Section: Corrupt conditions are divided into three categories: The first is that which contradicts the requirements of the contract, such as stipulating that the Mudaraba be binding, or that he cannot dismiss him for a specific period, or that he may not sell except at the capital amount or less, or that he may not sell except to the one from whom he purchased, or stipulating that he shall not buy, or shall not sell, or that he gives him preference in whatever goods he chooses, or the like. These are corrupt conditions because they cause the loss of the purpose of the Mudaraba, which is profit, or they prevent the dissolution [of the contract] which is permissible by the rule of the original foundation. The second category is that which leads to ignorance of the profit, such as stipulating for the Mudarib a portion of the profit that is unknown, or the profit of one of two earnings, or one of two thousands, or one of two slaves, or the profit of one of two journeys, or what is earned in this month, or that the right of one of them is in a slave he purchases, or stipulating for one of them known dirhams from all his right or part of it, or stipulating a portion of the profit for a third party. These are corrupt conditions because they lead to ignorance of the right of each of them to the profit, or to its total loss, and a condition of Mudaraba is that the profit be known. The third category is the stipulation of things that are neither in the interest of the contract nor of its requirements, such as stipulating that the Mudarib performs Mudaraba for him with other wealth, or that he takes it as merchandise or a loan, or that he serves him in a specific matter, or makes use of some of the goods, such as wearing the garment, using the slave, or riding the beast, or stipulating upon the Mudarib the guarantee of the wealth or a share of the loss, or that whenever he sells the commodity, he has the priority for it at the price, or the Mudarib stipulates something of that nature upon the owner of the wealth. These are all corrupt conditions. We have mentioned many of them in other than this place with their underlying reasons. Whenever he stipulates a corrupt condition that leads to ignorance of the profit, the Mudaraba is rendered corrupt; because the corruption is due to a reason in the exchange being contracted upon, so it corrupts the contract, as if he made the capital wine or a pig, and because ignorance prevents delivery, so it leads to dispute and disagreement, and it is unknown what he will hand over to the Mudarib. As for other corrupt conditions, the text narrated from Ahmad,

Section: In a corrupt Mudaraba, there are three issues: The first is that if he acts, his actions are legally binding; because he granted him permission for it, so when the contract is voided, the permission remains, through which he possessed the authority to act, like an agent. If it is said: If a man makes a corrupt purchase and then acts upon it, his action is not binding, even though the seller permitted him to act. We say: That is because the buyer acts from the perspective of ownership, not by permission. If the seller permitted him, it was on the basis that it is the property of the one permitted. When he did not own it, it was not valid. Here, the owner of the wealth permitted him to act upon his own property, and the condition he stipulated that is corrupt is not stipulated in exchange for the permission; because he permitted him an act that benefits him. The second issue is that all the profit belongs to the owner of the wealth; because it is the growth of his wealth, and the agent only deserves it through the condition. When the Mudaraba is corrupt, the condition is corrupt, so he does not deserve anything from it, but he is entitled to a fair wage (ajr al-mithl). Ahmad explicitly stated this, and it is the school of al-Shafi'i. Sharif Abu Ja'far chose the view that the profit is divided between them according to what they stipulated, and he argued based on what was narrated from Ahmad, who said: If they form a partnership in goods, the profit is divided according to what they stipulated. He said: This partnership is corrupt. He also argued that it is a contract that is valid even with ignorance, so the named [share] is established in its corrupt state, like marriage. He said: And he has no wage. He made all its rulings like the rulings of a valid one. We have already mentioned...