in the most apparent of the two narrations from him, the contract is valid. Al-Athram and others mentioned this from him; because it is a contract that is valid even with an unknown [share], therefore corrupt conditions do not invalidate it, like marriage, manumission, and divorce. Al-Qadi and Abu al-Khattab mentioned another narration: that they do invalidate the contract; because it is a corrupt condition, therefore it corrupts the contract, like the condition of [receiving] known dirhams, or the condition that he purchases goods for him. The ruling on partnership (sharika) is the same as that of Mudaraba.

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...