upon him. If he holds the second one liable while he is aware of the situation, he has no recourse against the first one. But if he was unaware, does he have recourse against the first one? There are two positions: one is that he does have recourse against him because he deceived him, which is analogous to if he had deceived him regarding the free status of a slave girl. The second is that he has no recourse because the loss occurred in his possession, so the liability is established upon him. If there is a profit in the wealth, the profit belongs to its owner, and the first Mudarib gets nothing because he provided neither wealth nor work. Does the second one get a wage for his like (ajr al-mithl)? There are two narrations: one is that he does, because he worked with someone else's wealth for a compensation that was not delivered to him, so he is entitled to a wage for his like, similar to a corrupt Mudaraba. The second is that he gets nothing, because he worked with someone else's wealth without his permission, so he is not entitled to any compensation for that, similar to a usurper. It differs from Mudaraba because there, he worked with his [the owner's] wealth by his permission. This applies regardless of whether he bought with the specific wealth or on credit (in the dhimma). It is possible that if he bought on credit, the profit belongs to him, because he profited from what he bought on his own credit, which was not a purchase made for someone else, similar to if he had not paid the price from the wealth of the owner of the capital. Al-Sharif Abu Ja'far said: This is the view of the majority of them, meaning the view of Malik, al-Shafi'i, and Abu Hanifah. It is possible that if he was aware of the situation, the worker gets nothing, like a usurper, but if he was ignorant of the situation, he is entitled to a wage for his like, and he has recourse for it against the first Mudarib because he deceived him and employed him for a compensation that he did not receive, so he is owed his wage, as if he had employed him using his own wealth. The Qadi said: If he bought with the specific wealth, the purchase is invalid. If he bought on credit and then paid the wealth, and the owner of the capital had stipulated for the Mudarib half [of the profit], and the Mudarib handed it to another on the condition that the owner of the capital gets half, and the other half is between them, then it is according to what they agreed upon, because the owner of the capital consented to half of the profit, so he should not be given more than that, and the two workers are according to what they agreed upon. This is an old view of al-Shafi'i. This is not in accordance with the principles of the school, nor with the statement of Ahmad, for Ahmad said: The profit is not lawful for the Mudarib. And because the first Mudarib has neither work nor wealth, and one does not become entitled to profit in Mudaraba except by one of the two, and the second worker worked with someone else's wealth without his permission or his condition, so he is not entitled to what someone other than him stipulated for him, just as if a usurper had handed it to him.