The profit is divided equally between them, it is valid. The owner of the one thousand dirhams is entitled to one-third of the profit by virtue of his capital, and the remainder, which is two-thirds of the profit, is divided between them: the owner of the two thousand is entitled to three-quarters of it, and the worker (manager) to one-quarter of it. This is because he granted him half of the profit, so we calculated it as six shares; of these, three are for the worker: his capital share is two shares, and one share he earns by his work in his partner's capital. The partner's capital share is four shares, for which the worker has one share, which is the quarter. If it is said: How can a mudaraba be valid when the capital is commingled? We say: Commingling only prevents validity if it is with someone other than the worker; for that prevents him from managing it, unlike when it is with the worker, for it does not prevent him from managing it, and thus it does not prevent the validity of the mudaraba. If he stipulates for the worker only one-third of the profit, then the capital of his partner is an ibda' (consignment) in his hand, and it is not a mudaraba, because mudaraba is only realized if the profit is shared between them. But if he says: The profit of your capital is for you, and the profit of my capital is for me, and the other accepts, it is an ibda' and nothing more. Al-Shafi'i held this view in its entirety. Malik said: It is not permissible to combine a partnership with a qirad, just as it is not permissible to combine a contract of lease with it. Our argument is that they did not make one of the two contracts a condition for the other, so we do not prohibit combining them, just as if the capital were distinct.

Section: If he gives him one thousand as a mudaraba and says: "Add one thousand to it from your own, and trade with them (64), and the profit shall be between us, with two-thirds for you and one-third for me," it is permissible; and it is considered a partnership and a qirad. The followers of al-Shafi'i said: It is invalid, because if a partnership is applied to the capital, the profit follows it, not the work. Our argument is that they are equal in capital, and one of them is solely responsible for the work; thus, it is permissible for him to be entitled to more profit, just as if he had no capital. Their statement that the profit follows the capital alone is denied; rather, it follows both, just as it is produced by both. If someone other than the worker stipulates two-thirds of the profit for himself, it is not permissible. Al-Qadi said: It is permissible, based on the permissibility of their variance in an 'inan partnership. Our argument is that he stipulated for himself