Section: The transaction of a discerning child (mumayyiz) regarding sale and purchase is valid if the guardian has granted him permission, according to one of the two narrations, which is the opinion of Abu Hanifah. The second narration states that it is not valid until he reaches puberty, which is the opinion of al-Shafi'i; this is because he is not legally accountable, resembling the non-discerning child. Furthermore, intellect cannot be bounded by a specific limit through which one becomes fit for transacting, due to its subtlety and its growth in a subtly gradual manner. Therefore, the Lawgiver has established a standard for it, which is puberty, so the rulings of the rational do not apply to him before the appearance of that indicative sign. We maintain the word of Allah Almighty: "Test the orphans until they reach the age of marriage; then if you perceive in them sound judgment, deliver their property to them" (Surah al-Nisa, 6). The meaning is to test them to know their sound judgment. Their choice is only verified by delegating transactions to them, such as selling and buying, to see if they are being cheated or not. Furthermore, he is a rational, discerning person, albeit under interdiction, so his transaction is valid with the permission of his guardian, like a slave. He is distinguished from the non-discerning child, for no benefit is attained by the transaction of the latter due to his lack of discernment and knowledge, and there is no need for testing him because his state is already known. Regarding their argument that intellect cannot be ascertained, we say: this is known by the traces and the execution of his transactions in accordance with interest, just as it is known in the case of an adult; for the knowledge of his sound judgment is a condition for delivering his wealth to him and for the validity of his transaction, and it is the same here. As for when he transacts without the permission of his guardian, his transaction is not valid. It is possible that it is valid and held in suspense pending the guardian's authorization; this is the opinion of Abu Hanifah, and it is based on the case of one who transacts in another's wealth without permission, which we have already discussed. As for the non-discerning child, his transaction is not valid even if the guardian gives him permission, except in trivial matters, as it was narrated from Abu al-Darda that he bought a sparrow from a child and then set it free. Ibn Abi Musa mentioned this.

769- Issue: He said: "And whatever debt the slave incurs, it is attached to his person (raqabah); his master may ransom him or surrender him. If the debt he incurred exceeds his value, there is no obligation upon his master beyond his value, unless he has been granted permission for trade, in which case his master is liable for all that he has incurred."

In this issue, there are four points of discussion: