Furthermore, it is possible for him to isolate half the capital and profit from it, but not from the other half, unlike the case of half the profit, for that does not lead to him exclusively obtaining the profit of any part of the capital.

832 - Issue: He said: "If the mudarib (agent) sells on credit without permission, he guarantees [the capital], according to one of two narrations, and according to the other, he does not guarantee it."

The gist of this is that the mudarib and other partners, if specified to act in a certain way—such as him saying, "[Sell for] cash or credit," or "[Sell for] the currency of the land," or he mentions a different currency—it is permissible, and it is not permissible for him to violate the terms, because he is an agent acting by permission, so he may not act in a way other than that for which he was given permission, just like a wakeel (deputy). Furthermore, this does not prevent the purpose of the mudaraba, though the benefit [of such a restriction] is customarily negated. If he makes it absolute, there is no disagreement on the permissibility of selling for cash, but regarding selling on credit, there are two narrations: One is that he does not have the right to do so. This is the opinion of Malik, Ibn Abi Layla, and al-Shafi'i, because he is a deputy in the sale, so he is not permitted to sell on credit without express permission, just like a wakeel. This is because a deputy is not permitted to act except in a manner that is advantageous and cautious, and selling on credit involves risking the capital; the context of the situation restricts the absolute nature of the statement, becoming as if he said, "Sell it for cash." The second [narration] is that he is permitted to sell on credit. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and the choice of Ibn Aqil, because the permission given to him regarding trade and mudaraba is interpreted according to customary trade practices, and this is the habit of merchants. Also, he intends to make a profit thereby, and profit in credit sales is greater. It differs from an absolute agency (wakala), for it is not specifically intended for profit; rather, its intent is merely to secure the price. If it is possible to secure it without risk, it is better. Also, absolute agency in selling indicates that the principal's need for the price is immediate, so it is not permissible to delay it, unlike mudaraba. If he says to him: "Act according to your opinion," then he has the right to sell on credit. The same applies if he says to him: "Act however you wish." Al-Shafi'i said: He does not have the right to sell on credit in either of those two cases, because it involves risk, so it is not permitted, just as if he had not said that to him. Our argument is that it is included in the generality of his expression, and the context of his situation indicates his satisfaction with the agent's opinion regarding the terms of the sale and the types of trade, and this is one of them. If we say: he has the right to sell on credit, then the sale is valid, and whatever of the price is lost, he is not obligated to guarantee, unless he is negligent by selling to someone who is not trusted or whom he does not know; in that case, he is obligated to guarantee the price that was lost on the buyer. If we say: he does not have the right to sell on credit, the sale is void, because he did what he was not given permission to do, so it is like a sale by a stranger, except for the narration which says: the sale of a stranger is suspended pending [the principal's] authorization. Here, it is the same. It is possible that al-Khiraqi’s statement implies the validity of the sale, as he only mentioned the guarantee and did not mention the invalidity of the sale. In any case, the agent is obligated to guarantee because the loss of the price occurred due to his negligence. If we say the sale is void, he must guarantee the sold item at its value when it is impossible for him to retrieve it, either due to the item being destroyed or the buyer refusing to return it to him. If we say it is valid, it is possible that he also guarantees it at its value, because no more than that was lost by the sale, and it would not be protected by leaving it otherwise, and the increase in price occurred due to his negligence, so he does not guarantee it. It is also possible that he guarantees the price, because it became due through the sale and was lost due to the seller’s negligence. If it is less than the value, the obligation has shifted to it, evidenced by the fact that if the price were obtained, he would not guarantee anything.