And because it is a transaction involving the property of another without his permission, it is like the transaction of a fuduuli (unauthorized agent). It is also possible to infer that it may be valid and contingent upon the master’s permission, in the same way. As for his purchasing with a price on his own liability (dhimmah) or borrowing, it is possible that it is not valid, because he is interdicted, thus resembling the incompetent (safih). It is also possible that it is valid, because the interdiction is for the sake of another, so he resembles the bankrupt person or the sick person. Derived from these two views is the principle that even if the transaction is invalid, the seller and the lender may take back their property if it remains, whether it is in the hand of the slave or the master. If it has been destroyed, they are entitled to its value or its equivalent, if it is a fungible item. If it was destroyed in the master’s hand, he is held liable for it, because the substance of his property was destroyed in his hand. If he wishes, this may be attached to the person (raqabah) of the slave, because he is the one who took it from him. If it was destroyed in the hand of the slave, then the recourse is against him. Does this attach to his person (raqabah) or his liability (dhimmah)? There are two narrations regarding this. If we say: The transaction is valid, and the sold item is in the hand of the slave, the seller has the right to rescind the sale, and the lender has the right to take back what he lent; because the insolvency of the purchaser and borrower has been established, and he is in a worse situation than an insolvent free person. If the master has already seized it from the hand of the slave, he attains ownership of it by that, and he has the right to do so; because he has taken property that was in the hand of his slave by right, so it is like game (sayd). Once the master owns it, it is like it being destroyed in the hand of the slave, and the seller and lender do not have the right to seize it from the master under any circumstances. If it has been destroyed, its price becomes fixed upon the person (raqabah) of the slave or his liability (dhimmah), regardless of whether it was destroyed in the hand of the slave or the master. As for the slave who is permitted (ma'dhun), his transaction is valid within the scope of what he was permitted for. We know of no disagreement regarding this, and it is not valid for what exceeds that. Ahmad explicitly stated this, and al-Shafi'i held the same position. Abu Hanifah said: If he permits him in one type [of transaction], the interdiction is lifted from him, and it is permissible for him to transact absolutely, because interdiction is not divisible; so when part of it ceases, all of it ceases. Our argument is that he is one who transacts by permission, so his transaction is restricted to the scope of the permission, like an agent (wakil). Their statement that 'interdiction is not divisible' is invalid; for if he explicitly permitted him to sell one item and forbade him from selling another, it would be valid. The same applies to purchasing, like an agent. If the master permits him to stand as guarantor or surety, and he does so, it is valid. Does this attach to the master’s liability or the slave’s person?