its value, and because the value might increase in one of them before its sale, so the other partner shares in the physical asset owned by him. It is not permissible for it to occur on their prices because they are non-existent at the time of the contract and they do not own them; and because if he meant the price with which he bought it, it has already exited his ownership and become the seller's, and if he meant the price with which he sells it, it becomes a partnership contingent upon a condition, which is the sale of the assets, and that is not permissible. There is another narration from Ahmad that partnership and Mudaraba are permissible with commodities, and their value at the time of the contract is made the capital. Ahmad said: If they partner in commodities, the profit is divided according to what they stipulated. Al-Athram said: I heard Abu Abd Allah being asked about Mudaraba with merchandise? He said: It is permissible. The manifest implication of this is the validity of partnership with them. Abu Bakr and Abu al-Khattab chose this. It is the position of Malik and Ibn Abi Layla. Mudaraba with this was also the position of Tawus, al-Awza'i, and Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman; because the objective of the partnership is the permissibility of disposing of both capitals, and the profit of the two capitals being between them, and this occurs in commodities just as it occurs in prices, so partnership and Mudaraba with them should be valid, like prices. Each of the two partners returns at the time of dissolution with the value of his capital at the time of the contract, just as we have made their value the threshold (nisab) for their Zakat. Al-Shafi'i said: If the commodities are from things that have equivalents, such as grains and oils, partnership with them is permissible in one of the two views, because they are things that have equivalents, they resemble currency, and one returns at the time of dissolution with their equivalent. If they are not from things that have equivalents, it is not permissible, in a single view; because it is not possible to return with their equivalent. Our evidence is that it is a type of partnership, so a capital that has an equivalent among commodities and one that does not have an equivalent are equal in it, like Mudaraba, and he has conceded that Mudaraba is not permissible with anything from commodities, and because it is not currency, so partnership with it is not valid, like that which has no equivalent.