from both of them, and whichever of them it is paid to, he is absolved of it. If it is lost in the possession of one of them without negligence, it is the responsibility of both of them together; because they are like two agents in demanding [payment], and whatever work each one of them accepts is under their joint responsibility. Each one of them is held accountable for it, and the work is binding upon him, because this partnership is not concluded except upon responsibility, and there is nothing else upon which the partnership is concluded at the time of responsibility. Thus, it is as if the partnership implies that each one of them guarantees for the other what is binding upon him. The Qadi said: It is possible that one of them is not bound by what the other is bound to, as we mentioned before. Whatever is lost due to the aggression of one of them, his negligence, or [loss] while under his possession in a manner that necessitates liability, is his responsibility alone. If one of them confesses to something in his possession, it is accepted against him and against his partner, because the possession is his, so his confession regarding what is in it is accepted; but his confession regarding what is in his partner's possession or a debt owed by him is not accepted, because he has no possession over that.

Section: If one of them performs the work without his partner, the earnings are between them. Ibn Aqil said: Ahmad explicitly stated this in a narration by Ishaq ibn Hani. He was asked about two men who form a partnership in body-based work, where one of them brings something and the other brings nothing. He said: Yes, this is like the hadith of Sa'd and Ibn Mas'ud, meaning where they partnered, and Sa'd brought two captives while the other two failed to bring anything. This is because the work is guaranteed by both of them together, and by their guarantee of it, the wage is owed. Thus, it is for both of them just as the guarantee is upon both of them, and the working partner acts as an assistant to his partner in his share. That does not prevent his entitlement, like someone who hires a man to full a garment for him, and the fuller seeks the help of a person who fulls it with him; the wage belongs to the hired fuller. It is the same here. It is the same whether he leaves the work due to illness or otherwise. If one of them demands that the other work with him or provide someone to stand in his place who will work, he has the right to do so. If he refuses, the other has the right to rescind the contract. It is possible that when he leaves the work without an excuse, he does not share with his partner in the wage for what he performed without him, because he only partnered with him so that they would both work together; so if one of them abandons the work, he has not fulfilled what he stipulated upon himself and thus does not deserve what was allocated to him in exchange for it. This is only potentially permitted in cases where one of them leaves the work due to an excuse, because it is impossible to avoid that.