Can a minor child inherit directly?

Maturity plus rushd — with the founder alone allowing an outside limit of twenty-five. Abu Hanifa and his two companions agree that property is not released on physical maturity alone: the young person is tested and sound judgement must be established. They part on what follows if it never is. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, who accept interdiction of a spendthrift adult, hold that his property is not handed over “even if he stayed like that a hundred years”. Abu Hanifa, who does not accept interdicting a free adult of sound mind, holds instead that the property is withheld until twenty-five and then handed over whether or not he has become prudent — twenty-five because it is the age of complete understanding, on a report from ‘Umar, and an age by which a man could already be a grandfather, so there is no more hope of correcting him. It is the two companions’ position, not the founder’s, that the school gives fatwa on. Rushd for this school is soundness with money, not with religion: a man who neglects prayer but keeps his money is given it, while one who gambles or whores his way through it is not.

Sources: al-Fiqh ‘ala al-Madhahib al-Arba‘a, vol. 2, p. 314 — the Hanafi rule: interdiction continues to maturity, “then his case is looked into… if his rushd is established after testing, his property is delivered to him, and if his rushd does not appear it is not delivered”; the two companions keep him interdicted for life, “but Abu Hanifa … says his property is not delivered to him either except after twenty-five years” (‘Abd al-Rahman al-Jaziri (d. 1360 AH)) · al-Fiqh ‘ala al-Madhahib al-Arba‘a, vol. 2, p. 315, Mabhath idha balagha’l-sabiyy ghayr rashid — “if the boy reaches maturity without rushd his property is not delivered to him”; the Hanafi footnote: “the Imam and his two companions agreed that his property is not delivered to him by maturity alone; rushd must be established after testing” (‘Abd al-Rahman al-Jaziri (d. 1360 AH)) · al-Fiqh ‘ala al-Madhahib al-Arba‘a, vol. 2, p. 316 — the two companions: “his property is not delivered to him even if he stayed like that a hundred years”; the Hanbali rule (the property is managed by his pre-maturity guardian, “father, wasi or the judge”, and the interdiction does not lift before maturity and rushd “even if they stayed that way until they grew old”); and the Shafi’i account of rushd and of testing (‘Abd al-Rahman al-Jaziri (d. 1360 AH)) · al-Mawsu‘a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, vol. 17, entry Hajr §8 (cont.) — “Abu Hanifa held that if the boy reaches maturity without rushd his property is not handed to him until he reaches twenty-five years… and it is handed to him when he reaches that term even if he is a squanderer”, with the report from ‘Umar that “a man’s understanding is complete at twenty-five” (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mawsu‘a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, vol. 17, entry Hajr §12 — “the majority of jurists, the Malikis, the Shafi’is and the Hanbalis, and Abu Yusuf and Muhammad — and it is the position given fatwa among the Hanafis —” hold that interdiction is restored to one who relapses into prodigality (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mawsu‘a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, vol. 17, entry Hajr §6(b) al-Rushd — “rushd in the view of the majority (of the Hanafis, the Malikis and the Hanbalis, and it is one view among the Shafi’is) is soundness in property alone… and the sounder view among the Shafi’is is that rushd is soundness in religion and property together” (footnoting al-Mughni 4/516–517 and al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya p. 211) (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mughni, Kitab al-Hajr, fasl 3470 (vol. 4, p. 344) — “his property is not delivered to him before both matters exist, maturity and rushd, even if he became an old man… and Malik, al-Shafi’i, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said so. And Abu Hanifa said: his property is not delivered to him before twenty-five years”, answered from Surah an-Nisa 4:6 — “He made the delivery depend on two conditions, and a ruling hung on two conditions is not established without them” (Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi (d. 620 AH)) · al-Mughni, Kitab al-Hajr, mas’ala 3476 (vol. 4, p. 350) — “and rushd is soundness in property: this is the view of most of the people of knowledge, among them Malik and Abu Hanifa. And al-Hasan, al-Shafi’i and Ibn al-Mundhir said: rushd is his soundness in his religion and his property” (Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi (d. 620 AH)) — the Hanafi internal split set out in al-Jaziri and in the Kuwaiti encyclopaedia; Abu Hanifa separately named by Ibn Qudama; the fatwa position separately attested at Hajr §12.

Maturity plus rushd, and who releases it depends on who was guarding — with a further condition for a daughter. A boy whose father is alive: at maturity, once he can look after money, the interdiction falls away by itself, even if the father never formally lifts it. A boy under a guardian the father appointed: it does not lift until that guardian declares him prudent before upright witnesses — “bear witness that I have lifted the interdiction from so-and-so and released him to deal, because his rushd and good management have been established with me” — and a guardian the father chose may do this without the judge, while one the judge appointed may not. A boy with neither father nor guardian is presumed prudent unless prodigality is shown. A daughter is treated differently again: with a father she stays in his charge past maturity until she marries, the marriage is consummated, and a further period has run — disputed, from one year to seven — with her competence with money attested by witnesses; under a guardian she needs all of that and his release as well. Rushd, for this school, is soundness with property.

Sources: al-Fiqh ‘ala al-Madhahib al-Arba‘a, vol. 2, p. 317 — the Maliki rule: the interdiction continues if he matures unfit to keep his property; if he is fit “his interdiction lifts by the mere fact of his maturity even if the father does not lift it”, but where the father appointed a guardian “the interdiction does not lift unless the wasi lifts it”; then the Hanafi order of guardians of a minor’s property (‘Abd al-Rahman al-Jaziri (d. 1360 AH)) · al-Mawsu‘a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, vol. 17, entry Hajr §8 (cont.) — the Shafi’i counter-view that lifting the interdiction “needs the judge, because rushd requires examination and judgement”, then the Maliki division of a boy’s case into three (father alive, under a wasi, and the muhmal who is presumed prudent) (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mawsu‘a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, vol. 17, entry Hajr §8 (cont.) — the Maliki rule for a girl: with a father she “stays in his interdiction until she marries and her husband consummates the marriage and a period passes after that”, the period disputed “from one year to seven”, with her competence with money attested by upright witnesses; under a wasi, all four conditions plus the wasi’s formal release (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mawsu‘a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, vol. 17, entry Hajr §6(b) al-Rushd — “rushd in the view of the majority (of the Hanafis, the Malikis and the Hanbalis, and it is one view among the Shafi’is) is soundness in property alone… and the sounder view among the Shafi’is is that rushd is soundness in religion and property together” (footnoting al-Mughni 4/516–517 and al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya p. 211) (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mughni, Kitab al-Hajr, fasl 3470 (vol. 4, p. 344) — “his property is not delivered to him before both matters exist, maturity and rushd, even if he became an old man… and Malik, al-Shafi’i, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said so. And Abu Hanifa said: his property is not delivered to him before twenty-five years”, answered from Surah an-Nisa 4:6 — “He made the delivery depend on two conditions, and a ruling hung on two conditions is not established without them” (Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi (d. 620 AH)) · al-Mughni, Kitab al-Hajr, mas’ala 3476 (vol. 4, p. 350) — “and rushd is soundness in property: this is the view of most of the people of knowledge, among them Malik and Abu Hanifa. And al-Hasan, al-Shafi’i and Ibn al-Mundhir said: rushd is his soundness in his religion and his property” (Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi (d. 620 AH)) — the Maliki position set out separately in al-Jaziri and in the Kuwaiti encyclopaedia (footnoting al-Dasuqi, al-Sharh al-Saghir and al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya), with Malik separately named by Ibn Qudama on both points.

Maturity plus rushd, and here rushd means religion as well as money. This is the point on which the school stands apart: on its sounder view rushd is soundness in his religion and in his property, so someone careful with money but openly sinful is not yet rashid — the reasoning being that ruining his religion destroys confidence in him, and that the word in the verse is indefinite and so covers both. The Kuwaiti encyclopaedia places the other three schools, and one Shafi’i view, on soundness with property alone. Testing is done before maturity, matched to the family’s occupation — a merchant’s son by buying and selling, a farmer’s by managing labourers, a daughter by running a household — and repeated twice or more until it is probable he has become prudent. Once maturity and rushd are both present the property is handed over; on the school’s own position no judge’s order is needed, because the interdiction never rested on one, though a recognised second view requires the judge “because rushd needs examination and judgement”.

Sources: al-Fiqh ‘ala al-Madhahib al-Arba‘a, vol. 2, p. 316 — the two companions: “his property is not delivered to him even if he stayed like that a hundred years”; the Hanbali rule (the property is managed by his pre-maturity guardian, “father, wasi or the judge”, and the interdiction does not lift before maturity and rushd “even if they stayed that way until they grew old”); and the Shafi’i account of rushd and of testing (‘Abd al-Rahman al-Jaziri (d. 1360 AH)) · al-Mawsu‘a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, vol. 17, entry Hajr §6(b) al-Rushd — “rushd in the view of the majority (of the Hanafis, the Malikis and the Hanbalis, and it is one view among the Shafi’is) is soundness in property alone… and the sounder view among the Shafi’is is that rushd is soundness in religion and property together” (footnoting al-Mughni 4/516–517 and al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya p. 211) (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mawsu‘a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, vol. 17, entry Hajr — the Shafi’i ground (the word rushdan is indefinite in a conditional, so it covers property and religion alike), and al-Qurtubi’s survey ending “most of the scholars hold that if he does not attain rushd after puberty, the interdiction does not leave him even if he grows old” (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mawsu‘a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, vol. 17, entry Hajr §8, Mata yudfa‘ al-mal ila’l-saghir — on maturity with rushd the property is delivered and the interdiction lifted, “and no judge’s ruling is needed for this… and this is what the majority of jurists said (the Hanafis, the Shafi’is — in the school — and the Hanbalis)” (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mawsu‘a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, vol. 17, entry Hajr §8 (cont.) — the Shafi’i counter-view that lifting the interdiction “needs the judge, because rushd requires examination and judgement”, then the Maliki division of a boy’s case into three (father alive, under a wasi, and the muhmal who is presumed prudent) (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mughni, Kitab al-Hajr, mas’ala 3476 (vol. 4, p. 350) — “and rushd is soundness in property: this is the view of most of the people of knowledge, among them Malik and Abu Hanifa. And al-Hasan, al-Shafi’i and Ibn al-Mundhir said: rushd is his soundness in his religion and his property” (Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi (d. 620 AH)) · al-Mughni, Kitab al-Hajr (vol. 4, p. 351) — Ibn Qudama’s own argument for the Hanbali definition: “as for our position… whoever manages his property well, rushd has been found in him… they say the sinner is not rashid; we say he is not rashid in his religion, but in his property and the keeping of it he is rashid”; and fasl 3477, testing “before maturity, in one of the two reports”, matched to the child’s station in life (Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi (d. 620 AH)) · al-Mughni, Kitab al-Hajr, fasl 3470 (vol. 4, p. 344) — “his property is not delivered to him before both matters exist, maturity and rushd, even if he became an old man… and Malik, al-Shafi’i, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said so. And Abu Hanifa said: his property is not delivered to him before twenty-five years”, answered from Surah an-Nisa 4:6 — “He made the delivery depend on two conditions, and a ruling hung on two conditions is not established without them” (Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi (d. 620 AH)) — the Shafi’i position set out separately in al-Jaziri and in the Kuwaiti encyclopaedia (footnoting Mughni al-Muhtaj), with al-Shafi’i separately named by Ibn Qudama on the definition of rushd.

Maturity plus rushd, and no outside age limit at all. Ibn Qudama states the rule and its ground together: the property is not delivered before both things are present, “even if he became an old man”, because Surah an-Nisa 4:6 “made the delivery depend on two conditions, and a ruling hung on two conditions is not established without them” — and he answers Abu Hanifa’s twenty-five-year cap directly. Until then the property stays with whoever had charge of it before maturity: the father, the guardian the father named, or the judge. If the young person reaches maturity already prudent, the interdiction falls away with no judge’s order and the money is handed over — though it is recommended that the handover be made with the judge’s leave and with witnesses to the rushd and to the payment. It does not fall away before both, “even if they stayed that way until they grew old”. On rushd our two sources for this school do not agree, and we are not going to smooth that over. The Hanbali text Ibn Qudama comments on says flatly “rushd is soundness in property”, and Ibn Qudama argues for it against the Shafi’i view in his own voice — “he is not rashid in his religion, but in his property and the keeping of it he is rashid” — which is why the Kuwaiti encyclopaedia lists the Hanbalis with the majority on this and footnotes al-Mughni for it. al-Jaziri, writing much later, reports the school the other way round: soundness in property and religion, “and it is said, in property alone”. The primary text is the one we read directly, so it governs here; a Hanbali reader for whom the point is live should put it to a scholar of the school.

Sources: al-Mughni, Kitab al-Hajr, fasl 3470 (vol. 4, p. 344) — “his property is not delivered to him before both matters exist, maturity and rushd, even if he became an old man… and Malik, al-Shafi’i, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said so. And Abu Hanifa said: his property is not delivered to him before twenty-five years”, answered from Surah an-Nisa 4:6 — “He made the delivery depend on two conditions, and a ruling hung on two conditions is not established without them” (Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi (d. 620 AH)) · al-Mughni, Kitab al-Hajr, mas’ala 3476 (vol. 4, p. 350) — “and rushd is soundness in property: this is the view of most of the people of knowledge, among them Malik and Abu Hanifa. And al-Hasan, al-Shafi’i and Ibn al-Mundhir said: rushd is his soundness in his religion and his property” (Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi (d. 620 AH)) · al-Mughni, Kitab al-Hajr (vol. 4, p. 351) — Ibn Qudama’s own argument for the Hanbali definition: “as for our position… whoever manages his property well, rushd has been found in him… they say the sinner is not rashid; we say he is not rashid in his religion, but in his property and the keeping of it he is rashid”; and fasl 3477, testing “before maturity, in one of the two reports”, matched to the child’s station in life (Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi (d. 620 AH)) · al-Fiqh ‘ala al-Madhahib al-Arba‘a, vol. 2, p. 316 — the two companions: “his property is not delivered to him even if he stayed like that a hundred years”; the Hanbali rule (the property is managed by his pre-maturity guardian, “father, wasi or the judge”, and the interdiction does not lift before maturity and rushd “even if they stayed that way until they grew old”); and the Shafi’i account of rushd and of testing (‘Abd al-Rahman al-Jaziri (d. 1360 AH)) · al-Mawsu‘a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, vol. 17, entry Hajr §8, Mata yudfa‘ al-mal ila’l-saghir — on maturity with rushd the property is delivered and the interdiction lifted, “and no judge’s ruling is needed for this… and this is what the majority of jurists said (the Hanafis, the Shafi’is — in the school — and the Hanbalis)” (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mawsu‘a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, vol. 17, entry Hajr §6(b) al-Rushd — “rushd in the view of the majority (of the Hanafis, the Malikis and the Hanbalis, and it is one view among the Shafi’is) is soundness in property alone… and the sounder view among the Shafi’is is that rushd is soundness in religion and property together” (footnoting al-Mughni 4/516–517 and al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya p. 211) (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mawsu‘a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, vol. 17, entry Hajr §6 — “the jurists are agreed that a child who has not reached puberty is under interdiction by the ruling of the law until he matures, and the interdiction then continues until he attains rushd”, on Surah an-Nisa 4:6; “his property is not delivered to him before both matters exist, maturity and sound judgement, even if he became an old man, in the view of the majority, contrary to Abu Hanifa” (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) — the Hanbali position read directly in al-Mughni and set out again in al-Jaziri and in the Kuwaiti encyclopaedia (footnoting al-Mughni 4/516–517 and 4/521).