either of the 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 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.

Section: He does not have the right to travel with the capital, according to one of the two perspectives, which is the school of al-Shafi'i; because there is risk and danger to the capital in traveling. For this reason, it is narrated: "The traveler and his wealth are in a state of peril, except for what Allah the Almighty protects." That is, destruction. It is not permissible for him to put the wealth at risk without the permission of its owner. The second perspective is that he is permitted to travel with it if it is not dangerous. Al-Qadi said: The analogy of the school is that it is permissible, based on traveling with a deposit. This is the opinion of Malik. It is also reported from Abu Hanifa; because the absolute permission is interpreted according to what is customary, and the custom is to trade while traveling and residing. Moreover, mudaraba is derived from...