his partner in the wage for what he performed without him, because he only partnered with him so that they would both work together; so if one of them abandons the work, he has not fulfilled what he stipulated upon himself and thus does not deserve what was allocated to him in exchange for it. This is only potentially permitted in cases where one of them leaves the work due to an excuse, because it is impossible to avoid that.
Section: If two men form a partnership, each owning an animal, on the condition that they rent them both out, and whatever God provides them from it is between them, it is valid. If they accept the carriage of a known item to a known location upon their own liability, then carry it on the two animals or otherwise, it is valid, and the wage is between them according to what they stipulated. This is because their acceptance of the carriage established the liability in their own personal debts (dhimmah), and they have the right to carry it on any back they wish, and the partnership is concluded upon the liability, like the partnership of prestige (sharakat al-wujuh). If they rent the animals themselves specifically for the carriage of something for a known wage, the partnership is not valid, and each of them has the wage of his animal; because the liability for the carriage was not made binding upon their personal debts, and the hirer only deserved the benefit of the animal he rented. This is why the lease is rescinded upon the death of the animal he rented, and because the partnership must either be concluded upon liability in their personal debts or upon their own work. This is neither of those; for no liability was established in their personal debts, nor did they work with their bodies in a manner that requires a wage in return. Furthermore, because a partnership implies agency (wakalah), and agency in this manner is not valid. This is why if one were to say: 'Rent out your slave, and his wage will be between me and you,' it is not valid. Just as if he said: 'Sell your slave, and his price will be between us,' it is not valid. It is possible that the partnership is valid, as if they partnered in what they acquire from permissible things through their own bodies. If one of them helps his partner in loading and transporting, he is entitled to the wage of his like; because these are benefits he fulfilled under a شبهة (semblance) of a contract.
Section: If a fuller has tools and another has a house, and they partner to work using the tools of the former in the house of the latter, and the earnings are between them, it is permissible, and the wage is according to what they stipulated, because the partnership occurred upon
(15) In copies A and B: "tarakahu ahaduhuma" (one of them left it). (16) In copy M: "yajid" (finds). (17) In copy M: "al-mushtara" (the purchased item). (18) In copy B: "al-tahammul" (the taking on of the load). (19) In copy M: "wa-al-ujrah" (and the wage).
