say "mudaraba"; because the wording is suitable for what he established its ruling for, from ibda' (deposit) and qard (loan), unlike when he makes mudaraba explicit. What Malik mentioned is not valid, because a gift (hiba) is not valid before the existence of the gifted object.

Section: It is permissible to give capital to two people as a mudaraba in a single contract. If he stipulates for them a portion of the profit to be shared equally between them, it is permissible. If he says: "You both have such-and-such of the profit," without specifying how it is, it is to be divided equally between them; because the absolute nature of his statement "between them" necessitates equality, just as if he had said to his worker: "And the profit is between us." If he stipulates for one of them a third of the profit and for the other a fourth, and makes the remainder for himself, it is permissible. This is the position of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i. Malik said: It is not permissible, because they are partners in work with their bodies (labor), so it is not permissible for them to differ in profit, like the two partners of labor (sharikay al-abdan). Our argument is that the contract of one [principal] with two [agents] is two contracts, so it is permissible to stipulate in one of them more than the other, just as if he were alone. Furthermore, they are entitled to it by virtue of their labor, and since they differ in that, they may differ in the compensation, like two hired workers. We do not concede the necessity of equality in the partnership of bodies; rather, it is like our issue regarding the permissibility of their differing. Moreover, the difference between them is that this is one contract, while those are two contracts.

Section: If two people enter into a qirad with one person using a thousand [units of currency] belonging to both of them, it is permissible. When they stipulate for him a profit equal from both of them, it is permissible. If one of them stipulates for him half, and the other a third, it is permissible, and the remaining profit of the capital of each of them belongs to his partner. If they stipulate that the remainder of the profit is to be split equally between them, it is not permissible. This is the position of al-Shafi'i. The words of al-Qadi imply its permissibility. That is also narrated from Abu Hanifa and Abu Thawr. Our argument is that one of them is left with half of the profit of his capital, while the other is left with