Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/437)

without an excuse—as in the case of someone who is indifferent and does not work without any excuse—the position of the school is that the earnings are shared between them, because the partner is able to demand that his associate provide someone to take his place, yet he has not done so. However, this view is open to question.

The correct view is that whatever his partner earns on that day belongs exclusively to him, because the other abandoned the work without an excuse, while his partner alone earned the income.

If someone were to ask: Is he not required to demand that his partner provide someone to replace him?

We reply: Indeed he is. Yet a person may feel embarrassed, or he may assume that his partner left work due to an excuse and thus feel too shy to go to him and demand that he work. Therefore, the more correct view in this matter is that if he abandons work without an excuse, he is not entitled to the earnings for the period in which he left the work without excuse.

His statement, “And if the healthy partner asks him,” means the one who has not fallen ill.

His statement, “to provide someone in his place, he is obliged to do so”: the word may be pronounced maqāmahu or muqāmahu. If it derives from a four-letter verb, its first letter takes a dammah; if it derives from a three-letter verb, it takes a fathah. This is the rule. Thus, one says qāma maqāman, and one says aqāma muqāmahu, because the latter is a four-letter verb.

Thus, if it is a four-letter verb, its first letter takes a dammah; and if it is a three-letter verb, its first letter takes a fathah.

So, if the healthy partner demands that he provide someone in his place, he is obliged to do so. If he refuses, the other partner has the right to dissolve the partnership. He may say: “If you will not provide someone to take your place with me, then I dissolve the partnership.” But how can he be permitted to dissolve it when the contract has been concluded between him and his partner, and they are partners? We reply: because work has become impossible on account of his partner, and this partner cannot carry out the work alone, he has the right to dissolve it.

لغير عذر، مثل إنسان لا يهتم ولا يعمل بدون عذر، فالمذهب الكسب بينهما؛ لأنه يمكن للشريك أن يطالب شريكه بمن يقوم مقامه ولم يفعل، ولكن هذا فيه نظر. والصواب أن ما كسبه صاحبه في هذا اليوم له، يختص به؛ لأن هذا ترك العمل بغير عذر، والآخر انفرد بالكسب. فإذا قال قائل: أليس يلزمه أن يطالبه بأن يقيم مقامه من يكون بدله؟ قلنا: بلى، لكن ربما يستحيي الإنسان، وربما يظن أنه ترك العمل لعذر فيخجل أن يذهب إليه ويطالبه بالعمل، فلذلك القول الراجح في هذه المسألة أنه إذا ترك العمل لغير عذر، فإنه لا يستحق كسب ذلك الزمن الذي ترك فيه العمل بغير عذر. قوله: «وإن طالبه الصحيح» يعني الذي لم يمرض. قوله: «أن يقيم مقامه لَزِمَه» مُقامه أو مَقامه، إذا كانت رباعية فهي بضم أوله، وإن كانت ثلاثية فهي بالفتح هذه القاعدة، فتقول: قَام مَقام، وتقول: أقَام مُقامه؛ لأنه رباعي. فنقول: إذا كان رباعيّاً فضم أوله، وإذا كان ثلاثيّاً فافتح أوله. فإن طالبه الصحيح أن يقيم مُقامه لزمه، فإن أبى فللآخر فسخ الشركة، فيقول: إذا كنت لا تقيم معي من يقوم مقامك فإني أفسخ الشركة، ولكن كيف يمكَّن من الفسخ وقد تم العقد بينه وبين صاحبه وهما شريكان؟! قلنا: لما تعذر العمل من قبل صاحبه ولا يمكن أن ينفرد هذا بالعمل، صار له حق الفسخ.