or its recent state is better than its old state, such as wheat and the like, so he lends it out of fear that it might become infested with weevils or that its value might decrease, and similar things. Lending is permissible because it is something in which there is a benefit for the orphan, so it is permitted, just like trading with it. If there is no benefit in it, and he merely intended to facilitate the borrower and fulfill his need, then this is not permissible because it is an act of charity using the orphan's wealth, so it is not permitted, just as gifting it would not be.

If the guardian intends to travel, he is not permitted to travel with the orphan's wealth, and lending it to a trustworthy and honest person is preferable to depositing it, because a deposit is not guaranteed if it is lost. If he cannot find someone to borrow it under this condition, he may deposit it because it is a situation of need. If he deposited it despite the possibility of lending it, it is permissible and he bears no guarantee for it, for he may have viewed depositing it as more beneficial for the orphan than lending it, and thus he would not be negligent. In every instance where we say it is permissible to lend it, it is only permissible to do so to someone solvent and honest, so that he may be safe from their denial or inability to fulfill the repayment. It is appropriate to take a pledge (rahn) if he is able; if taking a pledge is difficult for him, it is permissible to forgo it according to the apparent meaning of Ahmad's statement, because the reality for someone who borrows it for the sake of the orphan's benefit is that they may not offer a pledge, and stipulating a pledge would cause the loss of this benefit. Abu al-Khattab said: He lends it only if he takes a pledge for the loan. The implication of this is that he does not lend it except with a pledge, because it contains precaution for the wealth and protects it from denial and delay. If he is able to take a pledge, it is more appropriate for him to do so as a precaution for the wealth and to preserve it. If he leaves it, it is possible he would be held liable if the wealth is lost due to his negligence, and it is also possible he would not be held liable because the default is that it is safe; this is the apparent meaning of Ahmad's statement, given that he did not mention the pledge.

Section: Abu Bakr said: Is it permissible for the executor (wasi) to appoint a deputy for tasks he usually handles himself? There are two narrations, because he is an administrator by authorization over someone else's wealth, so he resembles an agent (wakil). Al-Qadi said: This is permissible for the executor, whereas there are two narrations regarding the agent. He differentiated between them by stating that the agent is able to seek permission, whereas the executor is the opposite.