opponent's claim that you are not an agent. Our argument is that this is establishing the agency, so it does not require the presence of the one against whom the principal is acting, just as if the one against whom the principal is acting were a group and one of them was brought, the presence of the others is not required; it is the same here. The proof that the claim is not heard before the agency is established is that it is only heard from an opponent who is litigating on his own behalf or on behalf of his principal, and this person is not litigating on his own behalf, and it has not been established that he is an agent for the one on whose behalf he claims, so his claim is not heard, just as if he claimed on behalf of someone for whom he did not claim agency. In this principle is the answer to what he mentioned.

Section: If a man appears and claims property against an absent person through his agent, and the agent denies it, then the man establishes evidence for what he claimed, the judge shall make him take an oath and shall judge in his favor for the property. If the principal appears and denies the agency, or claims that he had already dismissed him, that does not affect the ruling, because judgment against an absent person does not require the presence of his agent.

Section: If he says, "Sell this garment for ten, and whatever is in addition to that is yours," it is valid, and he is entitled to the increase. Al-Shafi'i said: It is not valid. Our argument is that Ibn 'Abbas saw no harm in that, and because he is disposing of his property with his [the owner's] permission, so the condition of profit for him is valid in the latter case, like the mudarib (speculator) and the worker in a sharecropping agreement (musaqah).