requires their joint action, which is something possible, so it is attached to both of them. This differs from his saying, 'I have sold to you both,' where it is divided between them, because it is impossible for ownership to be held by them jointly, so it is divided between them. If one of the two agents is absent, the other does not have the right to act, nor does the judge have the right to appoint a trustworthy person to him so that they may act together; because the principal is rational and legally competent to act, and the judge has no guardianship over him, so the judge shall not appoint an agent for him without his command. This differs from the case where one of two executors (wasiyyayn) dies, where the judge adds a trustworthy person to the executor so that they may act together (34); because the judge has authority regarding the rights of the deceased and the orphan, and for this reason, if [the deceased] did not appoint anyone, the judge would appoint a trustworthy person to oversee the orphan's affairs. If one of the two agents comes before the judge, while the other is absent, and he claims agency for both, and produces evidence, the judge hears it and rules that the agency for both is established, [but] the present agent does not possess the right to act alone. So, when the other arrives (35), they act together, and there is no need to repeat the evidence, because the judge has already heard it for both of them once. If it is said: 'This is a judgment against an absent person,' we say: It is permissible as a corollary to the right of the person present, just as it is permissible to judge for an endowment (waqf) established for someone not yet born for the sake of those who deserve it in the present; thus it is here. If the absent agent denies the agency or dismisses himself, the other does not have the right to act. This is what Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i stated, and we know of no disagreement regarding it. All forms of action are the same in this regard. Abu Hanifa said: If he appoints both of them for a dispute, each of them has the right to act individually. Our evidence is that he was not satisfied with the action of only one of them, resembling [the case of] buying and selling.

841 - Issue: He said: "And the agent does not have the right to appoint an agent for what he has been appointed for, unless he grants that to him."

Agency is not devoid of three states:

First: That the principal forbids his agent from appointing an agent, in which case it is not permissible for him without disagreement, because what he forbade him from is not included in his permission, so it is not permissible for him, just as if he had not appointed him.