disagreement among scholars over the point at which a person is legally deemed to possess sound financial judgment, his wealth is handed over to him, and he is allowed to dispose of it.

Section

Disagreement on this matter depends on the circumstances, which fall into four categories. First, circumstances in which a person is generally presumed to lack sound financial judgment: he is treated accordingly, even if his sound financial judgment becomes apparent. Second, circumstances in which a person is generally presumed to possess sound financial judgment: he is treated accordingly, even if his lack of it is known. Third, circumstances compatible with either sound financial judgment or its absence, but in which its absence is more apparent: he is treated as lacking it unless his sound financial judgment becomes apparent. Fourth, circumstances likewise compatible with either, but in which sound financial judgment is more apparent: he is treated as possessing it unless his lack of it becomes apparent. Our scholars differ considerably over some of these categories.

Section

Among the circumstances in which a person is treated as lacking sound financial judgment—even if his sound judgment becomes apparent—is childhood. Mālik and his companions agree that a minor who has not reached puberty, marked by wet dreams in males and menstruation in females, cannot validly make any gratuitous disposition of his wealth, whether a gift, charitable donation, grant, or emancipation—even with the permission of his father or testamentary guardian, if he has either. If he sells, purchases, or undertakes a comparable transaction involving an exchange rather than an act of generosity, it remains subject to his guardian’s assessment, if he has a guardian. If the guardian considers it prudent and advantageous, he approves it and gives it effect; if he considers otherwise, he rejects and annuls it. If the minor has no guardian, one is appointed to assess the transaction in his interests, exercising due consideration and judgment. If the matter is overlooked until he assumes control of his own affairs, it is for him to decide whether to approve and give effect to the transaction or reject it.

There is disagreement, however, where his transaction was prudent and beneficial, such that the guardian would have been obliged to undertake it: may he reject and rescind it if it subsequently proves otherwise because of changes in market conditions, an increase in the property he sold, a diminution in what he purchased, or something similar? The well-known, established position in the school is that he may. It has also been said that he may not; this is the view implied by what is reported from Asbagh in