His father is stingy with his maintenance, so he takes from his father's money without his knowledge. What is the extent of what is permissible for him to take?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Question:
May Allah reward you with good and do you well. After this, a message reached the program from Taiz, Yemen, sent by one of our brothers from there, Abu Hanifah al-Salafi al-Yamani. His message is long, a full page of large format. The summary of this message is that one of his students asked him, saying, "My father is stingy with my maintenance, and I take from his money without his knowledge." At that time, I issued a ruling permitting it, citing the incident involving the wife of Abu Sufyan and the ruling the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) gave her. However, I have continued to think about this ruling: am I correct, or do you advise me of something else? Knowing that I read Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyyah, and I read the six major hadith collections, am I correct, or do you direct me to something else regarding the ruling? May Allah reward you with good.
Answer:
Yes, the maintenance of the child is obligatory upon his father until the child becomes self-sufficient through earnings, until the child becomes self-sufficient through earnings. As long as he is young or has no earnings and his father is wealthy, it is obligatory for him to provide sufficient maintenance for him, and that is according to what is known, that is according to what is known. If the father falls short in providing maintenance for his son, and the son needs it and finds his father's money, there is no harm in his taking from it the amount of his right, the amount that completes his necessary maintenance. This is if the father does not complete his maintenance and the son suffers harm from his father's shortcoming. Also, it must be noted that his taking from his father's money does not result in a greater harm, such as his father taking revenge or becoming extremely angry. If that results in harm, then warding off harms takes precedence over seeking benefits. The outcome is that it is permissible for him to take under two conditions. The first condition is that he takes only the amount that completes his necessary maintenance, and he does not exceed that, and he does not go beyond that. The second is that his taking does not result in a greater harm, such as his father becoming angry, cutting off ties with him, expelling him, or something similar. If this harm results, then warding off harms takes precedence over seeking benefits. Okay.
The presenter:
So this brother of ours issued a correct ruling, Shaykh Salih. In general, it is correct, in general, but issuing the ruling in such a general way contains an error. May Allah reward you with good and do you well.
May Allah reward you with good and do you well. After this, a message reached the program from Taiz, Yemen, sent by one of our brothers from there, Abu Hanifah al-Salafi al-Yamani. His message is long, a full page of large format. The summary of this message is that one of his students asked him, saying, "My father is stingy with my maintenance, and I take from his money without his knowledge." At that time, I issued a ruling permitting it, citing the incident involving the wife of Abu Sufyan and the ruling the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) gave her. However, I have continued to think about this ruling: am I correct, or do you advise me of something else? Knowing that I read Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyyah, and I read the six major hadith collections, am I correct, or do you direct me to something else regarding the ruling? May Allah reward you with good.
Answer:
Yes, the maintenance of the child is obligatory upon his father until the child becomes self-sufficient through earnings, until the child becomes self-sufficient through earnings. As long as he is young or has no earnings and his father is wealthy, it is obligatory for him to provide sufficient maintenance for him, and that is according to what is known, that is according to what is known. If the father falls short in providing maintenance for his son, and the son needs it and finds his father's money, there is no harm in his taking from it the amount of his right, the amount that completes his necessary maintenance. This is if the father does not complete his maintenance and the son suffers harm from his father's shortcoming. Also, it must be noted that his taking from his father's money does not result in a greater harm, such as his father taking revenge or becoming extremely angry. If that results in harm, then warding off harms takes precedence over seeking benefits. The outcome is that it is permissible for him to take under two conditions. The first condition is that he takes only the amount that completes his necessary maintenance, and he does not exceed that, and he does not go beyond that. The second is that his taking does not result in a greater harm, such as his father becoming angry, cutting off ties with him, expelling him, or something similar. If this harm results, then warding off harms takes precedence over seeking benefits. Okay.
The presenter:
So this brother of ours issued a correct ruling, Shaykh Salih. In general, it is correct, in general, but issuing the ruling in such a general way contains an error. May Allah reward you with good and do you well.
Source
قناة «العلامة الدكتور صالح الفوزان»، 4877- والده يقتر عليه في النفقة فيأخذ من ماله بغير علمه ومقدار ما يجوز له من ذلك؟ - صالح الفوزان — youtube.com
The Arabic text is a machine transcription of the audio recording.