One of them is that the commission includes permission to appoint a deputy. He may then appoint one, and the person he appoints becomes his deputy, to be removed when he himself is removed—even if that deputy was not named in the authorization. But if the authorization names the person whom he is to appoint, is that person likewise removed when he is removed? There are two views: it has been said that he is removed, and it has been said that he is not.
The second situation is that the commission includes a prohibition against appointing a deputy. He may not appoint one and must personally oversee the office if he is capable of doing so. If he is unable to do so, the commission is invalid. If he nevertheless exercises oversight despite the invalidity of the commission, his actions are valid in matters specifically covered by the authorization, whether commands or prohibitions; but his actions are invalid in matters belonging exclusively to the authority of the office, such as concluding and dissolving contracts.
The third situation is that the commission is unrestricted, containing neither permission nor prohibition. In that case, the nature of the work must be considered. If he is capable of overseeing it, he may not appoint a deputy over it. If he is unable to oversee it independently, he may appoint a deputy for whatever he is unable to handle, but he may not appoint one for matters he is capable of handling.
The fourth category concerns what pertains specifically to the public treasury, both its revenues and its expenditures. It consists of every form of wealth to which the Muslims are entitled but whose individual owner among them has not been identified. Such wealth belongs to the rights of the public treasury. Once it is received, that receipt makes it part of the public treasury’s assets, whether or not it is placed in its secure repository, because the public treasury denotes an institutional destination, not a physical location.
Every right that must be spent for the interests of the Muslims is an obligation upon the public treasury. Once it is spent for a designated purpose, it is counted as an expenditure from the public treasury, whether or not it has been removed from its secure repository. This is because whatever reaches the officials of the Muslims or leaves their hands is subject to the rules of the public treasury, both as it enters and as it leaves.
Since this is the case with the wealth to which the Muslims are entitled, it is divided into three categories: fayʾ, spoils, and alms. As for fayʾ, it belongs among the rights of the public treasury, because its disbursement is determined by the Imam’s judgment. As for spoils, they are not among the rights of the public treasury, because they belong to the combatants, whose entitlement is established by their presence at the battle. Their distribution does not depend on the Imam’s judgment or independent legal reasoning concerning whether to withhold them from the combatants. Thus, they do not become part of the rights of the public treasury—except in the case of land. We have related two opinions concerning it. According to the first, the Imam has no discretion regarding it, just as with other forms of wealth. According to the second, he has discretion regarding whether to retain it as an endowment or to distribute it as fayʾ.
As for the fifth share of fayʾ and spoils, it is divided into three portions. One of these belongs among the rights of the public treasury: the share of the Messenger, which is spent on general public interests and whose disbursement is determined by the Imam’s judgment and independent legal reasoning.