with the specific property or by charging the liability; because he purchased for him what he was not permitted to purchase, it is similar to if he had purchased it by charging the liability.

Section: Al-Athram reported from Ahmad, regarding a man who had dirhams owed to him by another, and he said to him: "When you are able to pay it, pay it to so-and-so." The owner of the right went away, and he did not make a will to this person whom he permitted to take possession, but he made him an agent. The one upon whom the debt was owed became able to pay, but he feared that if he paid it to the agent, the principal might have died, and he feared the repercussions from the heirs. He [Ahmad] said: "I do not like for him to pay to him, for he might have died, but he should bring the agent and the heirs together, and clear himself before both of them of that." This is something Ahmad mentioned by way of precaution for the debtor, out of fear of repercussions from the heirs if their legator had died, for his agency would be voided and the right would become theirs, so they would have recourse against the one who paid to the agent. As for the matter of legal ruling, the agent has the right to demand payment, and the other party has the right to pay to him, for Ahmad has explicitly stated in the transmission of Harb: "If he appoints him regarding the hadd-punishment and goes away, the agent carries it out." And that is more significant than this, due to the fact that it [hadd] is repelled by doubts, yet this [precaution regarding debt] is a good act of caution, an exoneration of the debtor both in appearance and in reality, and a removal of repercussions from him. In this transmission is evidence that the agency is voided by the death of the principal, even if he did not know of his death; because he chose not to pay to the agent, fearing that the principal might have died, and it [the right] had transferred to the heirs. It is possible that he chose this so that the judge would not be one of those who see that the agency is voided by death, and thus judge against him based on its voidance. In it also is evidence for the permissibility of delaying acceptance after the offer; because he appointed him to take possession of the right without informing him, and he was not present to accept it. In it also is evidence for the validity of appointment without the word of appointment. Ja'far ibn Muhammad reported regarding a man who said to another: "Sell my garment." It is nothing until he says: "I have appointed you." This is an oversight by the reporter. And it has preceded