This is the opinion of Malik, Abu Hanifa, and one of the two opinions of Al-Shafi'i, because the total price is known, so it is valid just as if they belonged to one man, and just as if they sold a single slave belonging to them both, or two qafiz [measures] from a single heap. The second [view] is that it is not valid, because each one of them is an item sold for its share of the price, which is unknown according to what we have previously established. It differs from the case where they belong to one man, for the entirety of the sold items is countered by the entirety of the price without apportionment, whereas [with] the jointly owned slave and the two qafiz measures, the price is divided among them by parts, so there is no ignorance in it.

Section: Whenever we rule for validity in the splitting of a transaction, and the purchaser was aware of the situation, he has no option, because he entered into it with full knowledge. But if he did not know, such as if he bought a slave thinking he belonged entirely to the seller, and it turns out he only owns half of him, or [if he bought] two slaves and it was clarified that he only owned one of them, then he has the option between rescinding or keeping [the purchase]; because the transaction was partially severed for him. As for the seller, he has no option, because he consented to the removal of his ownership from that which is permissible to sell for its share. If the contract occurred upon two things requiring possession for both, and one of them was destroyed before he took possession of it, the judge said: The purchaser has the option between keeping the remainder for its share, or rescinding, because the ruling regarding what is before possession—in terms of the sold item being the seller's liability—is the same as the ruling before the contract, by evidence that if it became defective before he took possession, the purchaser would have the right to rescind on its account.

768 - Issue: He said: "And the guardian shall trade with the property of the orphan, and there is no liability upon him, and the profit belongs entirely to the orphan. If he gives it to someone to engage in a mudaraba [profit-sharing] arrangement with it, then the mudarib [manager] receives from the profit what the guardian agreed upon with him."

Its entirety is that the guardian of the orphan may engage in mudaraba with his property, and he may hand it over to someone who will engage in mudaraba for him with it, and grant him a share of the profit, whether he is a father, a guardian, a judge, or a trustee of a judge, and it is better than leaving it [idle]. Among those who held this view are Ibn Umar, Al-Nakha'i, Al-Hasan ibn Salih, Malik, Al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). It is narrated that trading with it is permitted