assets. This is the opinion of al-Hasan and Ishaq. According to this, the one whose wealth perished does not have the right to claim against the one whose wealth did not perish, provided each of them absolves his companion. This applies when the debts are in liabilities. As for when it is in a single liability, partition is not possible; for the meaning of partition is the segregation of a right, and that is not conceivable in a single liability.

Sections Concerning the Slave Authorized to Trade: It is permissible for a master to authorize his slave to trade, without any disagreement that we know of, because the interdiction (hajr) placed upon him was only for the right of his master, so it is permissible for him to dispose of affairs with his permission. The interdiction is lifted from him to the extent of what he was authorized to do, because his disposal is only permissible by his master's permission; thus, the interdiction ceases to the extent of what was authorized, similar to deputization (32). If he gives him wealth to trade with (33), he may sell, buy, and trade with it. If he authorizes him to buy on his own liability, it is permissible. If he specifies for him a type of asset to trade in, it is permissible, and he is not permitted to trade in anything else. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: It is permissible for him to trade in other than it, and the interdiction is lifted (34) from him absolutely; because the authorization is an unleashing from the interdiction and a release of it, and an unleashing does not admit of partiality, like the maturity (bulugh) of a child. Our argument is that he is one who disposes of affairs by permission from a human agent, so it must be restricted to what he was authorized to do, like an agent (wakil) or a mudarib. What he (Abu Hanifa) said is invalidated (35) by the case where he authorizes him to buy a garment to wear, or food to eat. It differs from maturity (bulugh), for with maturity, the meaning that necessitates interdiction ceases, as maturity is a sign of complete intellect, by which one is capable of disposing of affairs in a manner that achieves benefit. Here, bondage is the cause of the interdiction, and it is still present. The counterpart to maturity in the case of a child is the manumission of the slave. The slave only disposes of affairs by permission; do you not see that a child benefits from maturity the capacity for marriage, unlike the slave!

Section: If he authorizes him to trade, it is not permissible for him to hire himself out, nor to act as an agent for any person. This is