in reality, it is merely utilizing him by right of ownership, so it is voided by the cessation of ownership. If he sells him, he has passed him into the ownership of one who did not grant permission for his appointment as an agent, and the establishment of another person's ownership over him prevents the inception of his agency without his permission, thus cutting off its continuity. The same two opinions apply if he appoints the slave of another and then sells him. The correct view is that the agency is not voided, because the master of the slave granted him permission to sell his property, and manumission does not void that permission. The same applies if he sells him, except that if the buyer is satisfied with him remaining in the agency, he remains, but if he is not satisfied with that, the agency is voided. If he appoints the slave of another and then manumits him, the agency is not voided, according to a single opinion, because this is an agency in reality, and manumission does not contradict it. If the principal purchases him from him, the agency is not voided, because his ownership of him does not contradict his permission for him to sell and purchase.

Section: If a Muslim appoints a disbeliever as an agent in a matter where his acting is valid, his appointment is valid, regardless of whether he is a dhimmi (protected subject), a musta'min (granted safe conduct), a harbi (enemy combatant), or an apostate, because probity (adala) is not a condition for him, nor is religious adherence, just like in a sale. If he appoints a Muslim and he then apostatizes, his agency is not voided, whether he flees to the Abode of War or remains. Abu Hanifa said: If he flees to the Abode of War, his agency is voided, because he has become one of them. Our argument is that his acting on his own behalf is valid, so his agency is not voided, just as if he had not fled to the Abode of War, and because apostasy does not prevent the inception of his agency, it does not prevent its continuity, like all other forms of disbelief. If the principal apostatizes, the agency is not voided in matters where he [the agent] has the authority to act. As for the agent regarding his wealth, it depends on the validity of the principal's own actions: if we say his actions are valid, his appointment is not voided; if we say it is suspended, then his agency is suspended; and if we say his actions are void, his appointment is voided. If he appoints [someone] during the state of his apostasy, the three opinions also apply.