partnership. It is 'partnership of equality' (sharikat al-'inan). Its meaning is that two men partner with their capitals on the condition that they work with them using their bodies, and the profit is between them. It is permissible by consensus, as mentioned by Ibn al-Mundhir. However, there is disagreement regarding some of its conditions, and there is disagreement regarding the reason for calling it 'sharikat al-'inan.' It is said it is named as such because they are equal in capital and disposal, like two riders if they align their horses and are equal in their pace, for their reins ('inan) are equal. Al-Farra' said: It is derived from the phrase 'the thing 'anna' when it appears; it is said: 'A need 'annat for me' when it appears. The partnership was named this because each of the two partners 'anna for him to partner with his companion. It is also said it is derived from al-mu'anana, which is opposition (al-mu'arada); it is said: 'I have opposed (anantu) so-and-so' when you counter him with the like of his wealth and actions. Thus, each of the two partners is opposing his companion with his wealth and actions. This returns to the statement of al-Farra'.

Section: There is no disagreement that it is permissible to make the capital dirhams and dinars, as they are the valuations of wealth and the prices of commodities. People have partnered with them from the time of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, to our own time without objection. As for commodities ('urud), partnership therein is not permissible according to the manifest [position] of the school. Ahmad stated this in a narration by Abu Talib and Harb, and Ibn al-Mundhir narrated it from him. Ibn Sirin, Yahya ibn Abi Kathir, al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Abu Thawr, and the People of Reason (Ashab al-Ra'y) disliked it, because a partnership must occur either on the physical assets of the commodities, their value, or their prices. It is not permissible for it to occur on their physical assets because partnership necessitates returning with the capital or its equivalent upon dissolution, and these have no equivalent to be returned; furthermore, the value of the category of one might increase while the other does not, so he would absorb all the profit or all the capital, or its value might decrease, which would lead to the other partner sharing in the price of his property that is not profit. Neither is it permissible on their value because the value is not a realized amount, which leads to dispute, and a thing might be appraised at more than