Is the money that a father takes from his son, by court order, permissible or forbidden, knowing that the father initially forbade that money, and that he does not spend it on his family, and is able to work? And must the son who does not live at home spend on his younger siblings? And what should the son do about his father who has burdened him with debts? And is the son compelled to give his father a monthly sum if this sum affects his ability to support his own family?

The jurists have agreed upon the obligation of financially supporting poor parents—even if they are disbelievers—by their children (male and female), while they differed on the obligation of a brother supporting his brother. A condition for the obligation of financial support in both cases is that those being supported are poor and unable to earn a living. If the father and brothers are in need of financial support, then it is obligatory upon the questioner and his working brother equally, whether they live with them or separately. This financial support is conditional upon there being leftover money after spending on oneself, one's wife, and children; otherwise, it is not obligatory.