Section: If he marries, the marriage is valid with the permission of his guardian, and without his permission, and this is the opinion of Abu Hanifa. Abu al-Khattab said: It is not valid without the permission of his guardian, and this is the position of al-Shafi'i and Abu Thawr; because it is a disposition that necessitates wealth, so it is not valid without the permission of his guardian, like purchasing. Our argument is that it is a non-financial contract, so it is valid for him to perform it, like his khul' and his divorce. Even if wealth is necessitated by it, its occurrence is by way of implication, so it does not prevent the contract, just as if that were necessitated by divorce.

Section: His tadbir (stipulating manumission after death) and his bequest are valid; because that is in his pure interest, as he is drawing closer to Allah the Almighty with his wealth after he is no longer in need of it. His istilad (acknowledgment of a child from a slave woman) is valid, and the umm al-walad (slave woman who has borne his child) is manumitted upon his death; because if this is valid from an insane person, then it is more appropriate for the spendthrift (safih). He has the right to demand qisas; because it is instituted for consolation and retribution, [and he is entitled to it]. He has the right to pardon in exchange for wealth; because it is an acquisition of wealth, not a waste of it. If he pardons for something other than wealth, you must consider: if we say that the mandatory requirement is qisas specifically, his pardon is valid; because it does not involve the waste of wealth. If we say that it is one of the two things, his pardon for the wealth is not valid, and the wealth becomes due, just as if the qisas lapsed due to the pardon of one of the two heirs. If he enters into ihram for Hajj, his ihram is valid; because he is a legally responsible person who has entered into ihram for Hajj, so he resembles others, and because that is an act of worship, so it is valid from him, like his other acts of worship. Then, if he has entered into ihram for a mandatory Hajj, the expenditure is provided to him from his wealth so that the obligation is lifted from him, and if it was a voluntary Hajj, then if his expenditure during the journey is like his expenditure at home, it is provided to him, because there is no harm in his ihram. If the travel expenditure is greater, and he says: "I will earn the remainder of my expenditure," it is also provided to him, because he is not harming his wealth. If he has no earnings, his guardian may release him from the ihram; because it involves the waste of his wealth, and he completes the release through fasting, like one who is insolvent; because he is prohibited from disposing of his wealth. It is possible that his guardian does not have the power to release him, based on the slave if he enters into ihram without the permission of his master. If he breaks his oath, or returns in his zihar, or a kaffara (expiation) becomes mandatory upon him due to killing or intercourse during the day of Ramadan, he performs expiation through fasting for that. If he manumits or provides food for that, it does not suffice him. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i; because he is prohibited from his wealth, so he resembles the insolvent person.