the Mudaraba. The agent is liable for his guarantee according to the apparent meaning of Ahmad's words, whether he knew or was ignorant of it, because the Mudaraba capital was destroyed as a result of his action, and there is no difference in the destruction requiring a guarantee between knowledge and ignorance. Regarding what he guarantees, there are two opinions: first, its value, because ownership was established in it and then it was destroyed, so it resembles what he destroys through his own action. Second, the price for which he purchased it, because the negligence on his part occurred through the purchase and the expenditure of the price in something that is destroyed by the purchase, so he is responsible for what he was negligent in. Whenever a profit appears in the capital, the agent has his share of it. Abu Bakr said: If the agent was not aware that he would be emancipated upon the owner of the capital, he is not liable, because the destruction occurred due to an attribute in the sold item that the buyer did not know of, so he is not liable, just as if he purchased a defective item not knowing of its defect, and it was destroyed by it. He said: It is also plausible that he is not liable, even if he knew.

Section: If he purchases the wife of the owner of the capital, the purchase is valid, and the marriage is annulled. If this is before the consummation, is the husband entitled to half the dowry? There are two opinions on this, which we have mentioned elsewhere. If we say he is entitled to it, he may seek it from the agent, because the agent is the cause of it being established against him, so he seeks it from him, just as if a woman corrupted her marriage through nursing. If he purchases the husband of the female owner of the capital, the purchase is valid, and the marriage is annulled because she has taken ownership of her husband. Abu Hanifa said this as well. Al-Shafi'i said: The purchase is not valid if it is without her permission, because permission only extends to purchasing property in which she has a benefit, and purchasing her husband harms her because it annuls her marriage, harms her, and causes her to lose her right to maintenance and clothing, so it is not valid, just like purchasing her son. Our evidence is that he purchased what it is possible to seek profit in, so it is permissible, just as if he purchased a stranger. There is no liability on the agent for what is lost of the dowry or what is dropped of the maintenance, because that does not return to the Mudaraba; rather, it is due to another cause. There is no difference between purchasing on credit or with the specific capital.

Section: If an authorized person purchases someone who would be emancipated upon the owner of the capital with his permission, it is valid and he is emancipated. If there is