Section: If the guardian claims to have spent on the child, or on their wealth, or their real estate, in a reasonable manner from their wealth, or claims that he sold their real estate for their benefit, or constructed it for their interest, or that it was destroyed, his statement is accepted. The followers of al-Shafi'i said: The judge shall not ratify the sale of the trustworthy person (amin) and the executor (wasi) until the benefit is proven to him by evidence, and he does not accept their word regarding that, though he accepts the word of the father and the grandfather. We maintain that whoever is permitted to sell real estate and purchase it for the orphan, his statement regarding the benefit must be accepted, like the father and grandfather. Also, because his word is accepted regarding the absence of negligence in matters he manages other than real estate, his word should be accepted regarding real estate, like the father. If the child reaches adulthood and claims that there was no benefit to him in the sale, it is not accepted unless there is evidence; if there is no evidence, the word is the guardian's word, supported by his oath. If the guardian says, "I have spent on you for three years," and the boy says, "My father only died two years ago," the word is the boy's. Al-Qadi mentioned this, because the basic principle is the life of his father, and their disagreement is over a matter in which the executor is not considered a trustworthy authority, so the word is that of the one whose statement agrees with the basic principle.

Section: Ahmad said: It is permissible for the executor to sell on behalf of an absent adult, if it is done in a way that shows consideration for their interest. Our companions said: It is permissible for the executor to sell on behalf of minors and adults if their rights are combined in a real estate property such that its division would cause harm, and the minors have a need to sell, either to pay a debt or for their maintenance. Abu Hanifah and Ibn Abi Layla said: The sale is permissible on behalf of both minors and adults in cases where it is unavoidable. Perhaps they intended this specific scenario, because there is consideration for the minors in that, and precaution for the deceased in paying his debt. Al-Shafi'i said: His sale on behalf of adults is not valid, because it is an act of management over another person's wealth without agency or guardianship, so it is not valid, like selling their own separate wealth or what is not harmful to partition. This is the correct view, and what they (the others) mentioned has no basis upon which to draw an analogy; furthermore, it is contradicted by the fact that it causes harm to the adults by selling what is theirs without their permission. Additionally, since he is not allowed to sell anything other than real estate (in this context), he is not allowed to sell the real estate, just like a stranger.