Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/326)

His statement, “Whoever has the authority to dispose of something may appoint another as an agent regarding it or act as an agent regarding it”: the word “whoever” is a relative pronoun, not a conditional particle, because a conditional particle only precedes a verb. If we say that it is conditional, we would need to supply the verb of the conditional clause; but if we say that it is relative, no such ellipsis is needed. When the matter lies between assuming an ellipsis and not assuming one, the default is not to assume it. As for the fa’ in his statement, “may appoint,” it has been explained repeatedly that the predicate of a relative clause may be joined with fa’, because it resembles a conditional clause in its generality.

This is a principle: whoever has the authority to dispose of something may appoint an agent and may act as an agent concerning it. Whoever does not have the authority to dispose of it may neither appoint an agent nor act as an agent concerning it.

An example of this is a mature, sane, free, legally competent man appointing someone like himself as an agent to purchase a car, for instance. This is permissible, because whoever has the authority to dispose of something may appoint an agent and act as an agent concerning it.

Its implication is that whoever does not have the authority to dispose of something may not appoint an agent concerning it. Thus, if a boy who has not reached puberty says to someone, “I appoint you as my agent to sell my house,” this is not valid, because he himself is not entitled to dispose of it, and therefore cannot appoint an agent to do so.

Likewise, if the situation is reversed—if a mature, sane, free, legally competent man appoints a boy as his agent to sell his house—this too is not valid, because the agent is not entitled to undertake such a transaction. Allah, Most High, says:

“Do not give the weak-minded your property, which Allah has made a means of sustenance for you.” [al-Nisa’ 4:5]

Excluded from this is the appointment by a blind person of a sighted person as an agent in matters whose validity requires

قوله: «ومن له التصرف في شيء فله التوكيل، والتوكل فيه» «من» موصولة وليست شرطية؛ لأنها لا تدخل إلا على الفعل، فإذا قلنا: إنها شرطية، نحتاج إلى تقدير فعل الشرط، وإذا قلنا: موصولة، لا نحتاج إلى تقدير، وإذا دار الأمر بين التقدير وعدمه، فالأصل عدمه، وأما الفاء في قوله: «فله» فقد سبق مراراً أن الاسم الموصول يجوز أن يقترن خبره بالفاء؛ لأنه يشبه الشرط في العموم. هذه قاعدة: فكل من له التصرف في شيء فله أن يوكل وله أن يتوكل، ومن ليس له التصرف فيه فليس له أن يوكل، وليس له أن يتوكل. مثال ذلك: رجل بالغ عاقل حر رشيد، وكّل مثله في شراء سيارة ـ مثلاً ـ فهذا جائز؛ لأن من له التصرف في شيء فله التوكيل والتوكل فيه. ومفهومه أن من ليس له التصرف في شيء فليس له أن يوكل فيه، فلو أن صبيّاً لم يبلغ قال لشخص: وكلتك في بيع بيتي فلا يصح؛ لأنه هو نفسه لا يصح له التصرف فيه فلا يصح أن يوكل. ولو كان الأمر بالعكس، رجل بالغ عاقل حر رشيد وكل صبياً في بيع بيته فلا يصح أيضاً؛ لأن الوكيل لا يتصرف في مثل هذا التصرف، وقد قال الله تعالى: ﴿وَلَا تُؤْتُوا السُّفَهَاءَ أَمْوَالَكُمُ الَّتِي جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ قِيَامًا﴾ [النساء: ٥]. يستثنى من ذلك توكيل الأعمى بصيراً فيما يشترط لصحة