a part of the profit for which there is no equivalent, so it is not valid, just as if he stipulated the profit of the capital of a sole worker. It differs from an 'inan partnership, because that involves work from both parties, so it is permissible for them to vary in profit due to their variance in work, unlike our issue here. If they set the profit between them as two equal halves and do not say 'mudaraba,' it is permissible and is considered an ibda' (consignment), as previously stated. If they say 'mudaraba,' the contract is invalid for reasons we shall mention, God willing.

Section: The fifth category is when two individuals enter into a partnership with the capital of one of them. This is when the capital is from one of them and the work is from both, such as when one of them provides one thousand and they both work with it, and the profit is between them. This is permissible, and Ahmad stated this explicitly in the narration of Abu al-Harith. It is considered a mudaraba, because the one who is not the owner of the capital becomes entitled to the stipulated portion of the profit by virtue of his work in another's capital, and this is the reality of mudaraba. Abu Abdullah ibn Hamid, the Qadi, and Abu al-Khattab said: If he stipulates that the owner of the capital shall work with him, it is invalid. This is the school of Malik, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i, the Ashab al-Ra'y (Hanafi school), Abu Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir. He said: A mudaraba is not valid until he hands over the capital to the worker and leaves him in full charge of it; for mudaraba requires handing over the capital to the mudarib (worker), and if he stipulates that he works with him, he has not handed it over because his hand is still upon it, which contradicts its foundational principle. The Qadi interpreted the words of Ahmad and al-Khiraqi to mean that the owner of the capital worked without it being a condition. Our argument is that work is one of the two pillars of mudaraba, so it is permissible for one of them to perform it solely, alongside the presence of the other two elements (capital and command) from the other party, just like capital. Their statement that mudaraba requires handing over the capital to the worker is denied; it only requires absolute freedom to dispose of another's capital in exchange for an undivided share of its profit, and this is achieved even when they both share in the work. For this reason, if he gives his capital to two people as a mudaraba, it is valid, even though there is no delivery of the capital to only one of them.

Section: If he stipulates that the slave of the capital owner shall work with him, it is valid. This is the apparent view of