it is not permissible for him to take except what is found in both. If he has eaten that amount from it, and then he becomes wealthy, if he was the father, he is not required to compensate it, according to a single narration, because the father is permitted to take from his child's wealth whatever he wishes, whether he is in need or not. If he was someone other than the father, is he required to compensate for that? There are two narrations: One of them is that he is not required to do so. This is the opinion of Al-Hasan, Al-Nakha'i, and one of the two opinions of Al-Shafi'i, because Allah the Almighty commanded eating from it without mentioning any compensation, so it resembles other things He commanded to be eaten. Furthermore, it is a compensation for his labor, so he is not required to provide an alternative, like a hired worker or a Mudarib (partner in Mudarabah). The second [narration] is that he is required to compensate for it. This is the opinion of 'Abidah al-Salmani, 'Ata', Mujahid, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, and Abu al-'Aliyah, because he made it lawful for himself due to need from someone else's wealth, so he is required to repay it, like one who is compelled to consume the food of another. The first [view] is more correct, because if it were obligatory upon him when he becomes wealthy, it would have been obligatory as a debt before his wealth. Since wealth is not a cause for the obligation, if it did not become obligatory by the cause—which is the act of eating—it does not become so after it. This differs from the one who is compelled, for the compensation is obligatory upon him as a debt, and because he did not eat it as a compensation for something, whereas this is the opposite.

Section: As for lending the orphan's wealth: If there is no benefit for him in it, it is not permissible to lend it. Whenever the guardian is able to trade with it or acquire real estate in which there is a benefit for the orphan, he should not lend it, because that causes the loss of benefit for the orphan. If that is not possible, and lending it is a benefit for the orphan, it is permissible. Ahmad said: "He should not lend the orphan's wealth to anyone just because he wants to reward them or gain their affection; rather, he should lend it based on consideration and compassion, just as Ibn 'Umar did." It was said to Ahmad: "'Umar borrowed the orphan's wealth." He said: "He only borrowed it out of consideration for the orphan and as a precaution; if something happened to it, he would pay it back." Al-Qadi said: "The meaning of 'benefit' is that the orphan has wealth in his city, and he wants to transfer it to another city, so he lends it to a man in that city to repay it as a substitute in his [the orphan's] city, intending by that to preserve it from the risk of transport, or fearing it will be lost to looting, drowning, or similar things, or if it is among the things that spoil over the passage of time,