Section: If he gave him a Mudaraba and stipulated maintenance, and a man spoke to him about taking merchandise or a Mudaraba for him, in which there is no harm, Ahmad said: If he stipulated maintenance, he has become his hired worker, so he shall not take merchandise from anyone, for it occupies him away from the capital with which he performs Mudaraba. It was said: What if it does not occupy him? He replied: I do not like it to be except with the permission of the owner of the Mudaraba, for there is inevitably some preoccupation. This, and Allah knows best, is by way of recommendation. If he does it, there is nothing against him, because there is no harm to the owner of the Mudaraba in it.

Section: If he took a Mudaraba from a man, then took merchandise from another, or worked with his own capital, or traded with it, then his profit in the merchandise belongs to its owner, and in his own capital belongs to himself.

Section: If he took one hundred as Qirad (Mudaraba) from a man, then took the same amount from another, and bought a slave with each hundred, and the two slaves became mixed and could not be distinguished, then they should settle it between them. Just as if a man had wheat and it poured onto another's. The Qadi mentioned two views regarding this: One is that they become partners in both, as if they had participated in a contract of sale; so they are sold and the proceeds divided between them. If there is profit in them, he pays the worker his share, and the remainder is divided between them in halves. The second is that they belong to the worker, and he is liable to pay back the capital, while the profit is for him and the loss is upon him. Al-Shafi'i has two sayings, like these two views. The first is more appropriate, because the ownership of each of them is fixed in one of the two slaves, so it does not cease due to ambiguity regarding all of it, nor part of it, without his consent, as if they were not in the possession of the Mudarib. And because if we were to make them belong to the Mudarib, it would lead to his negligence being a cause for him to have the profit exclusively and the wronged party being deprived, and the reverse is more appropriate. And if we made them partners, it would lead to one of them taking the profit of the other's capital without his consent, and he has neither capital nor work in it.