mention of the evidence for the permissibility of appointment without the word of appointment, which is what the group reported.

847 - Issue: He said: (And if he appoints him to divorce his wife, it remains in his hand until he annuls it or has intercourse with her.)

The sum of this is that if the agency is absolute, without a time limit, he possesses the right of disposal forever, as long as the agency is not annulled. The annulment of the agency is for him to say: "I have annulled the agency," or "I have voided it," or "I have revoked it," or "I have removed you," or "I have dismissed you from it," or "I have relieved you of it." Or, he forbids him from doing what he commanded him to do or appointed him for, and what is similar to this from the expressions requiring his removal or leading to that meaning. Or the agent removes himself, or there is found that which requires its annulment by rule, as we have mentioned, or his ownership of that which he appointed him to dispose of ceases, or there is found that which indicates a withdrawal from the agency. So if he appoints him to divorce his wife, then he has intercourse with her, the agency is annulled; because that indicates his desire for her and his choice to keep her. Likewise, if he has intercourse with her after divorcing her with a revocable divorce, it is considered taking her back; so if it necessitates her return after divorcing her, then it is more appropriate that it should necessitate her retention in his marriage and the prevention of her divorce. But if he engages in intimacy with her short of sexual intercourse, or kisses her, or does with her what is forbidden for other than the husband, does the agency for divorce become annulled? This bears two possibilities, based on the disagreement regarding whether the return (raj'ah) is achieved by it. And if he appoints him to sell a slave, then he emancipates him, or sells him in a valid sale, or enters into a mukatabah contract with him, or grants him tadbir, the agency is annulled; because by the cessation of his ownership, there remains no authorization for him to dispose of that which he does not own. As for the mukatabah and the tadbir, according to one of the two transmissions, there remains no basis for the sale, and according to the other transmission, his disposal