Such as calling out the merchandise and transporting it to the inn, so the worker is not obliged to perform it, and he may hire someone to do it. Ahmad has explicitly stated this, because the labor in Mudaraba is not specified due to the hardship of specifying it, so it is referred back to custom. If the worker does what he is not required to do voluntarily, he is entitled to no wage. If he does it to take a wage for it, he is also entitled to nothing, according to the explicit text from Ahmad. Our companions derived a position that he is entitled to a wage, based on the partner who acts alone in work he is not required to do; is he entitled to a wage for that? There are two narrations on this, and this is similar to it. The correct view is that he is entitled to nothing in both cases, because he performed work on another's property for which he was not given any consideration, so he is not entitled to anything, like a stranger.

Section: If the Mudaraba capital is stolen or usurped, the Mudarib may pursue it and litigate regarding it, according to one of the two views; in the other, he has no right to do so, because Mudaraba is a contract for trade, so litigation is not included in it. The first is more appropriate, because it entails preserving the capital, and that is not accomplished except through litigation and pursuit, especially if he is absent from the owner of the capital, either due to the travel of the Mudarib or the owner of the capital, for there is no one to pursue it except the Mudarib, and if he abandons it, it will be lost. Based on this, if he neglects litigation and pursuit in this situation, he shall pay compensation for it, because he lost it and was negligent. If the owner of the capital is present and knows the situation, the worker is not required to pursue it, and he is not liable if he abandons it, because the owner of the capital is more entitled to that than his agent.

Section: If he buys a slave for the Mudaraba, and a slave belonging to someone else kills him, and there was no profit in the capital, the matter is up to the owner of the capital; if he wishes, he may seek retribution, and if he wishes, he may pardon without compensation, and the Mudaraba regarding it becomes void due to the loss of the capital. If he wishes, he may pardon in exchange for wealth; if he pardons for the equivalent of the capital, or less, or more, the Mudaraba remains as it is, and the profit is between them according to their condition, because a substitute for the capital was found, so it is as if he found its substitute through a sale. If there is profit in the slave, then retribution is up to both of them, and settlement is likewise, because they are partners in it. The ruling regarding the dissolution or continuation of the Mudaraba is as previously stated.