Section
The second is muḍārabah: [the handing over of capital] to someone who will trade with it for a share of its profit, …
His statement, “The second is muḍārabah”: “the second” means the second of the types of contractual partnership. Muḍārabah is derived from travelling through the land, that is, journeying in it. Allah, Most High, says:
“And others travel throughout the land, seeking Allah’s bounty.” [al-Muzzammil: 20]
It is well known that every commercial venture is muḍārabah in the linguistic sense—that is, a person travels through the land. Yet this particular type of transaction has been specifically given this name by convention, not by linguistic derivation. Similarly, Muzdalifah is called Jamʿ (Gathering), even though the pilgrims gather at Arafah. Nevertheless, linguists conventionally call Muzdalifah Jamʿ. Muzdalifah was also given this name because of its proximity to the Sacred Precinct, although Mina is closer to the Sacred Precinct than Muzdalifah. Yet this is simply the established convention. It may also be said that Muzdalifah was so named because it is a sacred ritual site, as Arafah is also a sacred ritual site, and Muzdalifah is the nearer of the two to Mecca.
His statement, “to someone who will trade with it”: it is known that every genitive construction must have a governing element to which it relates. That governing element is either explicit or omitted. If it is explicit, the matter is clear; but if it is omitted, it must be supplied in a way that suits the context. Thus, here we understand muḍārabah to mean the handing over of capital to someone who will trade with it. Accordingly, the phrase is governed by an implied verbal noun—namely, the handing over of capital to someone who will trade with it.
His statement, “to someone who will trade with it,” means: to someone who trades with it.
His statement, “for a share of its profit”: the author said, “for a share of its profit,” without specifying that share. So, is it permissible for you to say, “Take this capital as a muḍārabah investment for a share of its profit?”
The answer is no. However, the author relies on what he states in the chapter