his stead, as do the agent of the father and the successor (wasi). Each of them takes the place of the young boy in accepting and taking possession if it is needed, because that is an acceptance of something in which there is a benefit for the boy, so it is the responsibility of the guardian, just like buying and selling. Taking possession and acceptance are not valid from anyone other than these [three].

[For Ahmad said] (2), in the narration of Salih, regarding a boy to whom a gift was given or an alms was given, and the mother took possession of it while the father was present: "I do not recognize any taking of possession by the mother; it is not [valid] except by the father." Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, said: "The person most entitled to take possession (3) on behalf of the child is his father." This is the school of thought of Al-Shafi'i, and I do not know of any disagreement regarding it, because taking possession is only done by the donee or his deputy, and the guardian (4) is a deputy by the Law (Shari'a), so his taking possession on his behalf is valid; as for anyone else, there is no deputieship for them.

It is possible that taking possession and acceptance could be valid from others when these [three] are absent, because the need is compelling for that; for a boy might be in a place where there is no judge, and he has no father or successor, and he may be poor, with no choice but to rely on alms. If the taking of possession by others for him is not valid, the door to their reaching him is closed, and he would be lost and perish; and observing his preservation from destruction is more important than observing the guardianship. On this basis, the mother may take possession on his behalf, as may any of his relatives or others who are in charge of him.

If the boy is discerning (mumayyiz), his ruling is the ruling of the child regarding his guardian standing in his stead, because guardianship does not cease for him before puberty. However (5), if he accepts for himself and takes possession for himself, it is valid; because he is among those of legal capacity, for his buying and selling are valid with the permission of the guardian, so here it is even more appropriate. He does not need the permission of the guardian here because it is purely beneficial and there is no harm in it, so it is valid without the permission of his guardian, like his will and his acquiring of permissible things. It is possible that the validity of taking possession by him is contingent upon the permission of his guardian, unlike acceptance, because by taking possession, he becomes the one in control of the wealth, so one cannot be secure from his wasting it or being negligent with it; therefore, it is necessary to protect him from that by conditioning it on his guardian's permission, like his taking possession of his deposit. As for acceptance, through it ownership is attained for him without harm, so it is permissible without permission, like his gathering of firewood or his hunting.