the first capital is large, and whenever he is occupied with something else, he is cut off from some of his disposals, it is not permissible for him to do that. Most jurists said: It is permissible, because it is a contract through which he does not own all of its benefits, so it does not prevent Mudaraba, just as if it did not involve harm, and like the hired worker (ajir) who is shared. Our position is that Mudaraba is based on profit and growth, so if he does what prevents it, it is not for him to do so, just as if he intended to dispose of the actual item itself, and it is distinct from that which involves no harm. According to this, if he does so and profits, he returns the profit into the partnership of the first, and they divide it. He should look at what was profited in the second Mudaraba, then pay the owner of the capital his share from it, and the Mudarib takes his share of the profit, then adds it to the profit of the first Mudaraba, and divides it for the owner of the first Mudaraba; because he deserved his share of the profit due to the benefit that was entitled by the first contract, so it was between them, like the profit of the first capital. As for the share of the second capital owner from the profit, it is paid to him, because the aggression on the part of the Mudarib does not cause the loss of the right of the second capital owner. And because if we were to return the entire profit of the second into the first partnership, the harm would be restricted to the owner of the second capital, and the Mudarib would not suffer any harm, while the aggression originated from him; indeed, he might even benefit if the first had stipulated half and the second a third. Moreover, it is inevitable that one must either rule on the corruption of the second Mudaraba or its validity. If it is corrupt, the entire profit belongs to the capital owner, and the Mudarib receives his fair wage (ajr al-mithl). If we rule on its validity, it is obligatory to distribute the capital owner's share to him according to the requirement of the contract and the implication of the condition. Consideration dictates that the owner of the first Mudaraba should not deserve any of the profit from the second; because he only deserves it through capital or work, and he has neither capital nor work in the second Mudaraba. The Mudarib's transgression only occurred by abandoning the work and being occupied away from the first capital, and this does not necessitate compensation, just as if he had been occupied with work on his own capital, or hired himself out, or abandoned trade for leisure, or occupation with knowledge, or other than that. And if it were to necessitate compensation, it would necessitate a determined amount that does not vary, and it is not determined by his profit in the second. And Allah knows best.