For example, one person’s capital consists of textiles and the other’s of foodstuffs. They say that the foodstuffs must be brought to where the textiles are, or vice versa, so that both are kept at one place of business, even though each one works with his own capital. This is mixing in respect of location, and it is the view of Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him.

The second form is that the two capitals must be fully mixed together, and each of them must transact with both capitals together. That is, the two capitals become blended like a single capital, as though the business belonged to one person, with both of them working in it. This is complete mixing, and it is the view of al-Shafi‘i.

Thus, mixing takes two forms: complete mixing and mixing in respect of location.

The second view is that it is not a condition: each of them may work with his own capital in his own location. Thus, even if one of them is in Mecca and the other in Medina, and they enter into an ‘inan partnership, there is nothing wrong with it.

Those who hold that it is a condition argue: Where is the partnership if each one works in a different place and with his own exclusive capital? The answer is that once they become partners, the capital located in that town is shared equally between him and his partner, and the capital in his own town is likewise shared equally between him and his partner—just as if they were partners in jointly owned property; this is how their arrangement would be.

The stronger view is that mixing the two capitals is not a condition, as the author states, because the partnership exists without such mixing, since the objective is profit.

His statement, “nor that they be of one kind,” refers to the two currencies. Thus, if one of them brings gold and the other silver, there is nothing wrong with it. However, this is based on the assumption that the value of gold and silver does not fluctuate.