Must the questioner return what she spent from her mother's money, and what must be returned? Is she obliged to share in the household expenses? Is her brother entitled to demand money from the mother's and daughter's salaries? Is she sinful for giving her mother's money to her brother, being ignorant of the ruling? Is Zakat al-Fitr obligatory for the sick mother?

Retirement pensions involve details regarding whether they are for heirs or for whomever the granting authority designates. The majority opinion affirms the permissibility of placing an interdiction on an elderly person whose mental faculties have declined. Their wealth must be preserved until a judge rules, and at that point, their money may only be disposed of in ways that are most beneficial to them. It is not permissible to take from the wealth of an interdicted mother unless the expenditure is obligatory, or it is for a poor person who is attending to her affairs appropriately. Any expenditure exceeding what is necessary, such as for a personal phone or an individual animal for sacrifice (udhiyah), must be returned. There is a difference of opinion regarding performing the udhiyah on behalf of an interdicted mother. The expected retirement pension is considered absent wealth, and whatever has been spent from it is considered a debt that must be repaid upon receipt of the pension. Zakat al-Fitr is obligatory on the wealth of a mentally incapacitated person. An expiation for an oath (kaffarat al-yameen) is not obligatory on someone whose mind is overcome, and whatever was given to the brother as an expiation for the mother’s oath must be guaranteed because it was spent inappropriately. Ignorance of the ruling removes sin but does not remove liability. The restriction on disposing of the wealth of interdicted individuals is due to the attachment of their rights and the rights of their heirs to that wealth.