Explanation of the author's statement: "And the general authority of judgment entails adjudicating between litigants, taking the right of some from others, and overseeing the wealth of those who are not of sound judgment, and imposing restrictions"

The Shaykh : Then the author moved on to explaining what the authority of judgment entails. He said "The general authority of judgment entails", and he specified "general" to distinguish it from the specific, for the specific is limited to what it is particularized for, but the general entails, first, adjudicating between litigants. "Litigants" is the plural of "litigant," and it refers to the two parties in dispute, whether there are two or more. Adjudicating between them means distinguishing between them by determining that the right belongs to so-and-so against so-and-so. This is adjudication, which is distinct from taking and compelling. Therefore, he said "and taking the right of some from others". The one who carries out the execution is the judge, who compels the one against whom the judgment was rendered to execute the ruling. This was among the responsibilities of the judge in the era of the author (may Allah have mercy on him) and those before him. But in our current era, execution has become the responsibility of the ruler. The judge adjudicates and clarifies, while the one who executes is the ruler. And I think it has now been transferred to the police. Second, we say that it entails oversight. This is the third point: "and overseeing the wealth of those who are not of sound judgment". Overseeing the wealth of those who are not of sound judgment is the third point. Those who are not of sound judgment are so either due to their youth, insanity, or foolishness, because sound judgment includes three things: reaching maturity, having intellect, and good management. Therefore, one who is not of sound judgment is either a minor, an insane person, or a fool who does not manage his wealth well. The one who oversees his wealth is the judge. The fourth point, he said "and imposing restrictions on those who warrant it due to foolishness or insolvency". Imposing restrictions on those who warrant it due to foolishness or insolvency. Restriction is preventing a person from disposing of his wealth. The author indicated by his statement "foolishness or insolvency" that there are two types of restriction: restriction due to foolishness and restriction due to insolvency. As for foolishness, it is the lack of sound judgment. As for insolvency, it is when a person's debts are greater than his wealth. If a person is in debt and his debts are more than his wealth, he is restricted. Why? For foolishness or for insolvency? For insolvency. Now, the difference between them: in restriction due to foolishness, the restricted person cannot dispose of his wealth or his personal liability. In restriction due to insolvency, he can dispose of his personal liability but not his wealth. Is that clear? So, whoever is not of sound judgment is a fool, and his dispositions are not valid, neither in his wealth nor in his personal liability. That means it is not valid for him to sell anything from his wealth, for example, or to buy anything on his personal liability. Do you understand? Wealth is like this bag; he sells it. Personal liability is borrowing money from a person or buying a commodity from him and saying the price is on his personal liability. This is a person restricted in his personal liability and his wealth. For foolishness, he is restricted in his wealth, not his personal liability. So, it is not valid for him to dispose of the actual items of his wealth. As for his personal liability, if he buys something on a deferred price that becomes due after the restriction is lifted, then this is permissible and there is no harm in it. So, restriction is preventing the restricted person from disposing of his wealth, or from disposing of his wealth and his personal liability.