Ya'qūb, the slave of Abū Madhkūr whose emancipation had been stipulated to take effect upon his master's death (1), and his sale of a black slave in exchange for two slaves (2).
As for his purchases, they were numerous. He also entered into contracts of hire, both as the provider and as the hirer, though more often as the hirer. The only recorded instance of his hiring himself out before prophethood was to tend (3) sheep (4). He also hired himself out to Khadījah when he travelled to Syria with her trading capital.
If (5) the contract was a profit-sharing partnership, then the managing partner is a custodian, a hired worker, an agent, and a partner: a custodian when he receives the capital; an agent when he transacts with it; a hired worker in the work he performs personally; and a partner when it yields a profit.
Al-Hākim included in his “Sahīh” (6) a report transmitted by al-Rabī' ibn Badr, from
(1) Reported by al-Bukhārī (2141) and Muslim (997), on the authority of Jābir. His name is given in the reports of Ahmad (14133) and Abū Dāwūd (3957).
(2) Reported by Muslim (1602), on the authority of Jābir.
(3) ك, ع, مب, ن read: “ri‘āya (tending).”
(4) ج contains the following marginal annotation: “This is questionable. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not tend sheep for wages; rather, Qarārīt is the name of a place. He, peace be upon him, tended his family’s sheep and was twenty-five years old at the time. Suwayd ibn Sa‘īd erred in his explanation of qarārīt. I have discussed his error and the responses to it elsewhere. Allah knows best.” The view that Qarārīt is a place name is reported from Ibrāhīm al-Harbī. Ibn al-Jawzī stated in Kashf al-Mushkil (3/546): “This is more correct, because Suwayd’s statement cannot be relied upon.” Ibn Hajar noted in al-Fath (4/441) that Ibn al-Jawzī followed Ibn Nāsir, but then favored the interpretation that the word is the plural of qīrāt, and that the people of Mecca know of no place called Qarārīt.
(5) ك and ع read “wa-kāna (and it was),” omitting “in (if),” which was restored in the margin of ع.
(6) (3/182). Also reported by al-Bayhaqī (6/118) and Ibn ‘Adī in al-Kāmil, in the entry on al-Rabī‘ ibn Badr (4/518). Ibn ‘Adī counted it among the reports for which he was criticized. The author will later declare it weak.