mixing of capital, like Mudarabah, and because it is a contract regarding disposal (tasarruf), so mixing is not a condition therein, just as in agency (wakalah). Regarding [Malik’s] condition, it is not a condition that both of their hands be upon it, just as in agency. Their claim that "it perishes from his partner's capital or increases upon his partner's property" 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.

Section: Whenever a partnership is concluded in a corrupt (fasid) manner, they shall divide the profit according to the proportion of their respective capitals, and each of them shall have recourse against the other for the wages of his labor. Ahmad explicitly stated this regarding Mudarabah, and the Qadi chose this view. This is the school of thought of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i, because the stipulated [profit share] falls away in a corrupt contract, like a corrupt sale when the object sold perishes in the buyer’s possession, unless the capital of each of them is distinct and its profit is known, in which case he is entitled to the profit of his [specific] capital. If he earned a distinct profit on a portion of it while the rest was mixed, he is entitled to what is distinguished as the profit of his capital, and he is entitled to the remainder of the profit based on his share of the remaining capital. Al-Sharif Abu Ja'far chose the view that they should divide the profit according to what they stipulated, and neither of them is entitled to the wages of his labor from the other. He treated it according to the same rules as a valid contract in all its aspects. He said: Because Ahmad said: If they form a partnership in goods (urud), the profit is divided according to what they stipulated. He argued that it is a contract that is valid even with ignorance [of some details], so the stipulated terms are binding in its corrupt version, like marriage. However, the first [opinion] is the established school of thought (madhhab), as stated by the Qadi. Ahmad's statement is interpreted in light of the other narration regarding the validity of Mudarabah with goods, because the fundamental principle is that the profit of each person’s capital belongs to its owner, for it is its growth; that was only abandoned due to the valid contract. If the contract is not valid, the ruling remains according to the original principle, just as a corrupt sale does not