two-thirds. Thus, if they stipulate equality, one of them has stipulated for the other a portion of the profit of his capital without any work, which is not permissible, just as if he had stipulated the profit of his own individual capital.

Section: If they both stipulate a portion of the profit for someone other than the agent, you must consider the case: If they stipulate it for the slave of one of them or for both of their slaves, it is valid, and that is considered a stipulation for his master. If they make the profit between them and their slaves in thirds, the owner of the slave receives two-thirds, and the other receives one-third. If they stipulate it for a third party, or for the child of one of them [or his wife], or his relative, and they stipulate upon him work along with the agent, it is valid, and they both become agents. If they do not stipulate any work for him, the mudaraba is not valid. This is the position of al-Shafi'i. It is narrated from the Ashab al-Ra'y (the Hanafi school) that it is valid, and the portion stipulated for him belongs to the capital owner, regardless of whether they stipulate it for a relative of the agent, a relative of the capital owner, or a third party; because the agent is not entitled to anything except what is stipulated for him, the capital owner is entitled to the profit by virtue of the principle, and the third party is not entitled to anything because he only becomes entitled to profit through capital or work, and this is neither of the two. Thus, what was stipulated, he is not entitled to, so it reverts to the capital owner, just as if he had neglected to mention it. Our argument is that it is a corrupt condition that affects the profit, and thus the contract is corrupted by it, just as if he had stipulated a known sum of dirhams. If he says: "You have two-thirds, on the condition that you give your wife half of it," the ruling is the same; because he stipulated a condition in the profit that is not binding, so it was corrupt. The ruling in partnership (sharika) is the same as the ruling in mudaraba, regarding what we have mentioned.

Section: The ruling in partnership is the same as the ruling in mudaraba, regarding the necessity of knowing the amount of profit for each of them. However, if they leave it absolute and do not mention the profit, it is between them according to the ratio of the two capitals. In the partnership of credit (sharikat al-wujuh), it is according to the ratio of their ownership in the purchased goods; because they have a foundation to which they can return, and the profit is estimated by it, unlike mudaraba, where it is not possible to estimate the profit in it