to receive payment, unless he forbids him and says, “You are my agent for litigation, but do not receive anything.” In that case, he is not to receive payment under any circumstances.

Thus, we say that according to the preponderant view, there are three possible cases:

The first is that he says, “You are my agent for litigation and for receiving payment.” In this case, he has authority both to litigate and to receive payment.

The second is that he says, “You are my agent for litigation, not for receiving payment.” He is then an agent for litigation, but may not receive payment.

The third is that he says nothing. The author holds that the agent may not receive payment.

The preponderant view is that this should be determined by the indications of the circumstances. If the circumstances indicate that he has authority to receive payment, then he may receive it; otherwise, he may not. If we adopt this view and he fails to receive it, he will have been negligent and will therefore be liable.

His statement, “And the reverse is likewise”: an agent appointed to receive payment has the right to litigate. That is, if you say, “So-and-so, you are my agent; collect my due from Zayd,” and when he demands the due from Zayd, Zayd says, “I owe him nothing,” thereby denying it, then litigation is needed. Does the agent appointed to receive payment have the right to litigate?

Yes, because receiving payment may not be possible except through litigation. At times, litigation is the means by which he is able to receive payment. Therefore, when he appoints him to receive payment, he also has the right to litigate. This is what the author, may Allah have mercy on him, stated without qualification. However, this unrestricted statement requires further consideration, for I may trust him to receive payment but not rely on him in litigation, because he is a weak man who is unable