two narrations. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. It is valid according to the other, which is the opinion of Malik, al-Awza'i, and Abu Hanifah; because the right of the Mudarib has attached to it, so it is permissible for him to purchase it, just as if he purchased from his Mukatab or from his slave authorized to trade who has debts upon him. Our argument is that it is the property of another, so his purchase of it for himself is not valid, just like his purchase from his agent or his slave authorized to trade who has no debts. This differs from the Mukatab; for the master does not own what is in his hand, and that is why he does not pay Zakat on it, and he has the right to take what is in it by right of pre-emption. As for the authorized slave, it is not valid for his master to purchase from him in any case. It is possible that it might be valid if debts have exhausted his property; because creditors take what is in his hand. The correct view is the first, because the master's ownership has not ceased, even if he has the right to take it, like the property of a bankrupt person.

Section: If the Mudarib purchases from the Mudaraba capital for himself, and no profit has appeared in the capital, it is valid. Ahmad explicitly stated this, and it is the opinion of Malik, al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, and Ishaq. This was also narrated from Abu Hanifah. Abu Thawr said: The sale is void; because he is a partner. Our argument is that it is the property of another, so his purchase for himself is valid, just as if an agent purchased from his principal. He only becomes a partner if a profit appears; because he only shares with the owner of the capital in the profit, not in the original capital. Whenever a profit appears in the capital, his purchase is like the purchase of one of the two partners, as we will mention later.

Section: If one of the two partners purchases something from the partnership capital, it is void regarding the amount of his share; because it is his own property. Is it valid regarding his partner's share? There are two views, based on the splitting of the transaction (tafriq al-safqa). The validity of the entire transaction can be inferred, based on the premise that the owner of the capital may purchase from the Mudaraba capital for himself. If one of the two partners purchases his partner's share from him, it is permissible; because he is purchasing the property of another. Ahmad said regarding two partners in food, where one of them wishes to sell his share to his companion: If they do not know its weight, there is no harm, but if they know its weight, then it must be weighed, meaning that whoever knows the amount of something cannot sell it