814 - Issue; He said: "And whoever deals with him after that, he is the one who causes the destruction of his wealth."

The summary of this is that when the ruler places a fool under interdiction, it is recommended that he calls witnesses to it, so that his state becomes manifest and his transactions are avoided. If he sees fit to order a herald to announce it so that people may know of it, he does so. It is not a condition that he be witnessed against, for his condition may spread through his notoriety and the talk of the people about him. If he is placed under interdiction, and then he sells and buys, that is invalid. The ruler shall reclaim what he sold from his wealth and return the price if it remains. If the fool destroys it, or it is destroyed while in his possession, it is the purchaser's liability, and there is nothing against the fool. Likewise, what he takes from people's wealth with their consent, such as what he takes by way of a loan, purchase, or otherwise, the ruler returns it if it remains; if it is destroyed, it is the liability of its owner, whether he knew of the interdiction or not. This is because if he knew, he was negligent in handing over his wealth to someone under interdiction, and if he did not know, he is still negligent if it was a situation where the interdiction was well-known. This is if the owner authorized him to take it. As for what comes into his possession by the choice of its owner without specific authorization, such as a deposit (wadi'ah) or a loan for use ('ariyah), the judge (al-Qadi) favored the view that he is held liable if he destroys it, or if it is destroyed due to his negligence, because he destroyed it without the owner's choice, so it resembles the case where the possession was without the owner's choice (1). It is also possible that he is not held liable, because the owner exposed it to his destruction and authorized him to handle it, so it resembles the sold object. As for what he takes without the owner's choice, or destroys, such as through usurpation (ghasb) or a crime, he is liable for it because there is no negligence on the part of the owner; for if a child or an insane person were to do that, they would be held liable, so the fool is more deserving of this. The position of al-Shafi'i in all of this is the same.

Section: The ruling for the child and the insane person is the same as the ruling for the fool, regarding the obligation of liability for what they destroy of someone else's wealth without their permission, or if they usurp it and it is destroyed in their hands, and the absence of liability for them regarding what came into their hands by the owner's choice and authorization, such as the price...