It was also said that the capital may validly consist of trade goods, provided that they are appraised in currency when the partnership is formed. Thus, one partner may bring foodstuffs and the other textiles, and the two are combined. But when the partnership is dissolved, we do not tell one of them, “Buy foodstuffs for your partner,” nor do we tell the other, “Buy textiles for your partner,” for textiles may rise in value and foodstuffs may likewise rise in value. Rather, at the time the partnership is formed, we ask: What are the foodstuffs worth? And what are the textiles worth? If they say, “The foodstuffs are worth ten thousand, and the textiles are worth ten thousand,” then upon dissolution we return to the valuation and give each of them ten thousand. The capital is thereby divided equally, while the profit is divided according to the stipulated terms.

If the cars are worth one million and the foodstuffs five hundred thousand, then the capital is divided into thirds: the owner of the cars has two-thirds, and the owner of the foodstuffs has one-third.

Thus, the second view on this issue is that the capital may validly consist of something other than minted gold and silver currency, but its value is assessed in gold or silver currency at the time the partnership is formed, so that each partner may return to the value of his property when the partnership is dissolved. This view is the stronger one, and it is the view acted upon.

His statement, “It is stipulated that the capital consist of the two monetary metals,” apparently applies even if one partner’s contribution is gold and the other’s is silver. This is based on the assumption that the price of silver does not change, as was the case in earlier times. In those days, one dinar equaled twelve dirhams; accordingly, three dirhams equaled one-quarter of a dinar. This is why it is stated concerning theft: “The hand is not to be cut off except for …”