And the Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: "The pen is lifted from three: the child until he reaches puberty, the insane until he regains his sanity, and the sleeper until he wakes up" (8). He specified these three, and the pleuritic and the unconscious are in the same category as the insane and the sleeper. This is because it is a statement from one whose intellect is absent, so no legal ruling is established by it, just like trade and divorce. As for the discerning child, if he is under interdiction, his acknowledgment is not valid; but if he is authorized, his acknowledgment is valid to the extent of what he has been authorized for. Ahmad said, in a narration by Muhanna, concerning the orphan: If he is given permission for trade and he understands buying and selling, his buying and selling are permissible. If he acknowledges that he has received something from his wealth, it is permitted to the extent of what his guardian authorized him for. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah. Abu Bakr and Ibn Abi Musa said: His acknowledgment is only valid regarding what he was authorized to trade in, concerning small amounts. Ash-Shafi'i said: His acknowledgment is not valid under any circumstances, due to the generality of the report, and because he is not an adult, so he resembles a child. Also, his testimony and his report are not accepted, so he resembles a child. Our argument is that he is a sane, voluntary person whose actions are valid, so his acknowledgment is valid, like an adult. We have already provided evidence for the validity of his actions previously, and the report is interpreted as referring to the removal of obligation and sin. If a near-pubescent child who is not authorized makes an acknowledgment, and then he and the person in whose favor the acknowledgment was made differ regarding his puberty, the statement is his, unless evidence of his puberty is established, because the basic principle is childhood. The acknowledger does not swear an oath, because we have ruled that he has not reached puberty, unless they differ after his puberty is established, in which case he must take an oath that he was not an adult at the time of his acknowledgment. Whoever loses his intellect due to a permissible cause or an excusable one, he is like the insane person; his acknowledgment is not heard, without disagreement. If it was due to a sinful act, such as a drunkard or one who consumed that which removes his intellect intentionally without necessity, his acknowledgment is not valid. It is also deduced that it might be valid, based on the occurrence of his divorce. This is the explicit view of Ash-Shafi'i, because his actions are treated the same as those of a sober person. Our argument is that he is not sane, so his acknowledgment is not valid, like the insane person who caused his own insanity through an unlawful act, and because the statements of a drunkard cannot be trusted for their accuracy, nor is suspicion removed from what he reports; thus, the essence of acknowledgment, which necessitates the acceptance of his statement, is not found.