in one of the two views, because it is not of the same genus as currencies. Our position is that it is an increase that benefits the principal and does not harm him, resembling the case where he sells it for one hundred and a dinar. Furthermore, permission to sell it for one hundred is, by custom, permission to sell it for an increase over that amount, because someone who is content with one hundred will not object to having a garment added to it that benefits him and does not harm him. If he sells it for one hundred dinars, or ninety dirhams and ten dinars, or similar, or for one hundred garments, or for eighty dirhams and twenty garments, it is not valid. This was mentioned by the Qadi, and it is the school of Al-Shafi'i, because he has contradicted his principal regarding the genus, so it resembles the case where he sells it for a garment worth more than one hundred dirhams. It is possible that it might be valid in the case where he substitutes dinars for dirhams, or for a portion of them, because this is permitted by custom; for one who is content with a dirham is content with a dinar in its place, so it follows the ruling of selling it for one hundred dirhams and a dinar. As for garments, it is not valid to sell for them, because they are not of the same genus as currencies.

Section: If he is appointed as an agent to sell a slave for one hundred, and he sells half of him for that price, or is appointed with general authorization and sells half of him for the price of the whole, it is permissible, because it is permitted by custom; for one who is content with one hundred as a price for the whole is content with it as a price for half. Moreover, he has secured the one hundred for him and left him an increase that benefits him and does not harm him. He has the right to sell the other half, because he is permitted to sell it, so it resembles the case where he sells the entire slave for double his price. It is possible that he does not have the right to sell it, because he has already secured the principal's objective regarding the price by selling half of him, so he might not desire to sell the remainder, as he is already satisfied by what he secured from the price of the half. The same ruling applies to appointing someone to sell two slaves for one hundred; if he sells one of them for that amount, it is valid. Is it then permissible for him to sell the other slave? There are two views. However, if he is appointed to sell his slave for one hundred, and he sells a portion of him for less than that, it is not valid. If he is appointed with general authorization and sells a portion of him for less than the price of the whole, it is not permitted. This is the view held by Al-Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad. Abu Hanifa said: It is permissible if the agency was general, based on his principle that a general agent has the right to sell as he wishes. Our position is that the principal suffers harm by the parceling, and there is neither explicit nor customary permission for it, so it is not permitted, just as if he were appointed to purchase a slave and he bought half of him.