AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightSimilarly, the majority of jurists including the two companions of Abu Hanifah went to say that the interdiction should be enforced on the prodigal, while Abu Hanifa refused to enforce interdicted on the prodigal after reaching the age of puberty.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
Abstract: The jurists have discussed the issue of prodigality and its impact on human behavior. They have defined it as wasting money and spending it in a way that contradicts the spending of a natural person. The significance of this research appears in its presentation of the evidence which supports the permissibility of interdiction and the evidence which goes against it. The study also considers the issue of a person's interest by preserving his wealth and his right in enforcing actions. The study has adopted the comparative analytical method. The study was concluded with the following results, the jurists agreed that a young child who has not reached puberty should not be given his money. The jurists have differed regarding the interdiction of the prodigal in two cases. The first case is related to the one who is considered a prodigal while he is reaching the puberty age. The majority of jurists including the two companions of Abu Hanifah (Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Ibn Al-Hasan) went to enforce interdiction on the prodigal. Moreover, the researchers of this paper preferred this opinion. However, Abu Hanifa went against the opinion of the majority of jurists. He says that interdiction cannot be enforced since the person has reached the age of puberty. The second case is related to the one who became a prodigal after reaching the age of adulthood which means that he should be aware of how to spend money. Similarly, the majority of jurists including the two companions of Abu Hanifah went to say that the interdiction should be enforced on the prodigal, while Abu Hanifa refused to enforce interdicted on the prodigal after reaching the age of puberty.