to be shared between us. The entire fee belongs to the owner of the beast because he is the owner of the source (al-asl), while the other party is entitled to the rent of the equivalent (ajr al-mithl) from the owner of the beast, because he has utilized the benefits of his property through a void contract. This applies if he leases the beast along with the saddle and saddlebags upon it in a single contract. However, if each of them leases his property individually, then each of them is entitled to the fee for his own property. Similarly, if a man says to his companion, 'Lease my slave, and the fee shall be between us,' the fee belongs to the owner of the slave, and the other is entitled to the rent of the equivalent. This applies to all tangible assets.

Section: If three people form a partnership, one providing a beast, another a water-skin (rawiya), and a third providing the labor, on the condition that whatever God Almighty provides shall be shared among them, it is valid according to the analogy of Ahmad's school. For he stated specifically regarding a beast that one gives to another to work with, that they may share the fee, as a matter of validity. This is similar; for he gave his beast to another to work with, and the water-skin is an asset that is increased by the labor performed upon it, so it is like the beast. Accordingly, whatever God provides is to be shared between them according to what they agreed upon. This is the view of al-Shafi'i, because both have appointed the worker in a permissible earning using a tool they have provided to him, thus it resembles the case where one gives his land to another to cultivate it. Likewise, if four people form a partnership, one providing a shop, another a millstone, another a mule, and a fourth providing the labor, on the condition that they grind with these, and whatever God Almighty provides is shared among them, it is valid, and it shall be between them according to what they stipulated. The Qadi said: The contract is void in both cases. This is the apparent view of al-Shafi'i, because this cannot be valid as a partnership (musharaka) nor as a limited partnership (mudaraba), due to the fact that it is not permissible for their capital (ra's al-mal) to be trade goods (urud), and because among their conditions is the return of the capital intact, in the sense that no portion of the profit is entitled to be taken until