Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

This constitutes appointing an agent both to establish the prescribed punishment and to carry it out: to establish it in his saying, “if she confesses,” and to carry it out in his saying, “then stone her.” Accordingly, the ruler may appoint agents to establish prescribed punishments—that is, to ascertain the means by which they are established—and to implement them.

However, it is preferable that he undertake this himself, especially in our present age, lest an error occur in establishing the punishment or in carrying it out. The point, however, is that this is permissible, and the evidence is this account.

An agent may not appoint another agent in a matter for which he has been appointed, unless he has been granted that authority. Agency is a non-binding contract, and it is terminated by the revocation of either party, his death, the dismissal of the agent, or legal interdiction due to foolishness …

His statement, “An agent may not appoint another agent in a matter for which he has been appointed”: an agent acts by the authorization of the principal. Since he acts by the principal’s authorization, he must not exceed the scope of what he was appointed to do, whether with respect to the terms of the contract or the subject for which the contract was made. Thus, if he says, “I appoint you to sell this slave to so-and-so,” then both the item being sold and the purchaser have been specified. Does the agent have the right to sell another of the principal’s slaves?

The answer is: no, because he was restricted to a specified one. And does he have the right to sell the specified slave to someone other than Zayd?

The answer is: no, because he acts by authorization; therefore, his action must accord with what he has been authorized to do.

Thus, the rule is that an agent acts by authorization, so his action must conform to what he has been authorized to do and must not go beyond it, whether explicitly or by customary understanding.

May he appoint another agent?

The answer is: no, he may not appoint another agent. Thus, if I appoint so-and-so to sell this car, he may not appoint someone else, because I appointed him personally,

فهذا توكيل في إثبات الحد واستيفائه، في إثباته حين قال: «إن اعترفت»، وفي استيفائه حين قال: «فارجمها»، وعلى هذا فيجوز لولي الأمر أن يوكل في إثبات الحدود، أي فيما تثبت به وفي تنفيذها. ولكن الأفضل أن يباشر ذلك بنفسه ولا سيما في عصرنا الآن؛ لئلا يحصل خطأ في الإثبات أو خطأ في التنفيذ، لكن الكلام على أن هذا جائز، والدليل هذه القصة. وَليْسَ لِلْوَكِيلِ أنْ يُوكِّلَ فِيمَا وُكِّلَ فِيهِ إِلاَّ أَنْ يُجْعَلَ إِلَيْهِ والوَكَالَةُ عَقْدٌ جَائِزٌ وتَبْطُلُ بِفَسْخِ أَحَدِهِمَا وَمَوْتِهِ وَعزْلِ الوَكِيلِ وَبِحَجْرِ السَّفَهِ … قوله: «وليس للوكيل أن يُوكِّل فيما وُكِّل فيه» الوكيل يتصرف بالإذن من الموكل، وإذا كان يتصرف بالإذن من الموكل فإنه يجب ألا يتعدى ما وكل فيه لا بصفة العقد، ولا بالمعقود له، فإذا قال: وكلتك أن تبيع هذا العبد على فلان، فعندنا الآن تعيين في المبيع وتعيين في المشتري، فهل يملك الوكيل أن يبيع عبداً آخر من عبيد الموكل؟ الجواب: لا؛ لأنه خص بمعين، وهل يملك أن يبيع العبد المعين على شخص غير زيد؟ الجواب: لا؛ لأنه يتصرف بالإذن فوجب أن يكون تصرفه بحسب ما أذن له فيه. فالقاعدة أن الوكيل يتصرف بالإذن، فوجب أن يكون تصرفه بحسب ما أذن له فيه ولا يتعداه، إما لفظاً وإما عُرْفاً. وهل له أن يوكل؟ الجواب: لا، ليس له أن يوكل، فإذا وكلت فلاناً أن يبيع هذه السيارة فليس له أن يوكل غيره؛ لأنني وكلته هو بنفسه،

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies