recommended, depending on the circumstances. But if you act as counsel merely in order to obtain money, whether your client is in the right or in the wrong, then this is not permissible; and if you know that he is in the wrong, it is even more strictly prohibited.

Let us now return to the question: Is it permissible for someone to appoint an agent to litigate on his behalf?

The answer is: Yes, it is permissible.

If it is asked, “What is the evidence?” we say: There is no need to demand evidence, for the basic rule regarding transactions is permissibility. So, if anyone demands that you produce evidence for any transaction, say: “The proof is upon you. Bring evidence that it is prohibited, and I will abide by it.”

When someone appoints an agent to litigate, the author says that the agent has no authority to receive payment. Thus, if Zayd appoints Amr to litigate against his opponent on his behalf, and he does so, and the judge rules in favour of the principal, may the agent receive that which was the subject of the litigation?

The author says: No, because the wording does not include authority to receive payment. Moreover, a person may be willing to appoint someone to litigate on his behalf whom he would not accept as an agent to receive payment. A man may be strong in litigation but untrustworthy; if he receives the money, he may take it and squander it, claim that it was destroyed, or cause the owner of the money difficulty in recovering it from him. Thus, one may appoint for litigation someone whom one would not approve of for receiving payment.

Some scholars said that the circumstances should be considered. If the litigation agent is in a town other than that of the principal, then the indication in this case is that he has authority to receive payment, because the principal is not present such that it may be said that the principal himself should receive it. It is customary in such cases for the agent