and he purchased a slave girl to have intercourse with her, her price is removed from the Mudaraba and becomes a debt upon his person, because the permissibility of sexual relations is not obtained except through ownership, according to the words of the Almighty: "except with their wives or those whom their right hands possess" (Qur'an 23:6).

Section: Neither of them may marry off the slave girl because it diminishes her, nor may they enter into a mukataba (contract of manumission) with the slave for the same reason. If they both agree to that, it is permissible because the right belongs to both of them and does not exit from them.

Section: The Mudarib may not entrust the capital to another person for Mudaraba. Ahmad stated this explicitly in the narration of al-Athram, Harb, and Abdullah, saying: "If the owner of the capital gives him permission [to do so], otherwise he may not." The Qadi derived a position permitting this, based on the principle of an agent appointing another agent without the permission of the principal. This derivation is not sound, and drawing an analogy between this and an agent is precluded for two reasons: First, he handed the capital over to him here to conduct Mudaraba with it, and by handing it to someone else for Mudaraba, he ceases to be the one conducting the Mudaraba with it, unlike the agent. Second, this necessitates an obligation upon the wealth for someone else, and it is not permissible to create an obligation upon a person's wealth without his permission. Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i held this view, and I do not know of any disagreement with them from others. If he does so, and the wealth is not lost nor is any profit realized, he must return it to its owner, and he has nothing [for his effort], nor is anything held against him. If it is lost or profit is realized from it, then al-Sharif Abu Ja'far said: He is in terms of liability and disposal like a usurper (ghasib), and the owner of the capital may demand from whichever of them he wishes the return of the capital if it remains, and he shall return its value if it is lost or if its return becomes impossible. If he demands it from the first one and holds him liable for the value of the lost item, and the second one did not know of the situation, he [the first one] has no recourse against him for anything, because he handed it to him in the capacity of a trust. If he did know of the situation, he does have recourse against him, because he seized the wealth of someone else by way of aggression, and it was lost while under his possession, so the liability is established