dirhams while the other brings dinars. Ahmad explicitly stated this, and it is the view of al-Hasan and Ibn Sirin. Al-Shafi'i said: A partnership is not valid unless they agree on a single currency, based on the principle that the mixing of the two capitals is a condition, and that is not possible except with a single currency. We do not impose that condition, and because both are from the same genus of currency (thaman), the partnership in them is valid, just as it is with a single genus. Whenever they dissolve the partnership, this one takes back his dinars, and that one takes back his dirhams, then they divide the profit. Ahmad explicitly stated this, saying: This one takes back his dinars, and that one takes back his dirhams. He said: Muhammad and al-Hasan say the same. The Qadi said: If they wish to dissolve the partnership, they evaluate the goods in the local currency, and they evaluate the other person's capital in it, and the valuation is done at the time they convert the price into it. Our evidence is that this is a valid partnership where the capital consists of currencies, so the return is in the same genus as the capital, just as if the genus were one.

Section: Equality of the two capitals in amount is not a condition. This is the view of al-Hasan, al-Sha'bi, al-Nakha'i, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). Some of al-Shafi'i's companions said: It is a condition. Our evidence is that they are two capitals of the genus of currencies, so the partnership contract is permissible regarding them, just as if they were equal.

Section: Mixing the two capitals is not a condition, provided they have specified them and brought them forward. This is the view of Abu Hanifa and Malik, except that Malik stipulated that both of their hands must be upon it, such as by placing it in a shop belonging to both of them or in the hand of their agent. Al-Shafi'i said: It is not valid until they mix the two capitals, because if they do not mix them, then each person's capital might perish from his share alone, or increase for him alone, so the partnership does not form, just as it would be with measurable goods. Our evidence is that it is a contract intended for profit, so mixing the capital is not a condition therein, like Mudarabah (profit-sharing partnership), and because it is a contract regarding disposal (tasarruf), so mixing it is not a condition, like agency (wakalah). Regarding their claim that it perishes from his partner's capital or increases upon his partner's property, this is denied; rather, whatever perishes from their capital and whatever increases belongs to both of them, because the partnership necessitates the establishment of ownership for each of them in half of the other's capital, so its loss is from both of them, and its increase is for both of them. Abu Hanifa said: Whenever one of the two capitals perishes, it is the liability of its owner. Our evidence is that loss and liability are among the necessities of a partnership, so they relate to both partners, like profit, and just as if they had mixed the capitals.