the woman, unless the heirs confirm him or it is proven by evidence. If the principal admits the appointment to marriage but denies that the agent married on his behalf, then there is a disagreement regarding the action of the agent, and the word is that of the agent, so the marriage is established here. Al-Qadi said: "It is not established." This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa, because it is not impossible to produce evidence against him, since it [the marriage] does not contract except through it. He mentioned that Ahmad explicitly stated this. He pointed to his statement in the case where the principal denies the agency from its origin. To us, they have disagreed on whether the agent did what he was ordered to do, so his word is accepted, just as if he had appointed him to sell a garment and he claimed he sold it, or to buy a slave for a thousand and he claimed he bought it for that price. What the Qadi mentioned from Ahmad’s statement regarding when the principal denies the agency is not a definitive statement here, because the rulings of the two scenarios differ and are distinct, so a statement regarding one is not a statement regarding the other. And what he mentioned regarding the meaning has no basis, so it cannot be relied upon. If a man is absent, and another man comes to his wife and mentions that her husband has divorced her and irrevocably separated from her, and has appointed him to renew her marriage for a thousand, and she permits him to marry her, and he concludes the contract upon her and the agent guarantees the thousand, then her husband comes and denies all of this, his word is accepted and the first marriage remains as it is. According to the analogy of what we have mentioned, if the woman confirms the agent, the thousand becomes binding upon him, unless her husband divorces her before he consummates the marriage with her. This was narrated from Malik and Zufar. It was narrated from Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i that nothing is binding upon the guarantor, because it is a secondary obligation stemming from the person for whom the guarantee was made, and since nothing is binding upon the person for whom the guarantee was made, its derivative is likewise. To us, the agent is acknowledging that the right is in the liability of the person for whom the guarantee was made and that he is a guarantor for him, so he is bound by what he acknowledged, just as if he claimed against a man that he guaranteed a thousand for him against a third party, and the guarantor acknowledged the guarantee, its validity, and the establishment of the right in the liability of the person for whom the guarantee was made, [and the person for whom it was made denied it]. And just as