and the like. However, he may not press his claim against him or take him before a judge. If the father dies, though, he may claim his debt from his estate.

His statement, “The son may not demand [payment] from his father,” implies from the author’s wording that he may demand his debt from his mother, as he may from his paternal or maternal grandfather, since they are not entitled to take ownership of their child’s or grandson’s property. This is what his wording implies, for the scholars—may Allah have mercy on them—their statements have both an explicit meaning and an implied meaning.

But the correct view is that he may not demand payment from his mother either, because the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, was asked, “Who among people is most deserving of my good companionship?” He replied, “Your mother.” He was asked, “Then who?” He replied, “Your mother.” He was asked, “Then who?” He replied, “Your mother.” He was asked, “Then who?” He replied, “Then your father” (1). This explicitly shows that if he may not demand payment from his father, then it is all the more so that he may not demand it from his mother. Is it filial piety for him to drag his mother before the judges? Certainly not. This is regarded as reprehensible both in the Sacred Law and by customary standards.

Thus, the correct view is that he may not demand payment from his mother. The issue is not based on entitlement to take ownership: taking ownership is one matter, whereas demanding repayment of a debt is another.

The basic ruling regarding the father is a matter of scholarly disagreement. Some scholars hold that he may demand repayment of a debt from his father.

His statement, “a debt and the like,” includes, for example, financial compensation for an injury. Thus, if his father commits against him an offense that entails financial liability—and we do not say that it entails retaliation, because in accordance with