is merchandise, and they agree to sell or divide it, it is permissible; because the right belongs to both of them and does not go beyond them. If the agent requests the sale and the capital owner refuses, and there is profit in the wealth, the capital owner is compelled to sell. This is the opinion of Ishaq and al-Thawri; because the agent's right is in the profit, and it does not manifest except through sale. If no profit has appeared, he is not compelled; because he has no right in it, and its owner was satisfied with it in that state, so he is not compelled to sell it. This is the apparent view of the school of al-Shafi'i. Some of them said: There is another perspective, which is that he is compelled to sell; because perhaps someone might increase the price, or someone interested might desire it, thus exceeding the equivalent value, so the agent would have a share in the sale. Our argument is that the Mudarib only earns the right to the profit up to the time of rescission, and that is not known except through valuation. Do you not see that if a borrower plants or builds, or a purchaser does so, the lender or the pre-emptor (shafi') may pay the value of that, because he is entitled to the land, so this is more appropriate here. As for what they mentioned regarding the possibility of an increase due to a bidder or an interested party exceeding its value, that only occurred after the rescission of the contract, so the agent is not entitled to it. If the capital owner requests the sale and the agent refuses, there are two views: One of them is that the agent is compelled to sell. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i; because he is obligated to return the wealth in liquid form as he received it. The second is that he is not compelled if there is no profit in the wealth, or if he waives his right to the profit; because with the rescission, his management ceased, and he became a stranger to the wealth, so he is like an agent (wakil) who bought something that is required to be returned, and his agency ended before he returned it. If the capital was dinars and it became dirhams, [or dirhams and it became dinars], it is just as if it were merchandise, according to what has been explained. When the entire capital becomes liquid, it is not incumbent upon the agent to liquidate the remainder for him; because it is a partnership between them, and it is not incumbent upon a partner to liquidate the wealth of his partner, and also because he was only obligated to liquidate the capital in order to return his capital to him in its original form, and this meaning is not found in the profit.