and sale, loan, and borrowing. As for a deposit (wadi'ah) and a loan for use ('ariyah), there is no liability upon them for what is destroyed due to their negligence, and if they destroy it, there are two opinions regarding the liability for it.

Section: No one shall oversee the wealth of the child and the insane person, as long as they remain under interdiction, except for the father, or his executor (wasi) after him, or the ruler in the absence of both. As for the fool (safih), if he was placed under interdiction while young, and the interdiction was continued for him due to his foolishness, then the guardian (wali) over him is whom we have mentioned. If the interdiction is renewed upon him after his maturity, no one shall oversee his wealth except the ruler; because the interdiction requires the judgment of a ruler, and its removal requires the same, therefore overseeing his wealth is the same.

815 - Issue; He said: "And if the person under interdiction confesses to something that necessitates a hadd punishment or retaliation (qisas), or divorces his wife, that is binding upon him."

The summary of this is that the person under interdiction for insolvency (falas) or foolishness (safah), if he confesses to something that necessitates a hadd punishment or qisas, such as adultery, theft, drinking, false accusation (qadhf), intentional homicide, amputation of a hand, or the like, then that is accepted, and the ruling for that is immediately binding upon him. We know of no disagreement regarding this. Ibn al-Mundhir said: "Everyone whose views we have preserved from the people of knowledge has reached a consensus that the confession of the person under interdiction against himself is permissible if his confession is regarding adultery, theft, drinking wine, false accusation, or homicide, and that the hadd punishments are carried out upon him." This is the position of al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y), and I do not preserve any disagreement from others than them (1). This is because he is not suspected [of deception] regarding his own person, and the interdiction is only attached to his wealth, so his confession against his own person regarding matters that do not involve wealth is accepted. If he divorces his wife, his divorce is effective, according to the opinion of most scholars. Ibn Abi Layla said: His divorce does not take effect; because marital intimacy (bud') functions like wealth, as evidenced by the fact that he possesses it by means of wealth, and it is valid for his ownership of it to cease by means of wealth, so he does not possess the right to dispose of it, just like wealth. Our argument is that divorce is not a disposition of wealth, and it does not function like it, so he is not prevented from it, like the confession of a hadd or qisas. The evidence that it does not function like wealth is that it is valid from a slave without the permission of his master, despite his prohibition from disposing of wealth, and it is not acquired by inheritance, and because he is a legally responsible person (mukallaf) who divorced his wife by his own choice, so his divorce takes effect, like that of a slave or a mukatab (a slave in a contract of emancipation).