buying and selling. If he is the son of a farmer, then what suits him is handling crops properly; and if she is a woman, then what suits her is managing matters related to the household well. Thus, each person is tested in what is appropriate to him or her.

It should be said, however, that what the author stated is not necessarily definitive, for a woman may be good at household matters while being incompetent in financial affairs. Would we then say that she has sound judgment? No.

It would be better to say: he is not to be entrusted with his wealth until he has been tested in a manner that demonstrates his sound judgment in financial matters, for we are now discussing wealth, not occupations.

Thus, the correct wording would be: “Nor is it handed over to him until he has been tested before reaching puberty in matters relating to the management of wealth, so that his sound judgment in managing his wealth may be known.”

His statement: “Their guardian during legal interdiction is the father, then his executor, then the ruler.” Guardianship over such persons is confined to three: the father—meaning the immediate father from whose loins they came—then the father’s executor, namely the one whom he appoints after his death to look after these minor children; then the ruler, meaning the judge.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words—may Allah have mercy on him—is that the grandfather has no guardianship, even in the absence of the father. Thus, if a man’s sons die, the management and supervision of his grandsons’ wealth is undertaken by the judge if their father has left no executor, even if their grandfather is compassionate toward them, has taken them into his own household among his children, and is among the most sincere people toward them and the most capable of managing their wealth. Yet the author says that the grandfather is not a guardian, nor is the brother.