The judge has heard, and he who has raised understanding, The wealth belongs to the elder as a reward for blessings. He eats it despite the indignation of whoever is indignant. Whoever says anything other than this has acted unjustly, And has transgressed in judgment, and evil is what he has perpetrated.

Al-Zubayr said: 'This is the position we hold.' This is because wealth is one of the two types of rights, so he does not possess the right to demand his father for it, just like the rights of the body. The father is distinguished from others by the right established for him over his child. If the son dies and the debt is transferred to his heirs, they do not possess the right to demand it from the father, because the one from whom they inherited did not have the right to demand it, and they have no greater right than him. If the father dies, the son may claim his debt from his estate, because his debt did not lapse from the father; rather, the demand for it was merely delayed. It has been narrated from Ahmad that he said: 'If the father dies, the son's debt is voided.' He also said regarding one who took something from his daughter's dowry and spent it: 'He is not liable for anything, and it is not taken from him after his death, but whatever of the dowry she attained in its specific form, she has taken.' Some of our companions interpreted his words as meaning that he has what he took by way of ownership. It is also possible that his taking it and spending it is evidence of the intention of ownership, and thus ownership is established by that act of taking. And Allah knows best.

Section: If the father disposes of the son's wealth before taking ownership of it, his disposal is not valid. Ahmad explicitly stated this, saying: 'It is not permissible for a father to emancipate his son's slave unless he has taken possession of him.' Based on this, it is not valid for him to release him from his debt, nor to gift his wealth, nor to sell it for him. This is because the son's ownership of his own wealth is complete, so his disposal of it is valid, and it is lawful for him to have intercourse with his slave-girls. If the ownership were shared, it would not be lawful for him to have intercourse, just as it is not permissible to have intercourse with a jointly owned slave-girl. The father only has the right to extract it from him, like the item that