Issue 7, The Meaning of “Imprudent” (Safīh)
Session Thirty-Three
Issue 7 – The Meaning of “Imprudent” (Safīh) – The Preferred View – Supporting Evidence
December 13, 2025
Summary of the Previous Session
The seventh issue concerns the imprudent person (safīh), and comprises two secondary cases (furūʿ): one, whether the marriage of the imprudent person is valid without the permission of the father or paternal grandfather or not; the other, what the ruling is if he marries without permission. However, before addressing these two secondary cases, we stated that it is necessary to undertake a brief examination of the meaning of “imprudent.” As was indicated, “imprudent,” in its linguistic meaning, is not confined to financial matters; rather, anyone who, according to some, suffers from a lightness of intellect (khiffat al-ʿaql) — and is therefore distinct from the insane (majnūn) — whether in financial or non-financial matters, is counted as imprudent. However, the well-known position among the jurists is that “imprudent” refers to one who cannot discern what is beneficial and harmful for himself in financial matters — that is, they have confined this lightness of intellect and inability to discern benefit and harm to financial matters.
The Preferred View Regarding the Meaning of “Imprudent”
Now we wish to determine whether such a confinement, with respect to “imprudent,” is correct or not. The statements of the jurists generally pertain to this very meaning that we have stated.
1. ʿAllāmah [al-Ḥillī], in al-Qawāʿid, when he wishes to define competence (rushd) — since competence stands in contrast to imprudence (safah) — states: “It is a psychological quality that prevents [a person] from ruining his property and spending it in ways unbefitting the conduct of rational agents.” Competence, in fact, is a psychological quality and state that prevents a person from ruining his own property and spending it in ways and manners in which rational agents (ʿuqalāʾ) do not spend their property. Therefore, competence, in reality, is a preventive against such conduct — a preventive against ruining property and corruption in property.
2. Shahīd al-Thānī, commenting on the statement of Muḥaqqiq [al-Ḥillī], who says, “that he be one who improves his property,” states: “Mere improvement does not necessitate competence; rather, the truth is that competence is a psychological disposition (malakah nafsāniyyah) that requires the improvement of property and prevents its ruination and its expenditure in ways unbefitting the conduct of rational agents.” He states roughly the same content that the late ʿAllāmah presented in al-Qawāʿid, saying that the correct view is that competence is a psychological disposition that necessitates the improvement of property and prevents the ruination of property and its expenditure in ways other than those that are rationally sound.
Question:
Professor’s response: We have not yet entered into the matter of marriage; we are presently defining “imprudent.” That is an argument that some have mentioned here for the invalidity of the marriage, which, of course, has objections that we shall present. Thus, these scholars, by defining the opposite of imprudence — namely, competence — have, in fact, stated the principal elements of imprudence: that imprudence is a psychological state that results in the ruination of property and the expenditure of property in ways other than those that are rationally sound. The eminent jurists have defined “imprudent” in this manner.
3. Shaykh al-Ṭūsī, too, in his explanation of competence, states, “that he be one who improves his property”; he also adds a further qualifier, which we shall explain later; he continues, stating: “just in his religion (ʿadlan fī dīnih).” He has also added the qualifier of justice (ʿadālah), which we shall explain later, because the matter of justice has not been regarded, in the books of jurisprudence and among the jurists, as a constitutive qualifier and element of competence; only the matter of the improvement of property has been raised; in contrast, “imprudent” means someone who ruins and destroys his property. Now we must determine whether this is truly correct — that is, whether imprudence pertains, in an unqualified manner, to the discernment of benefit and harm, or whether it is specific to financial matters. We have previously, on a related occasion, in the discussion of marriage, explained the meaning of competence; if you recall, we stated there that the matter of competence is broader than financial matters — that is, it pertains to the unqualified capacity to discern corruption and benefit; the ability to discern good and bad in life and to comprehend it. Therefore, “imprudent” likewise refers to someone who lacks such an understanding. Now, why has this become so prevalent among the jurists? I emphasize once again that, contrary to what is well known among the jurists, “imprudent” means someone who lacks competence, who has a lightness of intellect, and who lacks the capacity to discern what is beneficial and harmful for himself. Yes, this manifests itself in each domain with a particular instance and form, and has degrees; let me first state my claim here, and then present my argument for this claim — even though it is contrary to the well-known view of the jurists. The claim is that imprudence and competence are general concepts that are not confined to financial matters; yes, it is possible that, in a given instance, they become confined [to financial matters], but this depends on indicators — that is, sometimes it may pertain to financial matters, and at other times it may pertain to marriage; sometimes it may pertain to family matters. This incapacity to discern benefit and harm can be unqualified, or it can be confined to a specific domain. Moreover, it has degrees as well; sometimes imprudence is severe, and sometimes weaker. In any case, since this has, in certain instances, become the subject matter of an argument, and certain rulings revolve around competence, it is necessary to state a clear meaning and criterion for competence; we cannot leave it vague and ambiguous and pass over it. Let us first establish this basic scope, and then address certain other details.
Supporting Evidence
- The matter of imprudence and competence is not a religious technical term (ḥaqīqah sharʿiyyah). We must first determine where, and by what authority, the meaning of imprudence and competence is to be established for us; if it is a religious technical term, we must, of course, turn to the religious evidences; but if it is not a religious technical term, we must turn to its linguistic meaning, and then determine its meaning in common usage (ʿurf), and whether there is a difference between the linguistic and the customary meaning or not. In any case, this concept, like many concepts, has been referred to common usage; we have no evidence whatsoever establishing that this is a religious technical term, or a technical term of the [early] religious community (mutasharriʿah). After all, the status of being a religious technical term is contingent upon a religious statement [establishing it as such]. Therefore, even those who hold the matter of competence to be confined to financial matters do not hold the belief that this is a religious technical term; rather, certain considerations have led them to construe it as pertaining specifically to financial matters. Since it is not a religious technical term, we must turn to language and common usage; as you have observed, a meaning has been given, in the language, for imprudence and competence, in which there is likewise no evidence, indicator, or supporting evidence for confinement to financial matters. Among common usage as well, the very meaning stated for this term in the language is current. Therefore, the criterion becomes common usage; we must determine how common usage defines imprudence. In many instances, when a designation becomes the subject matter of an argument, we must refer to common usage. Common usage, too, following the language — and given that we know there is no difference between the customary meaning and the linguistic meaning — carries this very meaning: a lightness of intellect, which is also distinct from insanity. This is a matter to which the author of Jawāhir has also explicitly stated, namely that competence is not a religious technical term, but rather a customary concept. Now the question is: if it is not a religious technical term, and is a customary matter, and has a single meaning in language and in common usage, why have the jurists construed this as pertaining to financial matters? This is mainly because of verse 6 of Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, which states: “But if you perceive in them competence, then deliver to them their property”; as well as two traditions transmitted in connection with it. The verse states: when orphans reach maturity, and their competence becomes perceptible to you, deliver to them their property; prior to this, it has prohibited any dealing in and interference with their property, and has made every action contingent upon the observance of advantage and benefit in the property of orphans. But then it states: when their competence becomes familiar and perceptible to you, deliver to them their property. In connection with this verse, a tradition has been transmitted from Imam al-Bāqir (peace be upon him), who has stated: “It is reason (ʿaql) and the improvement of property (iṣlāḥ al-māl)” — competence consists of reason and the improvement of property. A similar tradition has been transmitted from Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), stating that “It is the preservation of property” — competence consists of the preservation of property. On the authority of these two traditions, which have been taken to define competence in an unqualified manner, it has been said that competence is a psychological state that prevents the ruination of property. But can we truly construe these two traditions, which have been transmitted in connection with this verse, as being in the position of stating the meaning of competence in an unqualified manner? This is improbable — that is, in this particular verse, the matter concerns precisely this; the Imam (peace be upon him), too, defines competence in connection with this verse; the Imam (peace be upon him) was asked what is meant by the fact that the giving of orphans’ property is made contingent upon competence. The Imam (peace be upon him) said: the improvement of property. It is evident that this pertains to the competence that bears upon the necessity of delivering the property of orphans; the Imam (peace be upon him) is not in the position of stating the meaning of competence in an unqualified manner. Competence has been raised as a question in this evidence because it has become a qualifying condition, or a condition of the subject matter; what is meant by this competence, which the verse states comes after maturity? The Imam (peace be upon him) states… this much suffices in this respect. Because the focus here is the delivery of property; there is no discussion at all here of marriage or other matters. The instance of competence in this case is the capacity to discern benefit and harm with respect to property. The fact that we have stated that this is not a religious technical term, and that language and common usage have stated this very same meaning, itself corroborates the point we have made. We stated that competence is not a religious technical term; then the question was raised: why has it been defined in this manner here? Our response was that it has been the subject of this question for this very reason, and the Imam (peace be upon him) has likewise provided an explanation pertaining to this particular case. How can it be said that it is not a religious technical term, nor a linguistic technical term, and that there is no metaphorical usage involved either — that the Sacred Law and common usage have employed it in this very linguistic meaning — and yet, when we wish to state competence somewhere as a qualifying condition of the subject matter or as a condition, we say that what is meant is financial matters? This cannot be so. Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī states: imprudence (safah) means a lightness of weight in the body (qillat al-wazn fī al-badan) — a reduction of weight in the body, such that a person, while walking, cannot maintain his balance. By “lightness” is meant a state of insubstantiality — like infants who have just begun to walk and cannot maintain their balance, or those who have become weakened after a period of illness and lack the capacity to move and cannot maintain their balance while walking; the designation “imprudence” is applied to them. Common usage has employed this term wherever the intellect becomes afflicted with insubstantiality and lightness, and in this respect there is no difference whatsoever between financial and non-financial matters; the meaning is the same both in material and in spiritual matters. Therefore, there is no basis whatsoever for construing “imprudent” as referring specifically to one who cannot discern what is beneficial and harmful for himself in financial matters. This would have to be either a religious technical term, which it is not, or be defined in this manner in the language, which is not the case either, or, for example, common usage might have made some alteration to the linguistic meaning, which is likewise not the case; we have no verse and no tradition that confines this to financial matters. How, then, can we say that competence means the capacity to discern benefit and harm in financial matters?
- The late Sayyid, in the seventh issue of al-ʿUrwah, states that if the imprudent person marries without permission, his marriage is not valid. He also states, in the eighth issue: “If a person is mature and competent (rashīd) in financial matters, but has no competence with respect to the matter of marriage and its particulars” — the subject matter of the eighth issue is someone who is competent in financial matters, but lacks competence with respect to the matter of marriage. It thus becomes clear that competence, in and of itself and in its essence, is not confined to financial matters. Competence, at times, manifests itself in financial matters, and at other times in matters other than financial ones; and, correspondingly, imprudence is likewise so — at times the imprudent person is one who has imprudence in financial matters, and at other times one who has imprudence in other matters, or in the matter of marriage. He then states what it means for someone to lack competence in the matter of marriage: “such as the determination of the spouse and the manner of setting the dower (imhār) and the like — the apparent view is that he is like the imprudent person in financial matters.” The very fact that, alongside “imprudent,” he adds the qualifier “in financial matters” and the like, itself corroborates the meaning we have stated — namely, that “imprudent” and “competent” carry a general and unqualified meaning, and there is no basis whatsoever for us to define “imprudent” and “competent” in such a way as to confine them to financial matters.
Question:
Professor: The contextual indication of the discourse (qarīnat al-siyāq) shows that the matter at hand here is financial; it states, do not give your property to the imprudent. “Imprudent” means someone who lacks the capacity to improve property. … “And do not give the imprudent your property which God has made a means of sustenance (qiyāman) for you, and provide for them and clothe them from it, and speak to them in a fitting manner; and test the orphans until, when they reach [the age of] marriage, if you perceive in them competence, then deliver to them their property” — it states that you should test the orphans and assess them. The Imam (peace be upon him) has also been asked what competence is. … This has no relation to the technical terminology of the [early] religious community; this is the terminology of the jurists. … Our entire objection is precisely this: why have you altered something that is not a religious technical term, and confined it to financial matters? … You might say that if someone lacks competence in financial matters, all the more so he lacks it in other matters as well; however, in the eighth issue, it states: “If a person is mature and competent in financial matters, but has no competence with respect to the matter of marriage” — therefore, it is possible that someone has competence in financial matters, but lacks competence in the matter of marriage. Therefore, “imprudent” means someone who lacks the capacity to discern what is beneficial and harmful. It is possible that, in financial matters, there is a specific ruling, and in non-financial matters… that is a separate discussion; we are not, for the present, concerned with the ruling; we are speaking of the term itself.