If he refuses to sell it to the agent, it remains in the agent's possession, while it belongs to the principal, and its price remains a debt on his dhimma owed to the agent. The closest of the views is that he grants permission to the ruler to sell it and satisfy his right from its price. If it belongs to the agent, he has permitted its sale, and if it belongs to the principal, the ruler has sold it in fulfillment of a debt which the debtor refused to pay. Other views have been stated besides what we have mentioned, but this is the closest, if Allah the Exalted wills. If the agent buys it from the ruler with the money he is owed by the principal, it is permissible; for he stands in the place of the principal in this matter, so it is similar to if he had bought it from him.

Section: If he appointed him as an agent to sell a slave, and he sold it on credit (nasi'a), and the principal said: "I did not permit the sale except for cash," and the agent and the purchaser both confirm him, the sale is void. He has the right to demand the slave from whichever of the two he wishes if it remains extant, or its value if it has perished. If he takes the value from the agent, he has recourse against the purchaser for it, because the destruction occurred in his possession, so the liability is settled upon him. If he takes it from the purchaser, he has no recourse against anyone. If they deny him and claim that he did permit the sale on credit, then according to the opinion of al-Qadi: the principal must take an oath, and he may reclaim the specific item if it is still extant. If it has perished, he may seek its value from whichever of the two he wishes. If he seeks it from the purchaser, the purchaser may have recourse against the agent for the price he took from him, and nothing else; because he did not surrender the sold item to him. If the agent bears the liability, he does not have immediate recourse against the purchaser; because he acknowledges the validity of the sale and the deferment of the price, and that the seller committed an injustice against him by seeking it from him, and that he is only entitled to demand the price after the term has expired. When the term expires, the agent has recourse against the purchaser for the lesser of the two: the value or the specified price. This is because if the value is lower, he has not incurred more than that, so he cannot have recourse for more than he incurred. If the price is lower, the agent acknowledges to the purchaser that he is not entitled to more than that from him, and that the principal committed an injustice against him by taking more than the price, so he does not have recourse against the purchaser for what the principal unjustly took from him. If one of them confirms him while the other denies him, he has recourse against the one who confirms him without an oath, and he must take an oath against the one who denies him, and he has recourse according to what we have mentioned. This is if the purchaser acknowledges that the agent was an agent in the sale. If he denies that and says: "You only sold me your own property," the word is his, along with his oath that he does not know that he was an agent, and he has no recourse against him for anything.