the half. If he says: "You have a fourth of the profit and a fourth of what remains," he has three-eighths and a half of an eighth. It is the same whether they know the calculation or are ignorant of it, because these are known, specified portions, similar to if he had stipulated two-fifths. The position of al-Shafi'i in this entire section is like our position.

Section: If he says: "Take it as a mudaraba, and you have a portion of the profit," or "a share in the profit," or "something from the profit," or "a part," or "a luck [share]," it is not valid because it is unknown, and mudaraba is only valid based on a known amount. If he says: "Take it, and you have the likes of what was stipulated for so-and-so," and they both know that, it is valid because they have referred to something known to them. If they do not know it, or one of them does not know it, the mudaraba is corrupt because it is unknown.

Section: If he says: "Take this money and trade with it, and all of its profit is yours," it is a loan (qard), not a qirad, because his saying: "Take it and trade with it" is suitable for both, and he has coupled it with the ruling of a loan, so it is directed to that. If he says along with that: "And there is no guarantee upon you," this is a loan in which the negation of guarantee was stipulated, so it is not negated by the stipulation, just as if he had stated it explicitly, saying: "Take this as a loan and there is no guarantee upon you." If he says: "Take it and trade with it, and all the profit is for me," it is a deposit (ibda'), because he has coupled it with the ruling of a deposit, so it is directed to that. If he says along with that: "And you are responsible for guaranteeing it," he does not guarantee it, because the contract necessitates that it be an entrusted property that is not guaranteed, so that is not removed by his stipulation. If he says: "Take it as a mudaraba, and all the profit is yours," or "all of it is for me," it is a corrupt contract. This is also the position of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: If he says: "And all the profit is for me," it is a valid deposit, because he established for it the ruling of a deposit, so it is directed to that, like the one before it. Malik said: It is a valid mudaraba in both cases, because they entered into a qirad, and when he stipulates for one of them, it is as if he gifted his share to the other, so it does not prevent the validity of the contract. Our argument is that the mudaraba necessitates that the profit be between them, so if he stipulates the exclusivity of the profit to one of them, he has stipulated something that contradicts the requirement of the contract, so it is corrupt, just as if he had stipulated all the profit for one of them in a shirkat al-'inan (partnership of equal standing). It differs from when he does not