If he needs to personally manage it and does not have anyone to suffice him, that is permissible and not considered disliked (makruh); for Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, sought to head to the market to trade until they allocated for him what was sufficient. Furthermore, providing for his family is an individual obligation (fard 'ayn), so he should not abandon it for the fear of a speculative harm. However, if he is independent of managing it himself and finds someone to suffice him in that, it is disliked for him to do so for the two reasons we mentioned. It is appropriate that he appoints someone for that who is not known to be his agent so that he is not favored; this is the school of al-Shafi'i. It is narrated from Abu Hanifa that he said: It is not disliked for him to buy and sell, nor to appoint someone who is known, due to what we mentioned regarding the case of Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him. Our evidence is what we have stated. It is narrated from Shurayh that he said: Umar stipulated to me when he appointed me as judge that I should not sell, nor buy, nor accept bribes, nor judge while I am angry (20). The case of Abu Bakr is an argument for us; for the Companions disapproved of his doing so, and he apologized by explaining his need to protect his family from being lost. When they made him independent of buying and selling by what they allocated for him (21), he accepted their statement and abandoned trade, so there was a consensus among them to abandon it when it was not needed.

Section: It is permissible for the judge to attend banquets, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) used to attend them and order their attendance, and he said: "Whoever does not answer [the invitation] has disobeyed Allah and His Messenger" (22). If they become numerous and crowded, he should abandon them all and not answer anyone, because that distracts him from the judgment that has become incumbent upon him. However, he should apologize to them and ask them to absolve him, and he should not answer some to the exclusion of others, because that breaks the heart of the one he did not answer, unless some of them have a specific excuse that prevents him from attending, such as there being something forbidden in one of them, or it being in a far place, or him being occupied with it for a long time, while the other is the opposite. In that case, he may accept the invitation to one and not the other, for his excuse is manifest in defaulting on the first.

Section: He may visit the sick, attend funerals, welcome those who have returned from travel, and visit his brothers and the righteous people, because this is an act of devotion and obedience. Even if that becomes frequent, he is not permitted to occupy himself with it to the detriment of judgment, for this is a supererogatory act (tabarru'), so he should not let it distract him from the mandatory (23). He may attend some and not others, because...