on his collarbone." It was also narrated from him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) that he appointed 'Amr ibn Umayyah al-Damri to accept the marriage contract of Umm Habibah, and Abu Rafi' to accept the marriage contract of Maymunah (7). The community reached a consensus on the permissibility of agency in general. This is also because there is a pressing need for it; for it is not possible for everyone to do everything they need to do, so the necessity for it arose.

Section: Everyone whose own disposal of affairs is valid in a matter, and it is a matter that allows for representation (niyabah), it is valid for them to appoint an agent for it, whether they are a man or a woman, a free person or a slave, a Muslim or a disbeliever. As for those who act by permission, such as a slave who has been given permission, an agent, or a Mudarib (capital investor), they are not included (9) in this. However, it is valid for a slave to appoint an agent in matters he owns independently of his master, such as divorce (talaq) and khul' (divorce initiated by the wife).

[Likewise is the ruling regarding one who is interdicted due to incompetence (safah); they may not appoint an agent except in matters they are permitted to perform themselves, such as divorce and khul'] (10), demanding retaliation (qisas), and the like. Everything that is valid (11) for one to perform themselves, and which allows for representation, is valid for one to be an agent for another in it, except for a dissolute person (fasiq), for it is valid for him to accept a marriage contract for himself. The Qadi mentioned that it is not valid for him to accept it for another. Abu al-Khattab's speech implies the permissibility of that. This is the analogy (qiyas). The companions of al-Shafi'i have two views on this, similar to these two. As for appointing him to make the offer (ijab), it is not permissible except according to the narration that establishes guardianship for him. The companions of al-Shafi'i mentioned two views on this; one of them is: his appointment is permissible because he is not a guardian. The reasoning for the other view is that he is the one initiating the marriage offer, so he is like a guardian. And because it is not permissible for him to handle that himself, it is not permissible for him to be an agent in it, like a woman. It is valid to appoint a woman as an agent to divorce herself or to divorce another. It is valid to appoint a slave as an agent to accept a marriage contract; because he is among those who are allowed to accept it for themselves; and this is only contingent upon the permission of his master, so that he may be satisfied with the attachment of rights to it. Whoever does not possess the right to dispose of a matter for himself cannot be validly appointed as an agent for it, such as a woman in the contract of marriage and its acceptance, a disbeliever in the marriage of a Muslim woman, and a child or insane person in all rights.