and 'Ammar on the day of Badr, and neither I nor 'Ammar brought anything, while Sa'd brought two captives. Something like this would not be hidden from the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), yet he approved them in it. Ahmad said: The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) established a partnership between them. If it is said: The spoils are shared between the warriors by the decree of Allah the Almighty, so how can it be valid for these individuals to have exclusive rights to them via partnership? Some Shafi'is said: The spoils of Badr belonged to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and it was within his right to grant them to whom he wished. Thus, it is possible that he did that for this reason. We say: As for the first point, the answer is that the spoils of Badr belonged to those who took them before Allah the Almighty established a partnership between them; for this reason, it was reported that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Whoever takes something, it is his." Thus, it was from the category of permissible things: whoever succeeds in taking something, it is his. It is also possible that he established the partnership between them regarding what they obtain of spoils and minor booty, but the first is more correct due to his saying: "Sa'd brought two captives, and neither I nor 'Ammar brought anything." As for the second, Allah the Almighty only assigned the spoils to His Prophet (peace be upon him) after they had taken them as spoils and differed regarding them; then Allah the Almighty revealed: {They ask you about the spoils (al-anfal), say: The spoils belong to Allah and the Messenger}. The partnership, however, was before that. This is also indicated by the fact that if they belonged to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), it would have to be either that he permitted them to take them—in which case they became like permissible things—or he did not permit them, so how could they partner in something that belongs to someone else? This report also serves as a proof against Abu Hanifa; for they partnered in a permissible object and in something that was not a craft, which he forbids. Furthermore, labor is one of the two aspects of mudaraba (speculative partnership), so partnership in it is valid just as it is with capital. Against Abu Hanifa, it is that they partnered in a permissible earning, so it is valid, just as if they partnered in sewing or fulling. We do not concede that agency is invalid in permissible things; for it is valid to appoint someone to obtain them for a fee, so it is likewise valid without compensation if one of them volunteers for it, just like appointing someone to sell his property.

Section: Partnership of bodies is valid with identical crafts. As for when they differ, [the following follows]...