in its place, so he is treated as a stranger. Furthermore, suspicion between a father and his child is nonexistent, as it is in his nature to be compassionate toward him, to incline toward him, and to leave his own share for his [the child's] share, and for this reason it is permissible. This differs from the grandfather, the executor of a will (wasi), the judge, and his trusted agent, as suspicion is not nonexistent in their case. As for handling both sides of the contract, it is permissible by the evidence of the principle we have mentioned. We do not concede what he mentioned regarding the case where he wishes to marry his cousin; rather, it is permissible by the evidence that 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf said to the daughter of Qariẓ: "Will you delegate your affair to me?" She said: "Yes." He said: "I have married you." [And if we concede, then it is because] suspicion is not nonexistent there.

846 - Issue; He said: (And whatever the agent does after the principal rescinds [the agency] or dies is void.)

In summary, the agency is a revocable contract from both sides. The principal has the right to dismiss his agent whenever he wishes, and the agent has the right to dismiss himself, for it is an authorization to act, and each of them may invalidate it, just as if one authorized another to eat his food. It is also invalidated by the death of either of them, whoever it may be, or by persistent insanity. There is no disagreement on all of this as far as we know. Whenever an agent acts after the principal's rescission or death, it is void if he knows of that. If the agent does not know of the dismissal or the death of the principal, there are two narrations from Ahmad regarding it, and there are two opinions for al-Shafi'i. The apparent meaning of al-Khiraqi's words here is that he is dismissed whether he knows or not. Whenever he acts, it becomes apparent that his action was after his dismissal or the death of his principal, so his action is void, because it is the dissolution of a contract that does not require the consent of its party, and thus does not require his knowledge, such as divorce or manumission. The second narration from Ahmad is that he is not dismissed before his knowledge of the death of the principal or his dismissal. He stated this in the narration of Ja'far ibn Muhammad, because if he were dismissed before his knowledge, there would be harm in it; for he might perform actions that would turn out to be void, and perhaps he might sell a slave girl and the purchaser would have intercourse with her, or food and he would eat it, or otherwise, and the purchaser would then dispose of it, and liability would become incumbent, and the purchaser and the agent would be harmed. And because he acts...