted, in breaking that vow, forty slaves; and she recalled her vow afterwards, weeping, until her tears wet her veil.Authentic hadith, reported by Bukhari (6073)
That indicates that the interdiction of the adult is famous among them, even though the warrant of Ibn al-Zubayr's interdiction was wrongly imagined; for whoever spends his property in acts of nearness to Allah does not deserve to be interdicted for it.
And because the absence of management and the presence of wastefulness establish interdiction, like the child; and because that by which interdiction persists through its persistence becomes obligatory at its occurrence, like madness; and because this one is a prodigal who is interdicted, as if he had become an adult prodigal; for the cause that required his interdiction if he becomes an adult prodigal is his imprudence, which is present; and because imprudence, had it coincided with puberty, would have prevented the handing over of his property; when it occurs, it therefore obliges withdrawing the property, like the insane, distinguishing him from the mature: for his maturity, had it coincided with puberty, would not have prevented the handing over of his property.
Imam Abu Hanifa, however, said: if he becomes an adult mature then becomes prodigal, the property is not withdrawn from him: the free rational adult prodigal is thus not interdicted according to him, and his disposal in his property is permitted, even if he is a wasteful destroyer who loses his property in what has neither purpose nor benefit, whether he spends his property on good or on evil.
He is not interdicted according to Abu Hanifa because he is rational and addressed by the Law; and because stripping him of his authority constitutes an annihilation of his humanity and a likening of him to beasts, which is graver for him than wastefulness and the loss of property; and that is what the possessors of intellects and noble souls know: it is not permitted to bear the greater harm to repel the lesser harm, to the point that even if interdicting these persons repelled a general harm, it would be permitted, like the interdiction of the ignorant physician, of the corrupting mufti and of the bankrupt renter; for the general harm is repelled: from the first in bodies, from the second in religions, from the third in properties; those are indeed interdicted according to what is reported from Abu Hanifa, for it is repelling the greater by the lesser.
The corrupt mufti (majin) is the one who teaches people fallacious tricks, such as a woman's apostasy to leave her husband, or a man's to escape zakat, without caring to declare the unlawful licit or the licit unlawful. The ignorant physician is the one who gives people a deadly medicine to drink. The bankrupt renter is the one who rents camels while he has neither camels nor property to buy them, and hides at the due time (al-Mabsut 24/157-158; Badai' al-Sanai' 7/171; al-Ikhtiyar 2/115-116; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira 3/244-246; al-Lubab 1/444-445; Mukhtasar al-Wiqaya 2/410; al-Hidaya 3/282; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 5/195; al-Bahr al-Raiq 8/91; Majma' al-Damanat 2/899; al-Kafi 1/423; Ahkam al-Qur'an by Ibn al-'Arabi 1/403; Tafsir al-Qurtubi 5/30 and 38; al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya 211; al-Muntaqa 6/107; al-Hawi al-Kabir 6/355-356; Raudat al-Talibin 3/384-385; Sharh Sahih Muslim by al-Nawawi 12/191; Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/116; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 4/420; al-Najm al-Wahaj 4/410; al-Mughni 4/303; al-Ifsah 1/430).
The Hanafis said: imprudence (safah) is the squandering of property and its loss contrary to what the Law or reason requires, even in good, such as spending it on building mosques and the like; like wastefulness and excess in expenditure; or performing acts without a purpose, or for a purpose that the rational religious people do not count as a purpose, such as giving money to singers and jesters, buying the flying pigeon at a high price, or loss in trades without profit. The basis of liberality in acts, filial piety and excellence is legislated, but excess (israf) is forbidden, like excess in food and drink, by the word of Allah: "Those who, when they spend, are neither extravagant nor stingy" (Surah Al-Furqan, 25, 67) (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin with al-Durr al-Mukhtar 6/147).
The Malikis said: the imprudence that constitutes one of the causes of interdiction is wastefulness, namely the spending of property in what is not intended by the Law, such as wine and gambling; or in spending it in a transaction of sale or purchase with a gross loss outside habit, with no benefit resulting from it, such that such conduct be his without exaggeration; or spending it on bodily desires contrary to the habit of his like in his food, drink, clothing and mount; or destroying it in vain, such as throwing it on the ground, throwing it into the sea or into a latrine, as happens to many prodigals who throw away foods and drinks without giving them as charity (al-Sharh al-Saghir 7/368-369).
The Shafi'is said: wastefulness (tabdhir) is the spending of property outside its known channels, known to the rational people. The linguists said: wastefulness is the dispersing of property in extravagance; and one says of a man that he is a squanderer (mubdhir) and of a woman tibdhara. The prodigal who is interdicted is the one who loses his property by accepting a gross loss in a transaction and the like, namely what is for the most part unbearable, unlike the slight loss, such as selling what is worth ten for nine; and that applies when he is ignorant of the state of the transaction; as for the one who knows it and gives more than its price, the excess is a hidden praiseworthy charity, meaning if the transaction is with a needy person; otherwise it is a gift. Imprudence includes throwing his property, however little, into the sea or fire and the like, or spending his properties on the unlawful, in view of the little religion in him: no one is trusted with property except a man of intellect and religion. And the soundest opinion among them is that spending property in charity, in works of goodness, on foods and clothes unbecoming of his state is not wastefulness.
As for the first case, namely spending in charity and works of goodness, such as building mosques and schools and freeing slaves: it is because he has a compensation in spending on good, namely the reward; there is no extravagance in good just as there is no good in extravagance; and the reality of extravagance is what procures neither praise in the immediate nor reward in the deferred. According to the view opposite to the soundest in this first case, he is a squanderer if he becomes immoderate in spending: if that occurs to him after puberty while he is moderate, no. As for the second case, spending on foods and clothes: it is because property is taken for deriving benefit and pleasure from it. According to the view opposite to the soundest in this second case, it becomes wastefulness by habit, and that is the choice of Imam al-Haramayn, al-Ghazali, al-Rafi'i and others (Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/115; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 4/415; al-Najm al-Wahaj 4/404-405; al-Dibaj 2/237; Tahrir alfaz al-Tanbih, p. 200).
The Hanbalis said: the prodigal who is interdicted is the one who is cheated with a gross loss and who spends his property in what has no utility, such as burning oil he bought to gaze at and the like; or spends it on the unlawful, such as gambling, singing and the purchase of unlawful things, like wine and instruments of amusement; for custom counts the one who spends his property on that a prodigal squanderer, and a person may be counted prodigal by his spending on the permitted, all the more on the unlawful. Unlike his spending in the domain of filial piety, such as charity, expedition and pilgrimage, or his spending on food, drink, clothing and marriage that does not suit him: he is then not a squanderer, for there is no extravagance in good. It is said in al-Ikhtiyarat: extravagance (israf) is what he spends on unlawful things, or his spending on the permitted that harms his dependents, or his being alone without trusting his faith, or his excess in the permitted beyond benefit. The difference between extravagance (israf) and wastefulness (tabdhir) is that extravagance is the spending of the thing in what befits, beyond what befits, and wastefulness is the spending of the thing in what does not befit (al-Sharh al-Kabir 4/517; al-Mubda' 4/334; al-Insaf 5/322; Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/519; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 3/479; Matalib Uli al-Nuha 3/405).
The jurists differed: if the man becomes mature, his property is handed over to him and then he falls back into imprudence and wastefulness, is he interdicted by his imprudence alone, or is the judge's judgment required? The Malikis in the famous view, the Shafi'is in the madhhab, the Hanbalis and Abu Yusuf of the Hanafis said that the prodigal is interdicted only by the judge, not by anyone else, such as a father or grandfather; for their guardianship ceased with the first lifting of his interdiction; and because it is a place of interpretive effort; and 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) asked 'Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) to interdict 'Abdallah ibn Ja'far, which indicates that he becomes interdicted only through the ruler. And because interdiction for wastefulness is disputed and requires the ruler, like the duration of intermittent madness ('unna), which is established only through the ruler, in view of the disputed point.
Once he is interdicted, only the ruler manages his property; for it is an interdiction established by the ruler, who is thus the manager, like the interdiction of the bankrupt. It is recommended for the judge to attest publicly to the interdiction of the prodigal, and even to proclaim the call regarding him, so that dealing with him is avoided; he orders a herald to cry out: "The ruler has interdicted so-and-so!", so that people are not deceived in dealing with him.
The Shafi'is said: if the judge does not interdict him, he sins; the act of the prodigal is then executed, and he is called the neglected prodigal (muhmal). Muhammad ibn al-Hasan (may Allah have mercy on him) said, and it is one view among the Shafi'is: he thereby becomes interdicted, and the judge's judgment is not required. According to one view of the Shafi'is, when the guardian lifts his interdiction after his maturity and hands him his property, then he wastes it, he is interdicted a second time without requiring the judge: the interdiction returns upon him through the father, the grandfather and the guardian as it returns through the judge. It is said in al-Jawhara al-Nayyira: Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said that the prodigal is interdicted and prevented from disposing of his property; then they differed: Abu Yusuf said that he becomes interdicted only by the ruler's interdiction, and that once interdicted he becomes free only by release through the ruler; Muhammad said that his corruption in his property interdicts him and his rectitude in his property releases him, meaning that he becomes interdicted by his imprudence alone, and the interdiction leaves him by his reform in his property.
The utility of this divergence bears on what he sold before the interdiction by the judge: according to Abu Yusuf it is permitted, and according to Muhammad it is not; then, once he becomes interdicted according to both of them, his ruling becomes that of the minor who has not reached puberty, except in a limited number of things (al-Jawhara al-Nayyira 3/246-247; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 6/148; Tanqih al-Fatawa al-Hamidiyya 6/30; Sharh al-Talqin 3/218; al-Ma'una 2/161; Mawahib al-Jalil 6/485; al-Dhakhira 8/247; al-Iqna' by al-Mawardi, p. 104; Raudat al-Talibin 3/385; al-Bayan 6/232; Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/117; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 4/419; al-Najm al-Wahaj 4/411-412; al-Dibaj 2/239; al-Mughni 4/296 and 303; al-Mubda' 4/324; Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/527-528; Matalib Uli al-Nuha 3/413).
The jurists differed concerning the prodigal who has become mature and whose imprudence has vanished: does the interdiction dissolve from him by maturity alone, or is the ruler's judgment required? The Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, all in the madhhab, along with Abu Yusuf, said: when the prodigal becomes mature again, the interdiction is lifted from him only by the ruler's judgment in his favor, just as it is established only through him; for his interdiction requires a ruler, and its lifting likewise; for it is an interdiction established by his judgment, which therefore does not vanish except through him. And because maturity requires contemplation and effort to know its reality and the end of wastefulness: it is thus like the beginning of his interdiction, distinguishing him from the minor and the insane, who are interdicted without the ruler's judgment and whose interdiction dissolves without his judgment.
Muhammad ibn al-Hasan of the Hanafis, some of the Malikis and the Hanbalis according to one narration held that the interdiction dissolves by the disappearance of imprudence: the interdiction leaves him through his reform in his property, without requiring the ruler's judgment; for if we suspended people's acts upon the ruler, most people would become interdicted.
Al-Qarafi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said that the charge of interdiction belongs only to the judge, not to the chief of police; for it is a matter subject to divergence, requiring effort in the test; whoever wants to interdict his son brings him to the Imam so that he interdicts him and proclaims him in the markets and at the mosque, with attestation of that; whoever deals with him afterwards, [his act] is annulled. Some Baghdadis said: the interdiction of an interdicted person, by judgment or without judgment, is lifted only by a ruler's judgment, out of the need for testing and for verifying the invalidation of the cause of interdiction. And it is said in al-Jawahir: the interdiction is lifted from the squanderer when its disappearance is known of him (al-Dhakhira 8/247; see the previous sources).
The prodigal either performs acts related to property, such as selling, buying, giving and manumission: they are not permitted, according to the generality of the jurists, without his guardian's authorization, with the detail proper to each school, as will come; or he performs acts unrelated to property, such as divorce, zhihar, ila' and the confession of a legal punishment or of retribution: that is valid from him according to the generality of the jurists.
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the summary is that the interdicted person for poverty or imprudence, if he confesses what entails a legal punishment or retribution, such as fornication, theft, wine, slander, intentional killing or the amputation of the hand and the like, that is accepted and the ruling of it becomes binding on him immediately; and we know of no divergence in this. Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: all those we retain among the people of knowledge agreed on the validity of the confession of the interdicted person upon himself when it concerns fornication, theft, wine, slander or killing, and on the application of the legal punishments upon him; and that is the view of al-Shafi'i, of Abu Thawr and of the people of opinion, and I retain no divergence from others than them, according to their word (al-Ishraf 6/234; al-Ijma', 538).
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: that is because he is not suspected regarding himself, the interdiction having attached only to his property: his confession upon himself is therefore accepted in what does not involve property. If he divorces his wife, his divorce is executed according to most of the people of knowledge; for divorce is not a disposal within property and does not follow its course: he is therefore not prevented from it, like the confession of the legal punishment and retribution; and the proof that it does not follow the course of property is that it is valid from the slave without his master's permission, despite being barred from disposal in property, and that ownership is not acquired through inheritance; and because he is legally responsible: he divorced his wife in full choice and his divorce occurred, like the slave and the mukatab (al-Mughni 4/304).
Here is the detailed exposition according to each school. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said: the ruling of the prodigal's acts is identical to the ruling of the acts of the minor who has not reached puberty, mentioned previously, except in a limited number of things, where his ruling is that of the rational adult. If he marries a woman, his marriage is permitted; if he has fixed a dower for her, the equivalent of the dower of her like is due from him and the excess is void; he may marry four women together or successively, for jest does not affect it and it is among his fundamental needs. If he manumits, his manumission is permitted, but the slave works for his value. His tadbir, his istila' and his divorce are valid; zakat is due on his property; the pilgrimage is obligatory upon him if he is able with provisions and mount; his bequest is executed in the third; his confession upon himself of what entails the sanction is permitted, as when he confesses the obligation of retribution for a life and what is below it. As for his sale, purchase, gift, charity, confession regarding property and hire, that is not permitted from him, as it is not from the minor and the insane.
If there is a benefit in his sale, the ruler ratifies it; for the element of disposal exists, and the suspension was only for examination; the ruler has moreover appointed for him a manager who seeks the benefit in it, like the minor who understands selling and buying and intends them. If he sold before the interdiction by the judge, it is permitted according to Abu Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on him); for there is no interdiction without that of the judge, interdiction oscillating between harm and object of examination, and being here an object of examination: the judge's act is therefore necessary. According to Muhammad (may Allah have mercy on him), it is not permitted; for he becomes an adult interdicted according to him, the cause being imprudence, like childhood; and this divergence applies likewise if he becomes an adult mature then prodigal.
Zakat is taken from the property of the prodigal; for it became obligatory through the obligation imposed by Allah, like prayer and fasting; it is taken with his authorization, and it has been said regarding grazing cattle: without his authorization. It is said in al-Hidaya: the judge hands him the amount of zakat so that he distributes it to its channels; for it is an act of worship requiring his intention; but he sends with him a trustworthy man so that he does not spend it other than in its place. He spends on his children, his wife and those of his relatives upon whom his expenditure is obligatory; for these are rights incumbent upon him and imprudence does not annul the rights of people; and the judge hands the expenditure to his trustworthy man, for it is not an act of worship requiring his intention; unlike his oath, his vow and his zhihar, where property does not become binding on him: he expiates his oath and his zhihar by fasting; for that became obligatory through his act; and were this door opened, his properties would be exhausted through this way; which is not the case of what becomes obligatory from the outset without his act.
The interdicted person is believed in his confession of the child and the parent, and is not believed beyond them in kinship without evidence; and his confession of conjugality is accepted; for were he to initiate marriage, it would be valid: likewise, he may be believed. If he wants the pilgrimage, he is not prevented from it; for it is obligatory upon him through the obligation imposed by Allah without his act; and if he wants a single 'umra, he is not prevented from it by juridical preference (istihsan). He is not prevented from combining the pilgrimage and the 'umra; for he is not prevented from either of them individually, so he is not prevented from their combination. The judge does not hand him the expenditure, for fear that he destroy it in other than that place; he hands it to a trustworthy man among the pilgrims, who spends it on him on the pilgrimage road; for one is not guaranteed that he will not destroy what is handed to him, and the ruler takes his precautions in that by handing it to a trustworthy man who undertakes it. If this interdicted person spoils the pilgrimage by having intercourse before the standing, the making-up (qada') weighs upon him and the judge pays the expenditure of return; for the making-up is chargeable to him, so that it becomes like initiation; and the expiation does not become obligatory upon him, for he is incapable of discharging it in the state of interdiction: the obligation is therefore deferred to the time of capacity, after the interdiction ceases, like the slave and the destitute. As for the 'umra, if he spoils it, the making-up does not become obligatory upon him until after the interdiction is lifted; for he committed it while incapable of performing it; we only permitted it due to the divergence of the scholars on its obligation.
If he is prevented from performing his pilgrimage, it behooves the one to whom his expenditure was handed to send a sacrificial animal so that he frees himself by it; for the impediment is not from his act, and he needs to release his person, like the sick person who needs the medicine. If he hunted in the state of consecration, or shaved for a harm, or did something of that, it becomes binding on him, and fasting is required of him; for he is incapable of discharging property, like the destitute. If he performs zhihar, his zhihar is valid; for it cannot be rescinded, and fasting suffices him; for he is prevented from his property; and because if manumission were affirmed for him, he would work for his value and manumission would not suffice him; if he fasts a month then becomes reformed, only manumission suffices him; for the supervening meaning has vanished, becoming like the destitute who fasted a month then found what manumits. All this ramification is only according to the view of the two companions; as for Abu Hanifa, he is like the non-interdicted.
If he falls ill and makes bequests of nearness and works of goodness, that is permitted within the third of his property; for the bequest is a command emanating from Allah, from which he is not prevented, and it is a drawing near to Allah: there is thus for him in that a benefit. The difference between nearness (qurba) and works of goodness is that nearness is what becomes worship through a means, such as building water troughs, mosques, bridges and ribats; and works of goodness are general, encompassing nearness and other than it, such as suretyship (kafala) and guarantee (damana): works of goodness are thus broader than nearness. It has been said: nearness is the means leading to worship, and works of goodness encompass worship and the means (al-Jawhara al-Nayyira 3/246-256; al-Ikhtiyar 2/116-117; al-Hidaya 3/282-284; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 5/195-197; al-Bahr al-Raiq 8/92-94; al-Lubab 1/445-446).
The Malikis said: the acts of the prodigal are annulled during life, to preserve his property according to his interests, so that his property not be lost through corrupted acts; and his testamentary acts are executed at the approach of death, to preserve his property according to his interests; for were we to annul his bequests, his heir would take his property without his deriving any benefit from it: the preservation of his property according to his interests is thus a single description that united the two opposing states, namely the annulment of his acts during life and the execution of his acts at death, through the legal consequence.
Ibn al-'Arabi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if the interdicted prodigal disposes without a guardian, the act is void by consensus, definitively annulled: it establishes no ruling and produces nothing. And if a prodigal without interdiction disposes, our scholars differed on it: Ibn al-Qasim permits his act, and the generality of our companions annul it; and what I see is that if he disposes with soundness, it is executed, and if he disposes without soundness, it is void (Ahkam al-Qur'an 1/232; see al-Dhakhira 7/110-111; al-Furuq 2/205). He also said: our scholars said that, having no act in their properties and their hands being withheld from them, they have no word in it, and neither contract nor bequest is executed for them therein: neither their sale nor their vow is permitted in it; for the cause for which their hands were withheld from the property is its preservation from their squandering and its keeping until their knowledge and clear insight; were their sale, gift or bequest permitted in it, the utility of the deprivation would be void and the purpose of its keeping over them would fall.
As for what is in their hands of wife or mother of a child whom they possess, their word is executed upon them: the divorce of the wife and the manumission of the mother of the child are executed at their charge; for they possessed them in actuality, their word is thus executed upon them legally: this is a beautiful observation of the argument in favor of the execution of divorce and manumission (Ahkam al-Qur'an 1/421-422; see al-Dhakhira 7/110-111; al-Furuq 2/205).
The prodigal is thus like the discerning minor in all that preceded of the minor's acts, except in the following: first, his divorce becomes binding on him, unlike the minor, upon whom it does not become binding, and the guardian has the right to annul it, and he has the right to confirm it if he becomes mature, as mentioned previously. Second, the attaching of a lineage and its negation. Third, retribution established against him by the evidence becomes binding on him and is executed upon him, unlike the minor: the blood money weighs, as mentioned previously, like for the insane; retribution established against him becomes binding on him and is executed upon him, for his intention is valid, and because retribution is among the rights of Allah that bind all the legally responsible, the prodigal adult having all the rights of Allah become binding upon him, those that Allah imposed upon His servants regarding his body and his property, legal punishments, retribution and divorce; and because imprudence is an effect in his disposal of property only, he is therefore not prevented from the rights of Allah; its origin being the illness.