And it is possible that it is recommended; the first view is more akin to the manifest meaning of his statement. Abu al-Khattab said: The second condition is that he delegates someone to conduct the sale, and he himself is one of the buyers. If it is asked: How is it permissible for him to hand it over to someone else to sell it, given that this is a deputization (tawkil) and an agent may not deputize? We say: Deputization is permitted in matters that he himself would not typically handle, and the public call (auction) is something that most people are not accustomed to handling themselves. If he appoints someone to buy for him, and he himself sells it [the item], it is permissible according to this narration; because he has complied with the command of his principal in the sale, and obtained his objective regarding the price, so it is permitted, just as if an outsider had purchased it. Abu Hanifa said: It is permissible for the executor to purchase, unlike the agent; because Allah the Almighty said: "And do not approach the orphan's property except in a way that is best." And when he purchases the orphan's property for more than the price of its equivalent, he has approached it in a way that is best. And also because he is a deputy of the father, and that is permissible for the father, so it is likewise for his deputy. The argument for the first narration is that the custom in sale is a man selling to someone else, so the agency is construed upon that, just as if he had stated it explicitly, saying: "Sell it to someone else." And because he is subject to suspicion, and the two purposes conflict when he sells it to himself, so it is not permitted, just as if he had forbidden him. The executor is like the agent, because he oversees the sale of another's property by conducting it himself, so he resembles the agent. Indeed, the suspicion regarding the executor is stronger than that regarding the agent, because the agent is suspected of failing to pursue the best price and nothing else, whereas the executor is suspected of that, and also of purchasing from the orphan's property something that holds no benefit for the orphan in its sale, so he is more entitled to being prohibited. In that case, his taking it for himself would not be approaching it in a way that is best. It has been narrated from Ibn Mas'ud that he said concerning a man who bequeathed his estate to a man, having left a horse, and the executor said: "Shall I buy it?" He replied: "No."

Section: The ruling regarding the judge and his trustee is like the ruling regarding the agent. The ruling regarding any of these people selling to their agent, or their young child, or a child under their guardianship, or their agent, or their authorized slave, is like the ruling regarding selling to themselves; all of this is derived based on two narrations, following the ruling on selling to themselves. As for selling to their adult child, or their parent, or their mukatab (slave under a contract of emancipation), our colleagues also mentioned them among the matters derived based on two narrations. The colleagues of al-Shafi'i have two views regarding them. Abu Hanifa said: It is permissible for him to sell to his adult child, because he has complied with his principal's command, and acted in accordance with custom in selling to someone else, so it is valid, just as if he had sold it to his brother. It differs from selling to his agent, because the purchase is [in that case] effectively for himself. Likewise, the sale to his authorized slave, and the sale to a child under his guardianship, is a sale to himself, because he is the one purchasing for them. The reason for grouping them together is that he is suspected with regard to them, and he is inclined to neglect pursuing the best price for them, just as he is suspected with regard to himself; and it is for this reason that his testimony is not accepted. The ruling in cases where he intends to purchase for his principal is like the ruling in his selling his own property, for they are the same in meaning.