Abstract:
The jurists have discussed the issue of prodigality and its impact on human behavior. They
have defined it as wasting money and spending it in a way that contradicts the spending of
a natural person. The significance of this research appears in its presentation of the evidence
which supports the permissibility of interdiction and the evidence which goes against it.
The study also considers the issue of a person's interest by preserving his wealth and his
right in enforcing actions. The study has adopted the comparative analytical method. The
study was concluded with the following results, the jurists agreed that a young child who
has not reached puberty should not be given his money. The jurists have differed regarding
the interdiction of the prodigal in two cases. The first case is related to the one who is
considered a prodigal while he is reaching the puberty age. The majority of jurists including
the two companions of Abu Hanifah (Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Ibn Al-Hasan) went to enforce interdiction on the prodigal. Moreover, the researchers of this paper preferred this
opinion. However, Abu Hanifa went against the opinion of the majority of jurists. He says
that interdiction cannot be enforced since the person has reached the age of puberty. The
second case is related to the one who became a prodigal after reaching the age of adulthood
which means that he should be aware of how to spend money. Similarly, the majority of
jurists including the two companions of Abu Hanifah went to say that the interdiction
should be enforced on the prodigal, while Abu Hanifa refused to enforce interdicted on the
prodigal after reaching the age of puberty.
ملخص
تحدث الفقهاء عن السَّفَهِ وأثره على تصرفات الإنسان، وعرفوه بأنه تبذير المال وانفاقه فيما يخالف
موجب الشرع والحكمة، وتكمن مشكلة البحث وأهميته في أنه يعالج هذه المسألة التي تتجاذبها أدلة
جواز الحجر وعدم الجواز من جهة، والنظر إلى مصلحة الإنسان بحفظ ماله وإلى آدمية بإنفاذ تصرفاته
من جهة أخرى، وقد اتبعنا في بحثنا هذا المنهج التحليلي المقارن، ومن النتائج التي توصل إليها
البحث: اتفق الفقهاء على أن الصغير الذي لم يبلغ رشيدا لا يسُلَّم له ماله، واختلفوا في الحَجرِ بسبب
السَّفَهِ وعدم الرشد في حالتين: الأولى: في الذي يبلغ سفيهاً لا يحسن التصرف في المال، فذهب
الجمهور ومعهم الصاحبان من الحنفية إلى الحجر عليه وهو ما ترجح لنا، بينما ذهب أبو حنيفة
انفكاك الحجر عنه ببلوغه، والثانية: في الذي يطرأ عليه السفه بعد بلوغه رشيدا مُحسناً التصرف في
ماله، وهنا أيضاً ذهب الجمهور والصاحبان إلى الحجر عليه وهو ما ترجح لنا، بينما ذهب أبو حنيفة
إلى الكبير البالغ لا يحجر عليه بسبب السفه.
Birincil Dil | Arapça |
---|---|
Konular | Din Araştırmaları |
Bölüm | Research Articles |
Yazarlar | |
Yayımlanma Tarihi | 14 Ekim 2021 |
Gönderilme Tarihi | 30 Haziran 2021 |
Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2021 Cilt: 1 Sayı: 2 |