Responsibility of those under interdiction in the jurisprudence of the two schools of thought - an applied study

Abstract

The one who is prohibited by Sharia law is the one who has been prevented from disposing of his money. The reasons that justify the civil liability of the interdicted person in jurisprudence and Islamic law and emphasize the necessity of compensation for them are often expressed in the form of jurisprudential rules, including: “the rule of guarantee, the rule of pride, the rule of loss and cause, and the rule of non-harm.” But before that, the scope of interdiction must be determined. And its reasons. The causes of interdiction, according to the words of the Imami jurists, are: childhood, foolishness, insanity, illness, death, bankruptcy, and so on. They differ slightly from the jurisprudence of the four schools of thought, as Abu Hanifa does not consider foolishness a reason for interdiction, and the Hanbalis, in addition to the previous reasons, consider the wife to be completely interdicted for possessing more than One third. In order to remove the stone, the Imami jurists considered the two conditions of maturity and growth necessary. The Imami jurists and Sunni jurists agreed on this issue, but Al-Shafi’i considered growth to be a reform of property and religion. This research aims to conduct a comparative study of the opinions of Sunni and Shiite scholars regarding the responsibility of those detained. Information was collected and analyzed in a descriptive and analytical manner. The results concluded that there is a common theory regarding the responsibility of those in interdiction among the five schools of thought (Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanbali, and Jaafari Shiites) in general, and there is only disagreement in the details and in some cases, which led to disagreement in religious rulings.