the insolvent person regarding the sale, for four reasons: First, so that he may enumerate its price and control it. Second, because he is more knowledgeable about the price of his goods, their good quality, and their poor quality, so if he is present, he can speak regarding them and recognize fraud from elsewhere. Third, that the desire for the item may increase, as purchasing it from the owner is more desirable to the buyer. Fourth, that it is more agreeable to his soul and provides more peace of mind to his heart. It is also recommended that the creditors be present, for four reasons: First, that it is being sold for them. Second, that they might desire to buy something of it, increasing its price, which would be more beneficial for them and for the insolvent person. Third, that it is more agreeable to their hearts and further from suspicion. Fourth, that among them there may be someone who finds the very item of his property, so he takes it back. If the judge does not do this and sells it without the presence of all of them, it is valid; for this is entrusted to him and delegated to his discretionary judgment, and his judgment may sometimes lead him to the contrary, as he may see that the benefit lies in rushing the sale before bringing them. The judge shall order them to appoint an auctioneer to call out the goods for them. If they agree upon a trustworthy man, the judge shall approve him; if they agree upon someone who is not trustworthy, he shall reject him. If it is said: Why does he reject him when the owners of the right have agreed upon him? This resembles a case where the pledgor and the pledgee agree that a non-trustworthy person should sell the pledged item, and the judge would have no grounds to object. We respond: This is because the judge has oversight and discretion here; another creditor might appear, and his right would be linked to it, hence the judge has oversight, unlike in the case of a pledge, where the judge has no oversight. If the insolvent person chooses one man and the creditors choose another, the judge shall approve the trustworthy one among them. If both are trustworthy, he shall give priority to the one who is a volunteer, for that is more sufficient. If they are both volunteers, he shall combine one with the other. If both are for a fee, he shall give priority to the one who is more knowledgeable and more trustworthy. If they are equal, he shall give priority to whoever he sees fit. If he finds someone to volunteer for the calling, [that is fine], otherwise the fee shall be paid from the property of the insolvent person; because the sale is a right upon him, as it is the way to satisfy his debt. It is said: It is paid from the public treasury (bayt al-mal), because it is among the public interests. The same ruling applies to the fee of the one who guards the property and the price, the fee of the porters, and similar roles. It is recommended to sell every item in its [respective] market: textiles in the textile market, books in their market, and so on; because that is more cautious, results in more prospective buyers, and better knowledge of its value. If he sells it in a market other than its own for its equivalent price, it is valid, because the purpose is to obtain the price, and discretionary judgment may lead to the conclusion that this is more beneficial. Likewise, if one said: "Sell my garment in such-and-such market for such-and-such price," and he sold it for that price in a different market, it is valid.