perhaps new forms of partnership may arise which are difficult to subsume under what the jurists have stated. If we encounter a type of partnership that has emerged—as happens in contemporary transactions—we should not declare it unlawful merely because it falls outside what the jurists mentioned, for the basic principle is permissibility.

The apparent meaning of the author’s statement, “It is of various types,” is that it refers to partnership in both its divisions: co-ownership partnership and contractual partnership. But this is not what is intended; rather, he means contractual partnership alone.

His statement, “An ‘inan partnership”: this is an annexation of a thing to its type, because partnerships are genera and their individual forms are types. It has been said that it is derived from the reins of horses: the two partners are like racers, each holding the reins of his horse.

It has also been said that it is derived from the expression ‘anna lahu (it occurred to him), as though it occurred to each of them to enter into partnership with the other. However, this second derivation does not exclude the remaining types, because all the other types arise only through what occurs to each person—that is, what comes to mind. Thus, deriving it from the first meaning is closer to what is correct. So what is an ‘inan partnership?

His statement, “for two persons to enter into partnership”: that is, two individuals.

His statement, “with their known capital, even if unequal, in order to work with it through their own labor”: thus, there is capital and there is personal labor.

An example is that Zayd and ‘Amr wish to enter into partnership in capital and business dealings. Each brings his own capital and says to the other, “We are partners.” This is called an ‘inan partnership, because it combines capital and personal labor.