some capital, but they have not entered into partnership with respect to the capital. A partnership of labor is a partnership in work, whereby two people share whatever they earn through their respective labor.

His statement, “Whatever work either of them undertakes, both of them are required to perform,”—mā (whatever) is a conditional particle; taqabbala (undertakes) is the verb of the condition, and yalzamu (is required) is its consequence. The verb of the condition and its consequence may both be in the present tense, both in the past tense, or they may differ.

An example of the first is: “If Zayd stands, ʿAmr stands.”

An example of the second is: “If Zayd stood, ʿAmr stood.”

An example of the third is: “If Zayd stood, ʿAmr stands,” and, “If Zayd stands, ʿAmr stood.”

Thus, in his statement, “Whatever work either of them undertakes, both of them are required to perform,” the verb of the condition and its consequence differ. Taqabbala is the verb of the condition, while yalzamahumā (both of them are required) is its consequence. This is why we say that it is in the jussive form. From the perspective of Arabic grammar, however, it may also be in the indicative form, as Ibn Mālik said:

“After a past-tense verb, raising the consequence is acceptable;
But raising it after a present-tense verb is unsound.”

Here, taqabbala is in the past tense, so it is permissible to place the present-tense verb that forms the consequence in the indicative. Yet if we were to do so here, the meaning would differ. If it were read as yalzamahumā, the sentence would become an adjective describing “work,” and the meaning would change.

The meaning of the phrase is that whatever work either of them undertakes becomes binding upon both of them. To undertake work means to commit oneself to it; thus, whatever work one of them commits himself to is binding upon both of them. This is clear when their trades are the same—for example, if two people enter into partnership