insolvent. As for the wealthy one, the father does not guarantee on his behalf, according to a single narration. If he divorces before the consummation of marriage, half of the dowry is dropped. If this occurs after the father has paid the dowry on his behalf, half of it reverts to the son, and the father does not have the right to reclaim it—in the sense of reclaiming a gift—because the son acquired ownership of it through the divorce independently of his father, so it is similar to if the father had gifted it to a stranger, and then the stranger gifted it to the son (19). It is also possible that he may reclaim it, because it is a voluntary act on behalf of his son, so ownership did not stabilize until the son reclaimed it. The same ruling applies if he pays the dowry on behalf of his adult son, and then he divorces before consummation. If she apostatizes before the consummation, the ruling on reclaiming all of it is like the ruling on reclaiming the half through divorce.

Section: Regarding the person under interdiction due to prodigality (safah), the discussion of his marriage involves three situations. The first is that his guardian may marry him off if he knows of his need for marriage; for he is appointed for his interests, and this is one of his interests, as he protects through it his religion, honor, and person. Indeed, he might expose himself by abandoning marriage to the sin of adultery, the legal penalty (hadd), and the violation of honor. It is the same whether he knows of his need (20) from his own statement or from the statement of another, and whether his need is [for sexual enjoyment] (21) or for domestic service. So he marries him to a woman so she becomes lawful for him, because he needs to be in seclusion with her. If he has no need for it, it is not permissible to marry him off; because he imposes upon him through marriage rights—such as the dowry, maintenance, conjugal rights, and lodging—which would be a wasting of his wealth and person without benefit, so it is not permissible, like the squandering of his property. When he wishes to marry him off (22), he seeks his permission for his marriage. If he marries him off without his permission, our companions said: It is valid; because it is a contract of exchange, so the guardian possesses the right in the matter of the person under his guardianship, like a sale, and because he is under interdiction, resembling a minor or an insane person. It is also possible that he does not have the right to marry him off without his permission, because he possesses the right to divorce, so he cannot be forced into marriage, like a person of sound judgment and like an adult slave (23); and this is because