in the same status as the wife regarding what we have mentioned, due to the presence of the [same] rationale in them. And if his wife were restricted from managing in her husband's house, such as one whom he feeds by a set amount, but he does not enable her to access his food, nor to manage any of his wealth, then it is not permissible for her to give charity with any of his wealth; due to the absence of the rationale in her case. And Allah knows best.

812 - Issue: He said: "And rushd (sound judgment) is uprightness in wealth."

This is the view of the majority of scholars, among them Malik and Abu Hanifah. Al-Hasan, al-Shafi'i, and Ibn al-Mundhir said: "Rushd is uprightness in one's religion and one's wealth; because the immoral person (fasiq) is not a person of sound judgment (rashid), and because his corruption of his religion prevents trust in him regarding the preservation of his wealth, just as it prevents the acceptance of his word and the establishment of guardianship over others, even if no lying or squandering is known of him." Our argument is the statement of Allah, the Exalted: {Then if you perceive in them sound judgment (rushd), deliver to them their property} (1). Ibn Abbas said: "This means uprightness in their wealth." Mujahid said: "When he is rational." And because this is an affirmation of a noun in an indefinite form, and whoever is upright regarding his wealth, then rushd has been found in him. And because probity ('adalah) is not considered in the [state of] rushd during its continuity, so it is not considered at its initiation, just like renunciation (zuhd) of the world. And because he is one who is upright with his wealth, so he resembles the person of probity. What confirms this is that the interdiction (hajr) over him was only to preserve his wealth for him, so what influences it is what influences the wasting of wealth or its preservation. Regarding their statement that the immoral person is not a person of sound judgment: We say: he is not a person of sound judgment in his religion, but regarding his wealth and its preservation, he is a person of sound judgment. Furthermore, this is invalidated by the disbeliever, for he is not a person of sound judgment, yet he is not placed under interdiction [for that. Likewise, if immorality were to befall a Muslim after his wealth had been delivered to him, his sound judgment would not vanish, and he would not be placed under interdiction] (3) on account of it. And if probity were a condition for sound judgment, it would cease upon its cessation, like the preservation of wealth. It does not follow from the prohibition of accepting a person's testimony that his wealth should be withheld from him, for those who are known for frequent mistakes, negligence, and forgetfulness, or those who eat in the market, or stretch out their legs in public gatherings of people and their like, their testimony is not accepted, yet their wealth is delivered to them.