had made a profit of six thousand. For this reason, he said: …

“If he does so, he must return his share to the partnership. No division is to be made while the contract remains in force except by mutual agreement. If the capital, or part of it, is destroyed after trading has begun, or if a loss occurs, it is to be made good out of the profit before the profit is divided or the venture’s assets are liquidated.”

His statement, “If he does so, he must return his share to the partnership”: Thus, if the working partner enters into a profit-sharing arrangement with another person’s capital and makes a profit, that profit is added to the profit of the first arrangement. The first capital owner then becomes a partner in it, as though the profit from the second arrangement had been generated by the capital of both parties. This is the view adopted by the author.

Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, said that the first capital owner is not entitled to any part of the profit from the second arrangement, because it was not earned from his capital; rather, it was earned through the working partner’s efforts. The working partner was at fault for entering into a profit-sharing arrangement with another person’s capital in a manner detrimental to the first capital owner. But what makes this profit lawful for the first capital owner? In reality, it is not lawful for him. This view is therefore the stronger one: the working partner’s profit from the second arrangement is not added to the profit of the first arrangement. Rather, it belongs to the working partner, though he is sinful.

If someone were to say, “Suppose he deprived the first capital owner of profits,” then perhaps we would hold him liable, and perhaps we would not. However, the point under discussion is that the profit from the second arrangement is not added to the profit of the first arrangement, according to the stronger view. As for the position of the school, it is as previously explained.

His statement, “No division is to be made while the contract remains in force except by mutual agreement”: the pronoun refers to the profit, because what is divided between the two parties to the profit-sharing arrangement is the profit. The capital, however, belongs to its owner. Thus, the pronoun in “is divided” must refer to the profit. That is, the working partner trades with the capital and makes a profit, while the contract remains in force and has not yet been dissolved. The author says, “It is not divided.” Thus, the profit is not divided so long as