maturity" (Surah Al-An'am: 152). He has now reached his maturity, and it is fitting that he be a grandfather. Furthermore, since he is a free, mature, sane, and legally responsible adult, he should not be interdicted, just like a person of sound judgment. Our argument is the saying of Allah the Almighty: "And test the orphans [in their abilities] until they reach marriageable age. Then if you perceive in them sound judgment, release their property to them" (Surah An-Nisa: 6). He conditioned the delivery on two matters, and a ruling conditioned on two matters is not established without both of them. Allah the Almighty also said: "And do not give the foolish your wealth" (Surah An-Nisa: 5), meaning their wealth. Additionally, the saying of Allah the Almighty: "But if the one who owes the debt is of limited understanding or weak or unable to dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate in justice" (Surah Al-Baqarah: 282), establishes guardianship over the spendthrift. Furthermore, because he is a waster of his wealth, it is not permissible to deliver it to him, just like someone who possesses less than that.

As for the verse he used as proof, it only indicates its implication by way of the 'dalil al-khitab' (implication of the speech), a principle he does not accept. Furthermore, it is restricted regarding those under twenty-five years of age by consensus, due to the cause of spendthriftiness, and this is present even after twenty-five years; therefore, it must be restricted to it as well. Just as the verse was restricted in the case of an insane person due to his insanity before the age of twenty-five, it is also restricted after twenty-five. What we have mentioned from the explicit text (mantuq) is more appropriate than what he inferred from the concept (mafhum) that restricts it. What they mentioned regarding his being a grandfather has no underlying meaning that necessitates the ruling, nor does it have a foundation that supports it in the Shari'ah; thus, it is establishing a ruling based on mere personal opinion (tahakkum). Moreover, this is conceivable in one who is below this age, for a woman can be a grandmother at twenty-one years. Their analogy is invalidated by someone under twenty-five years of age, and what necessitated the interdiction before twenty-five necessitates it thereafter. If this is established, then his disposition and his legal acknowledgments are not valid. Abu Hanifa said: His sale and acknowledgement are valid; it is only that his wealth is not delivered to him, because in his view, an adult is not to be interdicted, and he is only prevented from taking his wealth due to the verse. Our companions said regarding his acknowledgement: It becomes binding upon him after the interdiction is removed from him, if he was an adult. Our argument is that his wealth is not delivered to him due to his lack of sound judgment; therefore, his disposition and acknowledgement are not valid,