in which one of them favored the other over himself, thus necessitating equality, just as if he said: "This house is between me and you." If he specifies the agent’s share, saying: "You have a third of the profit, or a fourth, or a known portion, whichever portion it may be," then the remainder belongs to the capital owner, because he is entitled to the profit by his capital, as it is its growth and its branch, while the agent takes by virtue of the stipulation; therefore, whatever was stipulated for him he is entitled to, and whatever remains belongs to the capital owner by the rule of the original state. If he specifies the capital owner’s share, such as saying: "I have a third of the profit," without mentioning the agent’s share, there are two views. One is that it is invalid, because the agent is only entitled by stipulation, and nothing was stipulated for him, so the mudaraba is corrupt. The second is that it is valid, and the remainder belongs to the agent. This is the position of Abu Thawr and the Ahl al-Ra'y, because the profit belongs to both of them and no one else is entitled to it; thus, when one of their shares is specified, the remainder belongs to the other by the implication of the expression, just as this is known from His saying, the Almighty: "If he has no child and his parents inherit from him, his mother has a third" (Quran, Surah An-Nisa: 11). He did not mention the father’s share, so it was known that the remainder was for him. Furthermore, if he had said: "I have bequeathed this hundred to Zayd and 'Amr, and Zayd’s share of it is thirty," the remainder would be for 'Amr, so it is the same here. If he says: "I have half and you have a third," and remains silent about the sixth, it is valid, and it belongs to the capital owner, because if he had remained silent about all the remainder after the agent’s portion, it would have belonged to the capital owner, so it is the same when he mentions some of it and leaves some of it. If he says: "Take it as a mudaraba on a third or a half," or says: "For a third or a fourth," it is valid, and it is considered the specification of the agent’s share, because the stipulation is intended for his sake; for the capital owner is entitled by his capital, not by stipulation, whereas the agent is entitled by labor, and labor varies in quantity, and his portion is only specified by stipulation, so the stipulation is for him. Whenever they stipulate something for one of them and they differ as to whom the stipulated portion belongs, it is for the agent, whether it is small or large, for this reason. If he says: "Take it as a mudaraba, you have a third of the profit and a third of what remains," it is valid, and he has five-ninths, because this is the meaning of that. If he says: "You have a third of the profit and a fourth of what remains," then he has...