there is some difficulty in this. For it is customary in such cases for a person to say to his son—who has not yet reached puberty but is an adolescent, or perhaps eleven years old or so—“My son, go to our neighbour and say to him: lend me one hundred riyals, for example.” In this case, there is no doubt that the man would not give him one hundred riyals unless he trusted that his father had instructed him to do so; otherwise, he would not give them to him. Thus, I reserve judgment regarding this issue: if it is customary for his companion regularly to send his son to borrow from him, then it should be said that liability applies. In that case, however, the one liable is the father, because the man lent it to him only on the basis that his father had sent him.
This applies where such a practice is established and consistent between them. But if it is not an established and consistent practice, then the minor is not liable, nor is his father liable if he denies having sent him.
His statement, “And whoever gives them [property]”: we have mentioned that this is general. Thus, if the one giving it to them is one like them—meaning, a minor gives property to another minor—and the property is destroyed while with that minor, should we say that they are liable, since a minor’s gift in this case is legally invalid, so that the minor who received the property is deemed to have destroyed it without having been given it, because this transfer is invalid due to its being made by someone whose transactions are not legally valid? Or should we say that, since this minor placed the other minor in control of the property, there is no liability? The stronger view is that liability applies, because the rights of human beings are guaranteed in all circumstances, and minors giving property to one another carries no legal weight.
“And they are liable for compensation for injury, and for the value of another person’s property which he did not hand over to them; and if a minor reaches fifteen years of age…”
His statement, “And they are liable for compensation for injury,” means that if these three commit an offense causing injury, then compensation for the injury—that is, the amount by which the injury is assessed—is binding upon them, whether