at the command of the principal. The ruling of recession does not take effect for the one commanded before he knows of it, just like the rescission. Thus, according to this narration, whenever he acts before knowing, his action is valid. It is reported from Abu Hanifa that if the principal dismisses him, he is not dismissed before he knows of it, due to what we have mentioned. But if the agent dismisses himself, he is not dismissed except in the presence of the principal, because he is acting by the order of the principal, so it is not valid to reject his order in his absence, similar to a depositor in returning a deposit. Our view is what has preceded. As for rescission, there are two opinions regarding it, like the two narrations. Furthermore, the two cases are distinct: the command of the Lawgiver involves sin by abandoning it, and one is not considered a sinner without knowledge, whereas this [agency] involves dismissal from him as an invalidation of action, so lack of knowledge does not prevent it.

Section: Whenever one of the two parties ceases to be someone fit to act, such as becoming insane or being placed under interdiction due to incompetence, his ruling is that of death, because he does not possess the capacity to act, and thus he cannot empower another in his stead. Ahmad said regarding the partnership: "If one of them suffers from mental disturbance (waswasa), it is like dismissal." If the agent is placed under interdiction due to bankruptcy, the agency remains as it is, because he has not ceased to be fit to act. If the principal is placed under interdiction and the agency is regarding the physical assets of his wealth, it is void because his authority to act over the physical assets of his wealth has ceased. But if it is regarding litigation, purchasing on credit, divorce, khul' (divorce initiated by the wife), or retaliation (qisas), the agency remains as it is, because the principal is fit for that, and he has the right to appoint a deputy for it initially, so the continuity is not broken. If the agent acts immorally (fisq), he is not dismissed, because he is still fit to act, unless the agency is regarding a matter that immorality contradicts, such as making an offer in a marriage contract; in that case, he is dismissed by his immorality or the immorality of his principal because he ceases to be fit to act. If he is an agent for the principal in accepting [an offer], he is not dismissed by his principal's immorality, because that does not contradict the validity of his acceptance. Is he dismissed by his own immorality? There are two opinions. If he is an agent in a matter where trustworthiness is a condition, such as the agent of an orphan's guardian, the guardian of an endowment for the poor, and the like, he is dismissed by his immorality and the immorality of his principal, as they both cease thereby to be fit for