This is not a partnership nor a mudaraba, for the 'inan partnership necessitates that they participate in both capital and labor, and the mudaraba necessitates that the agent has a share of the profit in return for his labor, yet they did not designate anything for him here in return for his labor. They only assigned the profit according to the proportion of the two capitals, and his labor regarding his companion’s share is a donation; thus, this constitutes ibda' (consignment), which is permissible if it is not in exchange for a loan. If the agent had borrowed the thousand or a portion of it from his companion, it would not be permissible, because he made his labor in his companion’s capital a substitute for his loan, and that is not permissible. But if two bodies participate with the capital of one of them—such as if one of them provides a thousand and they both work with it—then the agent who has no capital receives of the profit what they agree upon, because he is a pure mudarib, so it is similar to a case where the owner of the capital does not work with him. Consequently, it follows from what we have mentioned that the profit between them is according to what they agreed upon in all types of partnership, regardless of what we mentioned concerning the mudaraba that includes a partnership, as we have explained.

Section: It is a condition for the validity of a mudaraba that the agent’s share be specified, because he is entitled to it by stipulation, so it cannot be determined except by it. If he says: "Take this capital as a mudaraba," and does not designate any profit for the agent, the entire profit belongs to the capital owner, the loss is upon him, and the agent receives the wage of his like (ajr al-mithl). Ahmad explicitly stated this, and it is the position of al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Abu Thawr, and the Ahl al-Ra'y (the Rationalists). Al-Hasan, Ibn Sirin, and al-Awza'i said: The profit is between them in halves, because if he had said, "The profit is between us," it would be between them in halves, so it is the same if he does not mention anything. Our argument is that the mudarib is only entitled to it by stipulation, which is absent here. His statement, "mudaraba," implies that he has an unknown portion of the profit, so the mudaraba is invalid, just as if he had said, "You have a portion of the profit." However, if he says, "The profit is between us," then the mudaraba is valid, and it is between them in halves, because he attributed it to both of them in a single attribution, without favoring one over the other, thus necessitating equality, as if he said: "This house is between me and you." If he specifies the agent’s share, saying: "You have a third of the profit, or a fourth, or a known portion, whichever portion it may be," the remainder belongs to the capital owner, because he is entitled to the profit by virtue of his capital, as it is its growth and its branch, while the agent takes by virtue of the stipulation; therefore, whatever was stipulated for him he is entitled to, and whatever remains belongs to the capital owner by the rule of the original state. If he specifies the capital owner’s share, such as saying: "I have a third of the profit," without mentioning the agent’s share, there are two views. One is that it is invalid, because the agent is only entitled by stipulation, and nothing was stipulated for him, so the mudaraba is corrupt. The second is that it is valid, and the remainder belongs to the agent. This is the position of Abu Thawr and the Ahl al-Ra'y, because the profit belongs to both of them and no one else is entitled to it; thus, when one of their shares is specified, the remainder belongs to the other by the implication of the expression, just as this is known from His saying, the Almighty: "If he has no child and his parents inherit from him, his mother has a third," (Quran, Surah An-Nisa: 11), for He did not mention the father’s share, so it was known that the remainder was for him. Furthermore, if he had said: "I have bequeathed this hundred to Zayd and 'Amr, and Zayd’s share of it is thirty," the remainder would be for 'Amr, so it is the same here. If he says: "I have half and you have a third," and remains silent about the sixth, it is valid, and it belongs to the capital owner, because if he had remained silent about all the remainder after the agent’s portion, it would have belonged to the capital owner, so it is the same when he mentions some of it and leaves some of it. If he says: "Take it as a mudaraba on a third or a half," or says: "For a third or a fourth," it is valid, and it is considered the specification of the agent’s share, because the stipulation is intended for his sake; for the capital owner is entitled by his capital, not by stipulation, whereas the agent is entitled by labor, and labor varies in quantity, and his portion is only specified by stipulation, so the stipulation is for him. Whenever they stipulate something for one of them and they differ as to whom the stipulated portion belongs, it is for the agent, whether it is small or large, for this reason. If he says: "Take it as a mudaraba, you have a third of the profit and a third of what remains," it is valid, and he has five-ninths, because this is the meaning of that. If he says: "You have a third of the profit and a fourth of what remains," then he has...