its work, and profit in a partnership is deserved through work. The tool and the house are not things through which anything is deserved, because they are utilized in the shared work; thus they are like the two animals which they rented out for carrying the item that they undertook to carry. If the partnership is invalid, what was earned by them is divided according to the extent of the wage of their work and the rental value of the house and the tool. If one of them possesses a tool and the other possesses nothing, or one of them possesses a house and the other possesses nothing, and they agree to work with the tool or in the house and the wage is between them, it is permissible, for the reasons we have mentioned.

Section: If a man gives his animal to another to work with it, and whatever God provides is between them in halves, thirds, or however they stipulated, it is valid. Imam Ahmad stated this in the narration of al-Athram, Muhammad ibn Abi Harb, and Ahmad ibn Sa'id. It is also narrated from al-Awza'i what supports this. Al-Hasan and al-Nakha'i disliked it. Al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, Ibn al-Mundhir, and the scholars of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y) said: It is not valid, and all the profit belongs to the owner of the animal, because the carriage through which compensation is deserved comes from it. The worker is entitled to the wage for his likes, because this is not among the categories of partnership, unless it is a mudarabah (profit-sharing) arrangement; and mudarabah is not valid with goods (urud). Furthermore, mudarabah occurs through trade in capital assets, and these (the animals) are neither permitted to be sold nor removed from the ownership of their owner. The Qadi said: It could be deduced that it is invalid, based on the fact that mudarabah with goods is not valid. According to this view, if the wage of the animal is specific, the wage belongs to its owner; and if he accepted the carriage of an item and carried it, or carried on it something permissible and sold it, then the wage and the price belong to him, and he owes a wage of its like to its owner. Our view is that it is an asset whose value is increased through working with it, so the contract regarding it with a portion of its growth is valid, like silver and gold coins, and like trees in musaqah (sharecropping of trees) and land in muzara'ah (sharecropping of land). To their statement that it is not from the categories of partnership, and it is not mudarabah, we say: Yes, but it resembles musaqah and muzara'ah, for it is a handing over of the capital asset to someone who will work with it for a portion of its growth while its essence remains. By this, it is clarified that its deduction based on mudarabah with goods is invalid; for mudarabah only occurs through trade and disposition of the principal of the wealth, and this is contrary to that. The Qadi mentioned in another place regarding one who rented an animal to work with it