Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/327)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

visual inspection for its sale to be valid. Thus, if a blind person purchases something whose purchase is valid only upon seeing it, his purchase is invalid, because it is unknown to him. Likewise, a man who cannot smell and wishes to buy perfume may appoint someone who can smell as his agent. This is an exception to the statement, “Whoever has the authority to dispose of something may appoint an agent regarding it.” Thus, matters that require visual inspection in order to be known are excepted: a blind person may appoint a sighted person to purchase them for him. Likewise, regarding that whose sale is valid only when its smell is known, one who cannot smell may appoint an agent concerning it. And whatever requires knowledge of it for its sale to be valid, when he has no knowledge of these matters but appoints someone as an agent concerning them, this is permissible.

If a person appoints someone to conclude a marriage contract on his behalf, saying, “I appoint you as my agent to accept marriage on my behalf from So-and-so,” and this agent is an adult, sane, free, and legally competent person, then this is valid, because agency in the marriage contract is permissible.

His statement, “and to act as an agent regarding it,” means that whoever has the authority to dispose of something may act as an agent concerning it. Whoever has no authority to dispose of something may not act as an agent concerning it. Yet certain matters are excepted from this. For example, if a poor person appoints a wealthy person as his agent to receive zakah on his behalf, this is permissible. Thus, he may act on another’s behalf as an agent, though he may not act on his own behalf.

Another example is a woman who is not entitled to divorce herself: if her husband appoints her as his agent to divorce herself, this is permissible, because it relates to a right belonging to the husband, and the husband has authorized it.

Human rights are therefore divided into three categories: those in which agency is valid without restriction, those in which it is never valid, and those in which it is valid when there is an excuse.

“Agency is valid in every human right involving contracts, dissolutions, manumission, divorce, and taking a wife back.”

His statement, “Agency is valid in every human right involving contracts”: this is the

بيعه الرؤية، فالأعمى إذا اشترى شيئاً لا يصح شراؤه إلا برؤية لا يصح منه؛ لأنه مجهول له، وكذلك رجل لا يشم يريد أن يشتري طيباً فيجوز أن يوكل شخصاً يشم، فهذا مستثنى من قوله: «ومن له التصرف في شيء فله التوكيل» فيستثنى من ذلك ما يشترط لعلمه الرؤية، فإن الأعمى يجوز أن يوكل فيه بصيراً ليشتري له، وما يشترط لصحة بيعه الشم فإن للذي لا يشم أن يوكل فيه، وما يشترط لصحة بيعه العلم به وهو لا يعلم بهذه الأشياء، لكن وكل شخصاً في ذلك فإنه جائز. وإذا وكل شخص شخصاً أن يعقد له النكاح، قال: وكلتك أن تقبل النكاح لي من فلان، وهذا الوكيل بالغ عاقل حر رشيد فيصح؛ لأن الوكالة في عقد النكاح جائزة. وقوله: «والتوكل فيه» أي: من له التصرف في شيء فله التوكل فيه، فمن ليس له أن يتصرف في شيء فليس له أن يتوكل فيه، ولكن يستثنى من هذا أشياء، فمثلاً: فقير وكَّل غنياً في قبض الزكاة له فإنه يجوز، فجاز أن يتصرف لغيره بالوكالة، ولا يجوز أن يتصرف لنفسه. مثال آخر: امرأة لا يجوز أن تطلِّق نفسها، فوكلها زوجها في طلاق نفسها يجوز؛ لأن هذا لمعنى يتعلق بالزوج، والزوج قد أذن فيه. فحقوق الآدميين تنقسم إلى ثلاثة أقسام: قسم يصح التوكيل فيه مطلقاً، وقسم لا يصح مطلقاً، وقسم يصح عند العذر. وَيَصِحُّ التَّوْكِيلُ فِي كُلِّ حقِّ آدَمِيٍّ مِنَ العُقُودِ والفُسُوخِ والعِتْقِ، والطَّلاقِ، والرَّجْعَةِ، قوله: «ويصح التوكيل في كل حق آدمي من العقود» هذا هو