Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/414)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

If it is asked: How can it be valid for one of them to be given more than the profit generated by his own capital? We say: Yes, this may be so, because he may grant the other a larger share, since the latter is more experienced in buying and selling; thus, he gives him more than the profit generated by his own capital. As for loss, however, it is not possible to make either of them bear more than the loss incurred by his own capital, because making him bear more than the loss incurred by his capital means adding some of his wealth to that of the other, and this is consuming wealth unlawfully. Thus, if the capital is divided between them such that one owns three-quarters and the other one-quarter, and the loss is four hundred, yet they stipulate that the loss be divided equally, then the owner of the one-quarter share would bear an excess. This means that we have taken something from his wealth and added it to the wealth of the other, and this is not permissible, due to His saying:

“Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth glorifies Allah—the Sovereign, the Most Holy, the Almighty, the All-Wise.” [al-Baqarah: 188]

Thus, profit is distributed according to their stipulation, whereas loss is borne in proportion to the capital.

His statement, “The mixing of the two capitals is not a condition,” means that it is not a condition for them to mix their capitals. Rather, there is nothing wrong if each of them works with his own capital, because what is intended is profit, not the mixing of the capital. The author has negated this condition. Know that the scholars have a principle: they do not negate something unless there is a difference of opinion concerning it. For if there is no disagreement, then silence about it suffices in place of explicitly negating it. But when there is disagreement, they expressly negate it in order to dismiss that disagreement. Thus, his statement, “The mixing of the two capitals is not a condition,” indicates the rejection of the view that it is a condition. The view that mixing is required takes two forms:

The first is that the two capitals must be brought together and placed in one place of business, even if each person’s capital remains distinct.

فإذا قيل: كيف يصح أن يعطى هذا أكثر من ربح ماله؟ قلنا: نعم؛ لأنه ربما جعل للثاني أكثر منه؛ لأنه أخبر منه في البيع والشراء، فأعطاه أكثر من ربح ماله، أما الوضيعة فلا يمكن أن نحمِّل أحدهما أكثر من خسارة ماله؛ لأن تحميلنا إياه أكثر من خسارة ماله، معناه إضافة شيء من ماله إلى مال الآخر وهذا أكل للمال بالباطل، فلو كان المال بينهما أحدهما ثلاثة أرباع والآخر الربع، والخسارة أربعمائة وقد قالوا: إن الخسارة أنصافاً فيكون على صاحب الربع زيادة، فمعنى ذلك أننا اقتطعنا من ماله شيئاً أضفناه إلى مال الآخر، وهذا لا يجوز لقوله: ﴿يُسَبِّحُ لِلَّهِ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الأَرْضِ الْمَلِكِ الْقُدُّوسِ الْعَزِيزِ الْحَكِيمِ *﴾ [البقرة: ١٨٨]. فصار الربح على ما شرطاه، وأما الوضيعة فعلى قدر المال. قوله: «ولا يشترط خلط المالين» يعني لا يشترط أن يَخلطا المالين، بل لو عمل كل واحد منهما بماله فلا بأس؛ لأن المقصود الربح لا الخلط، وهذا نفاه المؤلف، واعلم أن لدى العلماء قاعدة وهي أنهم لا ينفون شيئاً إلا لوجود خلاف فيه؛ لأنه إذا لم يكن خلاف فالسكوت عن ذكره يغني عن نفيه، لكن إذا كان هناك خلاف، فإنهم يذكرون النفي دفعاً لهذا الخلاف، فقوله: «ولا يشترط خلط المالين» إشارة إلى نفي القول باشتراطه، والقول باشتراط الخلط نوعان: الأول: أنه لا بد أن يؤتى بالمالين، ويجعلا في متجر واحد، ولو كان كل واحد منهما ماله متميزاً.