and establishing the proof of each of them. The colleagues of al-Shafi'i have two views regarding the two issues.

Section: If the agent is permitted to purchase from himself, it is permissible for him. The colleagues of al-Shafi'i stated, in one of the two views: It is not permissible, because two purposes converge for him in the contract: obtaining a low price for himself, and pursuing the best price for the principal; these are contradictory, so they negate one another. Our view is that he was appointed to act on his own behalf, so it is permitted, just as if he appointed a woman to divorce herself. Furthermore, the reason for the prohibition of purchasing for himself in a given instance is the consensus on suspicion, as it serves as evidence of the principal's lack of consent to this action, effectively excluding this transaction from the generality of his wording and permission. Yet, here, he has explicitly stated permission for it, so the implication of the circumstance no longer remains when his explicit wording contradicts it. As for their argument that his intent in buying and selling conflicts, we respond: If the principal specified the price for him, and he purchased at that price, the purpose of seeking the best price has been satisfied, for nothing is desired beyond what has already been achieved. If the principal did not specify the price for him, the sale is restricted to the market price (thaman al-mithl), just as if he had sold it to a stranger. Our colleagues have mentioned a view regarding when a slave is appointed to purchase himself from his master, stating it is not permissible; thus, the same [ruling] is derived here. The correct view is what we have stated, if Allah the Almighty wills.

Section: If he appoints a slave to purchase himself from his master, or to purchase another slave from him, and he does so, it is valid. Abu Hanifa and some of the Shafi'is also held this view. Others among them said: It is not permissible, because the slave's hand is like the hand of his master, so it resembles the case where he appoints him to purchase from himself; this is why judgment is passed in favor of a person based on what is in his slave's possession. Our colleagues mentioned a view to the same effect. Our view is that it is permissible to purchase a slave from someone other than his master, so it is permissible for him to