Those with the Right of Disposal | Islamic Laws by The Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei
Those with the Right of Disposal
Q1474. A father bought some property for his minor children. Having satisfied the legal requirements for the sale, can the sale be deemed concluded by the fathers taking possession of the property, as the guardian of the children?
A: After legally concluding the deal by the father on behalf of his minor children, taking possession of the property by the father, as the childrens guardian, is sufficient for achieving the sale's consequences thereupon.
Q1475. While I was a child, my legal guardian sold a piece of land which belonged to me and received a down payment. Im not quite sure if the final sale was concluded. However, the land is at the disposal of the so-called buyer. Is this sale binding on me, or am I justified in claiming the land back?
A: If it is proved that your legal guardian sold your land at that time on the basis of his guardianship over you, the sale is valid. You have no right to the land unless the revocation of the sale is proved.
Q1476. The legal guardian of orphaned minors withheld the cash amount remaining from the estate of their deceased parent. He did not invest it with the banks, or in any other avenue, whereby he could have got a handsome return on the money. Should he indemnify the children? And what is the view if the guardian invested the money in some sort of business and made some unspecified amount of profit?
A: The guardian is not responsible for indemnifying hypothetical profits of the minor orphans money. However, if he had invested the money in business, all the profits made thereof belong to the children. The guardian, though, can receive only the standard wages for his work and that is if he was legally authorized to trade in the money of the children.
Q1477. Is it permissible for children, or sons-in-laws, of a person who is not a ward to sell his property while they have neither power of attorney nor his permission?
A: Selling the property of other people without their permission is fuduli and requires the owners permission. Even if the person who concluded this sale is the son-in-law of the owner, or one of his offspring, the sale is unsound without the permission of the owner.
Q1478. A person is incapacitated with mental disability after suffering a stroke. How should his children behave vis-à-vis his property? And what is the ruling in the matter of one of the children making use of his fathers property without the permission of the authorized religious authority, nor that of the rest of the children?
A: Should the incapacity, in the eyes of the common people, be regarded as insanity, the guardianship over his property belongs to the authorized religious authority. No one is authorized to make use of his property without the permission of the authorized religious authority. However, if this has happened, i.e. without such permission, it will amount to usurpation which would eventually entail compensation. Furthermore, the transactions are fuduli and should be contingent upon obtaining such permission.
Q1479. A person married a martyrs widow. By virtue of this marriage, the husband took overall charge of the affairs of the family. Is it permissible for the husband, his wife, and her children to make use of the pension provided by the Foundation of Martyrs to the children? How could the pension or the in kind monetary aid, this foundation gives them, be spent? Should such income be spent on the needs of the children only?
A: The income of the martyrs minor children should be handled, be it spending it on their provisions or using it for other purposes, with the permission of their shari guardian.
Q1480. How should the presents given to the family of a martyr by his friends be treated? In other words, should they be regarded as part of his childrens property?
A: Once the shari guardian of the children has accepted the presents given to them, they become part of their property. Handling such property by others is dependent on the permission of the guardian.
Q1481. After the death of my father, my uncles began to run his shop, opting to pay us a monthly rent. After a while, my mother, who was then our legal guardian, borrowed an amount of money from one of my uncles. My uncles withheld the payment of rent to recover the amount of the debt. Later on, they bought the shop from my mother contrary to the provisions of the law that had been designed to preserve the rights of minors in their property until they attain ritual maturity. The transaction was concluded at the time of the previous regime with the mediation of one of the regimes men. What is our duty now? Can the previous actions and transactions be regarded as valid? Are we justified in revoking the transaction? And should the right of the children be overlooked because of time lag?
A: Renting the shop and deducting money from the rent in settlement of the debt are both valid, so is the eventual sale of the shop. That is unless it is legally and Islamically proved that the sale transaction was not in the best interests of the children, or the legal guardian of the children was not authorized to conclude the sale and the children did not sanction the deal after they attained ritual maturity. Assuming that the transaction was proved void, the time lag factor is of no consequence on overlooking the childrens rights.
Q1482. My husband was killed in a traffic accident. The driver of the car involved in the accident was my husbands friend. As a result, I have become the shari guardian of my children:
1) Should I demand blood money from the driver of the car, or ask him to follow the claim up with the insurance company?
2) Is it permissible for me to have a free hand in the property of the children for holding a memorial service for their dead father?
3) Have I the right to forgo the childrens right to the blood money?
4) Suppose I have forgone their right, yet they do not agree with the decision once they become ritually mature, could I be obliged to compensate them with the blood money?
1) Should the driver be liable in shar to pay the blood money, it is incumbent on you, as the guardian of your children, to preserve their shari rights by demanding it from those who should pay such money. The same goes for their right insofar as the insurance claim is concerned if the children are entitled to compensation.
2) It is not permissible to spend the money bequeathed to the children by their father on holding a memorial service.
3) You have no right to forgo the childrens right to the blood money which is against their interest.
4) After they have become ritually mature, they have every right to claim the blood money.
Q1483. My husband died, leaving me with minor children. According to the courts injunction the paternal grandfather became their legal guardian. Should one of the children grow up to the age of ritual maturity, can he become the shari guardian of his minor brothers and sisters? If he cannot, can I be the guardian over the children? Also, in accordance with the courts injunction, their grandfather would take a share of one sixth in the estate. What is your opinion?
A: The guardianship of, and the supervision over, the orphaned children are the right of the paternal grandfather until such a time comes when they reach ritual maturity. This, however, does not require an injunction from the court. That said, the best interests of the children should govern his right of disposal over their property. Should he behave against that, they have the right of recourse to the court. Any child attaining ritual maturity comes out from the remit of guardianship of his grandfather to manage his own affairs.
However, neither the child who has reached ritual maturity nor his mother has the right of guardianship over the other minor children. Since the grandfather has the right to acquire one sixth of the deceaseds estate, there is no objection that he got his share.
Q1484. A woman was killed. She left her father, mother, husband, and three minor children behind. Her brother-in-law was convicted of her murder and ordered to pay blood money to the womans inheritors. However, the killed womans husband, who is the shari guardian of the children, is convinced that his brother is not the killer. Thus, he refused to receive the blood money:
1) Is he justified in so doing?
2) With the existence of the father and the paternal grandfather of the children, has anyone else the right to intervene and insist on having blood money for the children from their convicted uncle?
1) If the childrens father was absolutely certain that his brother was not the killer of his wife, it is not permissible for him to demand, and receive, the blood money in the name of restoring the rights of his minor children.
2) Since the father and the paternal grandfather, who have the right of guardianship over the children, are alive, no one else has the right to meddle in their affairs.
Q1485. A person was killed. He left behind only a number of minor children. Someone was appointed to be their guardian who is not among the inheritors. Is the guardian allowed to pardon the killer or change the penalty of retaliatory punishment for blood money?
A: If the authorities of the shari guardian are transferred to the appointed one, he can pardon the killer through changing the retaliatory punishment for blood money provided that childrens interest and welfare are taken into consideration.
Q1486. A minor child has some money in the bank. Can his guardian withdraw some of that money with a view to investing it in business and making some profit for the benefit of the child and covering childs expenses?
A: The minor childs guardian has the right to invest the childs money for the child himself in silent partnership or giving it to somebody to make business with it provided that the middleman is trustworthy. Otherwise, any loss should be indemnified by the guardian.
Q1487. The heirs of a killed person or some of them are minor children and the guardianship over them in claiming their rights is with the authorized religious authority. Then, if it is proved for the authorized religious authority that the perpetrator is insolvent, has he the right to change the retaliatory punishment for blood money?
A: Should the authorized religious authority see that childrens interest and welfare is in changing, he is allowed to do so.
Q1488. Can the authorized religious authority withhold the right of guardianship over a minor child from his natural guardian after concluding that he is doing harm to the property of the child?
A: Should the authorized religious authority be satisfied by way of evidence that the continuance of the guardian having the right of disposal over the childs property would be detrimental to the childs welfare, he is obliged to dismiss him.
Q1489. Someone presents or gives a minor child by way of ṣulH for free which is in consistence with the childs interest, but the guardian refuses to accept it. Does it amount to harming the minor or neglecting its interest?
A: The mere refusal by the guardian of the grant or ṣulH for free given to the minor child does not amount to damaging or neglecting the childs interest. Accordingly, there is no objection to it in itself, in that it is not incumbent on the guardian to get the money for the child. Rather, non-compliance, in some cases may be considered in the best interest of the child in the sight of the guardian.
Q1490. The state granted the orphans of a martyr a plot of land or some property and sanctioned it to be registered in their names. The legal guardian of the minor children refused to sign the official documents. Can the authorized religious authority do so in his capacity as guardian?
A: Should the obtaining of funds for the children be dependent on the signature of the guardian, it is not obligatory on him to comply. In the presence of their legal guardian, the authorized religious authority has no authority to act as the childrens guardian. However, if the preservation of a minors property is dependent on the signature of the guardian, he has no right to withhold it. If this happens, the authorized religious authority has the right to force him to sign the documentation or to do it himself as the childrens guardian.