Section: If the wealth is lost before the purchase, the Mudaraba is rescinded due to the disappearance of the wealth to which the contract was attached. Whatever he purchases after that for the Mudaraba is binding upon him, and the price is his liability, whether he knew of the loss of the wealth before paying the price or was ignorant of it. Does it depend on the permission of the capital owner? There are two narrations: one of them is that if he authorizes it, the price is his [the capital owner's] liability, and the Mudaraba remains as it is; if he does not authorize it, it is binding upon the agent. The second is that it is for the agent in any case. If he buys something for the Mudaraba and the wealth is lost before he pays for it, the purchase is for the Mudaraba, its contract remains, the capital owner is liable for the price, and the capital becomes the price instead of what was lost; because the first [portion] was lost before disposal occurred upon it. This is the view of some Shafi'is. Among them are those who said: The capital is this and the lost portion. This is narrated from Abu Hanifa and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan. Our view is that what was lost was lost before disposal occurred upon it, so it is not from the capital, just as if it were lost before the purchase. If he buys two slaves with the Mudaraba wealth and one of them is lost, its loss is from the profit, and the capital does not decrease by its loss, because it was lost after disposal occurred upon it. If both slaves are lost, the Mudaraba is rescinded due to the disappearance of all its wealth. If the capital owner gives him a thousand after that, the thousand is the capital, and it is not added to the first Mudaraba, because it was rescinded due to the departure of its wealth.

837 - Issue: He said: "And if the capital owner and the Mudarib agree that the profit is between them, and the loss is upon them both, the profit is between them and the loss is upon the wealth."

Its summary is that whenever he stipulates upon the Mudarib the guarantee of the wealth, or a share of the loss, the condition is invalid. We do not know of any disagreement regarding this, and the contract is valid. Ahmad stipulated this. It is the view of Abu Hanifa and Malik. It is narrated from Ahmad that the contract is corrupted by it. This is narrated from al-Shafi'i; because it is a corrupt condition, so it corrupts the Mudaraba, just as if he had stipulated for one of them an extra amount of dirhams. The [correct] school of thought is the first [opinion]. Our view is that it is a condition that does not affect the uncertainty (jahala) of the profit, so it is not corrupted by it, just as if he had stipulated the binding nature of the Mudaraba. It differs from the condition of [fixed] dirhams; because if the condition is corrupted, the share of each of them from the profit is established as unknown.