he mismanages his wealth, he said: His property is not to be handed over to him until he reaches twenty-five years of age, although his transactions are valid before then. The Quran provides evidence for maintaining the legal interdiction upon him, for Allah Most High says:

“Until they reach marriageable age; then, if you perceive sound judgment in them, deliver to them their property.”

Allah commanded that their property be handed over to them after they reach puberty and sound judgment is perceived in them. A morally corrupt person cannot be deemed sound of judgment. Thus, if, after reaching twenty-five years of age, he is still mismanaging his wealth, then by agreement he is not of sound judgment; consequently, it is not permissible to hand over his property to him, just as it was not permissible before he reached this age.

When a person reaches puberty and sound judgment is perceived in him, the legal interdiction is lifted and the property is handed over to him, whether he is male or female, married or unmarried.

According to Malik, may Allah Most High have mercy on him, if the person is a woman, her property is not handed over to her until she marries. Once she marries, it is handed over to her; however, her transactions are not valid without her husband’s permission until she grows older and acquires experience.

If a minor reaches maturity with sound judgment, the legal interdiction is lifted from him, and he subsequently becomes irresponsible again, then the matter is considered as follows: if he again becomes wasteful with his wealth, legal interdiction is reimposed upon him. If he becomes corrupt in his religion, there are two views. The first is that legal interdiction is reimposed upon him, just as it continues to apply to one who reaches maturity in this state. The second is that it is not reimposed, because the ruling concerning continuation is stronger than the ruling concerning initial imposition.

According to Abu Hanifah, may Allah Most High have mercy on him, no legal interdiction may be imposed upon a free, sane adult under any circumstances. Evidence for the establishment of legal interdiction, based on the agreement of the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, is what was related by Hisham ibn Urwah from his father: Abdullah ibn Jafar purchased saline land for sixty thousand dirhams. Ali said, “I shall go to Uthman and have legal interdiction imposed upon you.” Ibn Jafar then went to al-Zubayr and informed him of this. [Al-Zubayr said, “I am your partner in this purchase.” Ali then went to Uthman and said, “Impose legal interdiction upon this man.”] (1) Al-Zubayr said, “I am his partner.” Uthman replied, “How can I impose legal interdiction upon a man in a transaction in which al-Zubayr is his partner?” (2) This constituted their agreement that legal interdiction was permissible, such that al-Zubayr resorted to a stratagem to avert it.

His saying, Most High: “And do not consume it,” is addressed to the guardians; “wastefully,” meaning without right; “and in haste,” meaning hastening before “they grow up.” The particle an is in the accusative position. That is: do not hasten to consume their property before they attain maturity and sound judgment, out of fear that they may reach adulthood and you will then be obliged to hand it over to them. Allah then clarified what is lawful for them from the orphans’ property, saying:

“Whoever is well-off should refrain,” meaning that he should abstain from the orphan’s property and not diminish it, whether little or much. Refraining means abstaining from that which is not lawful. “But whoever is poor”—that is, in need of the orphan’s property, while preserving and caring for it—may consume 78/b what is reasonable.

Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Marwazi informed us; Abu Sahl Muhammad ibn Umar al-Sijzi informed us; Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi informed us; Abu Bakr ibn Dasah al-Tammar informed us; Abu Dawud al-Sijistani informed us; Humaid ibn Masadah informed us that Khalid ibn al-Harith