If he were to be exclusively entitled to the profit of his share, he would deserve more profit than what was stipulated for him, and that which contradicts the implication of a condition is not established by that condition. Ahmad said: If the Mudarib has intercourse with a slave girl from the Mudaraba [capital], and there has been no profit manifested in the capital, she does not become his Umm al-Walad (mother of his child). If, however, there is profit manifested in it, then she is his Umm al-Walad. This indicates that he owns the profit upon its manifestation.

Section: If one gives a man one hundred as a Mudaraba, and he loses ten, then the owner of the capital takes ten from it, the loss does not reduce the capital, because he might make a profit and thereby compensate for the loss. However, it is reduced by what the owner of the capital took, which is the ten, and its share of the loss, which is one dirham and one-ninth of a dirham, leaving the capital at eighty-eight dirhams and eight-ninths of a dirham. If he took half of the remaining ninety, the capital remains fifty, because he took half of the capital, so half of the loss is dropped. If he took fifty, there remains forty-four and four-ninths. Likewise, if the capital makes a profit, then the owner of the capital takes some of it, what he takes is from the profit and the capital. If the capital was one hundred, and he made a profit of twenty, and the owner of the capital took it, the capital remains eighty-three and one-third; because he took one-sixth of the capital, so the capital was reduced by one-sixth of it, which is sixteen and two-thirds, and its share of the profit is three and one-third. If he had taken sixty, the capital remains fifty; because he took half the capital, so half the capital remained. If he took fifty, there remains fifty-eight and one-third; because he took a quarter of the capital and a sixth of it, so its third and quarter remained, which is what we mentioned. If he took sixty from it, then he lost on the remainder so it became forty, then he returned it, he is entitled to five from the owner of the capital; because the Mudaraba was dissolved regarding what the owner of the capital took, so he does not use its profit to compensate for the loss of what remained in his hand, due to his separation from it, and he had taken ten from the profit, because one-sixth of what he took is profit, so the ten was between them. If he did not return all the forty, but rather returned twenty of it to the owner of the capital, the capital remains twenty-five.

Section: If the owner of the capital purchases something from the Mudaraba capital for himself, it is not valid according to one of the two narrations. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. It is valid according to the other, which is the opinion of Malik, al-Awza'i, and Abu Hanifah; because the right of the Mudarib has attached to it, so it is permissible for him to purchase it, just as if he purchased from his Mukatab (emancipated slave on contract) or from his slave authorized to trade who has debts upon him. Our argument is that it is the property of another, so his purchase of it for himself is not valid, just like his purchase from his agent or his slave authorized to trade who has no debts. This differs from the Mukatab; for the master does not own what is in his hand, and that is why he does not pay Zakat on it, and he has the right to take what is in it by right of pre-emption. As for the authorized slave, it is not valid for his master to purchase from him in any case. It is possible that it might be valid if debts have exhausted his property; because creditors take what is in his hand. The correct view is the first, because the master's ownership has not ceased, even if he has the right to take it, like the property of a bankrupt person.

Section: If the Mudarib purchases from the Mudaraba capital for himself, and no profit has appeared in the capital, it is valid. Ahmad explicitly stated this, and it is the opinion of Malik, al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, and Ishaq. This was also narrated from Abu Hanifah. Abu Thawr said: The sale is void; because he is a partner. Our argument is that it is the property of another, so his purchase for himself is valid, just as if an agent purchased from his principal. He only becomes a partner if a profit appears; because he only shares with the owner of the capital in the profit, not in the original capital. Whenever a profit appears in the capital, his purchase is like the purchase of one of the two partners, as we will mention later.

Section: If one of the two partners purchases something from the partnership capital, it is void regarding the amount of his share; because it is his own property. Is it valid regarding his partner's share? There are two views, based on the splitting of the transaction (tafriq al-safqa). The validity of the entire transaction can be inferred, based on the premise that the owner of the capital may purchase from the Mudaraba capital for himself. If one of the two partners purchases his partner's share from him, it is permissible; because he is purchasing the property of another. Ahmad said regarding two partners in food, where one of them wishes to sell his share to his companion: If they do not know its weight, there is no harm, but if they know its weight, then it must be weighed, meaning that whoever knows the amount of something cannot sell it...