al-Shafi'i, and the opinion of most of his companions (69). Some of them forbade it, and this is the opinion of the Qadi, because the hand of the slave is like the hand of his master. Abu al-Khattab said: There are two viewpoints regarding this. One of them is permissibility, because the work of the slave is wealth for his master, so it is valid to include him, just as it is valid to include a beast of burden that he uses to carry [goods] (70).

Section: As for Mufawada (unrestricted) partnership, it is of two types. The first is that they partner in all types of partnership, such as combining 'inan partnership, wujuh (credit) partnership, and abdan (labor) partnership. This is valid, because each type of these is valid on its own, so it is valid when combined with another. The second is that they include in the partnership a sharing of whatever comes to each of them from inheritance, or what they find from rikaz (buried treasure) or luqata (lost property), and each of them becomes liable for what the other is liable for in terms of injury compensation (arsh), liability for usurpation (ghasb), the value of destroyed property, debt repayment, or suretyship (kafala). This is invalid, and this is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, and Abu Hanifa permitted it, and it was narrated from Malik. Abu Hanifa stipulated conditions for it, which are: that they be free, Muslim, that their capital in the partnership be equal, and that they contribute everything they own that is of the same genus as the partnership, namely dirhams and dinars. They argued based on what was narrated from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he said: "If you enter into mufawada, make the mufawada a good one" (71). Also, because it is a type of partnership defined by a specific name, it should contain what is valid, like the 'inan partnership. Our argument is that it is a contract that is not valid between two non-Muslims, nor between a non-Muslim and a Muslim, so it is not valid between two Muslims, like all other invalid contracts. Furthermore, it is a contract for which no textual evidence (shar') exists, so it is not valid, as we have mentioned. Moreover, it involves gharar (uncertainty), so it is not valid, like the sale of gharar. The explanation of its gharar is that each one becomes liable for what the other is liable, and he might become burdened with something he is unable to fulfill. Also, they have introduced rare forms of earnings into it. As for the report, we do not know it, and the authors of the Sunan collections did not narrate it. Furthermore, it contains nothing indicating that he intended this contract; it is possible that he intended something else by 'mufawada' in the hadith, which is why it is narrated therein: "And do not argue, for arguing is from Satan." As for analogy (qiyas), it is not valid; for its distinction by a name does not necessitate validity, like the sale of munabadha (casting) and mulamasa (touching) and other invalid sales, whereas the 'inan partnership is valid between two non-Muslims or a non-Muslim and a Muslim, unlike this one.