the capital owner. We do not know of any disagreement among the scholars regarding this. He does not possess the right to do so for three reasons: First, the profit is a shield for the capital, so he cannot be secure from a loss that this profit would compensate for; thus, it ceases to be profit by that fact. Second, the capital owner is his partner, and he does not have the right to divide it with himself. Third, his ownership of it is not settled, because it is subject to being exhausted in his hands by compensating for a loss of the capital. If the capital owner permits taking something, it is permissible; because the right belongs to both of them, and it does not depart from them.

Section: If one of them requests the division of the profit without the capital, and the other refuses, the stance of the refuser is given precedence. If it is the capital owner, it is because he is not secure from loss in the capital, so he might need to compensate for it with the profit. If it is the agent, he is not secure from being obligated to return what he took at a time when he cannot afford it. If they both agree to that, it is permissible; because the right belongs to them both, and it is the same whether they agree to divide all of it, some of it, or that each one of them takes a known amount to spend. Then, whenever a loss appears in the wealth, or all of it is destroyed, the agent is obligated to return the lesser of the two matters: what he took, or half of the loss of the wealth, if they divided the profit in halves. This is the opinion of al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, and Ishaq. Abu Hanifa said: Division is not permissible until the capital owner has received his capital in full. Ibn al-Mundhir said: If they divided the profit and the capital owner did not take possession of his capital, most scholars say: The agent must return the profit until the capital owner has received his capital in full. Our argument for the permissibility of the division is that the wealth belongs to both of them, so it is permissible for them to divide some of it, like two partners. Or we say: They are partners, so it is permissible for them to divide the profit before the final settlement, like the partners in an 'Inan partnership.

Section: Mudaraba is one of the permissible contracts; it is dissolved by the rescission of either one of them, whomever it may be, or by his death, insanity, or being interdicted due to incompetence (safah); because he is managing someone else's wealth with his permission, so he is like an agent (wakil). There is no difference between what is before the management of the wealth and what is after it. If it is dissolved while the wealth is in liquid form (nadd) and there is no profit in it, its owner takes it. If there is profit in it, they divide the profit according to what they stipulated. And if it is dissolved while the wealth...