If a minor destroys something belonging to someone due to the negligence of the guardian, does the guardian bear the liability for that destruction?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Regarding the guardian, whether of a boy or an orphan, if he does something wrong and it is due to the negligence of the guardian, naturally, is there a blood money or a guarantee for this destruction?
The Shaykh : Now you have attributed the error to the guardian, not to the boy.
The questioner : Naturally, by his action, meaning due to a lack of care.
The Shaykh : The action of whom?
The questioner : The action of the guardian.
The Shaykh : This is it; in any case, you have attributed the error to the guardian and not to the boy; is that so?
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : What is the difference between a guardian and a non-guardian? Why did you link the issue to the guardian of the boy?
The questioner : Because the child is the one who did it... that is the point.
The Shaykh : How did the boy do it? You are saying it was the guardian.
The questioner : The guardian was negligent in caring for the child or the orphan.
The Shaykh : So can you describe to me the picture you are forming in your mind?
The questioner : I mean, as an example?
The Shaykh : Ah, I will save you the trouble of an example. If the guardian is the clear and predominant cause, the boy bears nothing. Is that clear?
The questioner : It is not clear.
The Shaykh : I am answering you based on your perspective and my own; because you are the one who framed the question and did not provide an example, I therefore cannot give you an example now. But I will explain to you that the picture you have framed can be depicted in many ways. For example, the major responsibility may be borne by the guardian and the minor responsibility by the boy, or it could be exactly the reverse. This is my opinion, but the example is what clarifies the issue. So if we could recall an example, it would be possible to bring the matter closer.
The questioner : I am going to give an example. This is the recorder of my brother Abu Layla, and he takes itAbu Layla : and puts it on the ground. A boy running by, ten years old, trips over it and breaks it. Do we hold the boy liable orAbu Layla : or this one?
The Shaykh : I do not think I would agree with that.
The questioner : Do you agree with it?
Another questioner : There is another example...
The Shaykh : Enough, enough, give us the second example.
The questioner : Abu Layla : It is he who was negligent, placing the recorder in an unprotected and exposed place.
The questioner : If this were, for example, a weapon belonging to the father, and he was negligent in storing it, and the child took it and killed a man with it, does the father bear the blood money?
The Shaykh : Naturally.
The questioner : He bears it.
The Shaykh: It is known.
The questioner : Now, if there was no negligence, and he stored it in a place where it is not conceivable that he was negligent in its storage, does he bear liability in this case?
The questioner : The blood money for killing is on the 'aqilah, regardless of anything else.
Al-Halabi : This discussion is about the issue of bearing liability or not.
The Shaykh : The boy does not bear it, because if the boy is wealthy and an orphan, is the blood money from his wealth? This is the original subject.
The questioner : The blood money means it is on the 'aqilah. If one kills, I know by the text that the blood money is on his people, on the people of the killer, and they all share in it.
The Shaykh : The issue then falls outside the previous discussion, and the matter of the 'aqilah is not always realized.
The questioner : I mean, regarding the text.
The Shaykh : What you are saying is that the right to the blood money is on the 'aqilah, but if there is no 'aqilah, and a man kills another by mistake and he is able to pay the blood money.
The questioner : He pays it.
The Shaykh: Here, does the child pay it?
The questioner : Naturally, he has to pay it, if, as you prefer, the father stored it... in a place.
The Shaykh : No, no, he framed a picture. The first picture: it was neglected. In the first picture, who bears it?
The questioner : The one who neglected it.
The Shaykh : The one who neglected it is the father. In the second picture, it was not neglected.
The questioner : He does not bear it.
The Shaykh : The boy bears it? The question?
The questioner : Yes, he bears it.
The Shaykh : Here the subject returns to the first discussion which was...
Al-Halabi : How does the boy bear it?
The Shaykh : We are not saying why we assumed that the issue has consensus. The issue returned to the matter raised by our brother, and did you find something?
The Shaykh : Now you have attributed the error to the guardian, not to the boy.
The questioner : Naturally, by his action, meaning due to a lack of care.
The Shaykh : The action of whom?
The questioner : The action of the guardian.
The Shaykh : This is it; in any case, you have attributed the error to the guardian and not to the boy; is that so?
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : What is the difference between a guardian and a non-guardian? Why did you link the issue to the guardian of the boy?
The questioner : Because the child is the one who did it... that is the point.
The Shaykh : How did the boy do it? You are saying it was the guardian.
The questioner : The guardian was negligent in caring for the child or the orphan.
The Shaykh : So can you describe to me the picture you are forming in your mind?
The questioner : I mean, as an example?
The Shaykh : Ah, I will save you the trouble of an example. If the guardian is the clear and predominant cause, the boy bears nothing. Is that clear?
The questioner : It is not clear.
The Shaykh : I am answering you based on your perspective and my own; because you are the one who framed the question and did not provide an example, I therefore cannot give you an example now. But I will explain to you that the picture you have framed can be depicted in many ways. For example, the major responsibility may be borne by the guardian and the minor responsibility by the boy, or it could be exactly the reverse. This is my opinion, but the example is what clarifies the issue. So if we could recall an example, it would be possible to bring the matter closer.
The questioner : I am going to give an example. This is the recorder of my brother Abu Layla, and he takes itAbu Layla : and puts it on the ground. A boy running by, ten years old, trips over it and breaks it. Do we hold the boy liable orAbu Layla : or this one?
The Shaykh : I do not think I would agree with that.
The questioner : Do you agree with it?
Another questioner : There is another example...
The Shaykh : Enough, enough, give us the second example.
The questioner : Abu Layla : It is he who was negligent, placing the recorder in an unprotected and exposed place.
The questioner : If this were, for example, a weapon belonging to the father, and he was negligent in storing it, and the child took it and killed a man with it, does the father bear the blood money?
The Shaykh : Naturally.
The questioner : He bears it.
The Shaykh: It is known.
The questioner : Now, if there was no negligence, and he stored it in a place where it is not conceivable that he was negligent in its storage, does he bear liability in this case?
The questioner : The blood money for killing is on the 'aqilah, regardless of anything else.
Al-Halabi : This discussion is about the issue of bearing liability or not.
The Shaykh : The boy does not bear it, because if the boy is wealthy and an orphan, is the blood money from his wealth? This is the original subject.
The questioner : The blood money means it is on the 'aqilah. If one kills, I know by the text that the blood money is on his people, on the people of the killer, and they all share in it.
The Shaykh : The issue then falls outside the previous discussion, and the matter of the 'aqilah is not always realized.
The questioner : I mean, regarding the text.
The Shaykh : What you are saying is that the right to the blood money is on the 'aqilah, but if there is no 'aqilah, and a man kills another by mistake and he is able to pay the blood money.
The questioner : He pays it.
The Shaykh: Here, does the child pay it?
The questioner : Naturally, he has to pay it, if, as you prefer, the father stored it... in a place.
The Shaykh : No, no, he framed a picture. The first picture: it was neglected. In the first picture, who bears it?
The questioner : The one who neglected it.
The Shaykh : The one who neglected it is the father. In the second picture, it was not neglected.
The questioner : He does not bear it.
The Shaykh : The boy bears it? The question?
The questioner : Yes, he bears it.
The Shaykh : Here the subject returns to the first discussion which was...
Al-Halabi : How does the boy bear it?
The Shaykh : We are not saying why we assumed that the issue has consensus. The issue returned to the matter raised by our brother, and did you find something?
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.