Mandating the boy according to the Malikis

Abstract

This research aims to clarify the disagreement regarding the issue of assigning a boy in terms of clarifying its concept, and is this disagreement real or verbal, and highlighting the subject of the dispute in assigning a boy, the reason for that disagreement, the most correct opinion regarding it, and the desired intention from it, leading to the highest purpose of this research, which is an attempt to answer some of the problems contained in the statements of the jurists, such as denying the assignment of a boy, proving that he was addressed and commanded, and what was stated in the statements of jurists. Those who say that certain duties are required of a boy by requiring him to reach puberty, and I have reached conclusions, the most important of which are; The difference in the concept of obligation is real, and that the boy is responsible for the recommended and disliked things only, and that the relationship between the obligation - meaning the obligation of what entails an obligation - and the discourse is general and specific, absolute. The obligation is specific to the obligatory and the forbidden, and the discourse includes them, the recommended and the objectionable, so there is no contradiction in what was reported by some jurists regarding Denying the assignment from him, and proving the matter and the letter to him; Because denial and proof did not occur in one place, and there is no contradiction - also - between the fact that the boy is obligated, and what occurred in the texts of jurists regarding the requirement of puberty for some duties; Because everyone who considers it obligatory for a boy, and stipulates that he has reached puberty in any matter, what he means are matters that entail an obligation or a prohibition.