to give charity to their husbands and to their orphans? He said: "Yes." He did not mention this condition to them. Moreover, because whoever is obligated to have his wealth handed over to him due to his sound judgment is permitted to dispose of it without permission, like a young boy. Furthermore, the woman is a person of legal capacity, and her husband has no right to her wealth; thus, he does not possess the authority to interdict her from disposing of it in its entirety, just as her sister (would not). Their hadith is weak, and Shu'ayb did not meet 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr, so it is mursal (disconnected). Even if it were [authentic], it is interpreted as meaning that it is not permissible for her to give a gift from his wealth without his permission, evidenced by the fact that it is permissible for her to give a gift of less than a third of her own wealth. They have no hadith that indicates limiting the prohibition to one-third, so restricting it to that is an arbitrary imposition that has no textual basis (tawqif), nor is there any evidence for it. Their analogy to the sick person is invalid for several reasons: Firstly, that illness is a cause that leads to the wealth reaching them (the heirs) through inheritance, whereas the marital bond merely makes her one of the heirs; thus, it is only one of two attributes of the cause ('illah), so the ruling is not established by it alone, just as the interdiction on a husband does not apply to the wife, nor does it apply to other heirs without the condition of illness. Secondly, that the donation of a sick person is suspended; if he recovers from his illness, his donation becomes valid, whereas here they have invalidated it in all cases, and the derivative (far') cannot exceed its origin (asl). Thirdly, that which they mentioned is contradicted by the woman herself; for she benefits from her husband's wealth and uses it customarily, and she has the right to maintenance from it. Her benefit from his wealth is greater than his benefit from her wealth, yet she has no [right of] interdiction over him. Moreover, this characteristic is not present in the origin (asl), and among the conditions for the validity of an analogy is that the characteristic establishing the ruling must be present in both the origin and the derivative together.