The two sections: which is what he is capable of performing himself and does not consider himself above, so is it permissible for him to appoint an agent for it? There are two narrations: one of them is that it is not permissible. This was reported by Ibn Mansur, and it is the school of Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf, and al-Shafi'i; because he did not grant him permission to appoint an agent, nor did his permission encompass it, so it is not permissible, just as if he had forbidden him. Furthermore, it is an act of entrustment regarding that which he is capable of undertaking, so he does not have the right to assign it to one he does not trust with it, similar to a deposit. The other is that it is permissible, which was reported by Hanbal, and Ibn Abi Layla also held this view if he becomes ill or is absent, because the agent has the right to act himself, so he possesses the power to deputize, like the owner. The first view is more appropriate, as the agent is not like the owner; for the owner acts on his own behalf regarding his property however he wishes, unlike the agent.

Section: Every agent who is permitted to appoint an agent does not have the right to appoint anyone except a trustworthy person; because there is no benefit for the principal in appointing someone who is not trustworthy, so the permissibility of appointing an agent is restricted to that which contains advantage and consideration, just as permission for sale is restricted to sale at the market price, unless the principal specifies for him whom he should appoint, in which case it is permissible to appoint him even if he is not trustworthy, because he has waived his right to consideration by specifying him. If he appoints a trustworthy person, and he becomes treacherous, he must dismiss him; because leaving him to act despite his treachery is a loss and negligence, and agency requires the entrustment of a trustworthy person, and this one is not trustworthy, so it is necessary to dismiss him.

Section: The ruling regarding an executor (wasi) who appoints an agent for what he was entrusted with, and a judge (hakim) who is appointed to oversee a region and deputizes someone else, is the same as the ruling of the agent in the details we have mentioned, except that the text narrated from Ahmad, in the report of Muhanna, is the permissibility of this. This is also the view of al-Shafi'i regarding the executor; because the executor acts by virtue of authority (wilaya), as evidenced by the fact that he acts regarding matters for which he was not specifically commanded, whereas the agent does not act except in what he was specifically commanded. However, reconciling between them is better; because he is one who acts upon the property of another by permission, so he resembles the agent, and he only acts within the scope required by the will, just as the agent only acts within the scope required by the agency.