‘Keep watch for dawn for us.’” “‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib instructed al-Miqdād ibn al-Aswad to ask the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) on his behalf what a man must do if he draws close to his wife and emits pre-ejaculatory fluid.” Reports concerning this and similar matters are too numerous to count.
Section
If a man appoints another as his agent without restriction, specifying no particular matter, the latter is his agent in all matters. If, however, he specifies selling, purchasing, litigation, or any other matter, the agent’s authority extends only to what he has specified. Whether or not he concludes by saying, “with full and unrestricted authority,” makes no difference, for this refers only to the matters specifically named. This is what they mean when they say of an agency: “The longer its wording, the narrower its scope; the shorter its wording, the broader its scope.”
Section
An agent’s authority does not pass to his heirs. Nor may he appoint someone else to undertake what has been entrusted to him, or designate someone to undertake it after his death—unlike an executor—unless the principal grants him that authority. If he does so and the property is lost, he is liable for it according to Ibn al-Qāsim’s position, even if it is known that he does not personally attend to such matters, provided that the original principal was unaware of this. This is the explicit wording of Yahyā’s transmission from Ibn al-Qāsim, though it is open to question. Ashhab said that if the substitute is equally competent, the agent bears no liability.
Section
An agent’s possession is equivalent to his principal’s possession in the matters entrusted to him. Thus, whoever swears not to perform an act and then appoints an agent to perform it has broken his oath, unless he intended only that he would not perform it personally. Likewise, whoever swears to perform an act and then appoints someone else to perform it has fulfilled his oath, unless he intended to perform it personally. An agent’s act is therefore equivalent to his principal’s act in its legal consequences. This is distinct from what we mean when we say that an agent’s possession is equivalent to his principal’s possession. On this matter, Ibn Sha‘bān employed defective, unsatisfactory wording and an invalid argument