Third: The investor may impose this condition on the working partner, but the working partner may not impose it on the investor. This is Mālik’s opinion as transmitted by Ashhab in the section on crop losses and orchard-tending partnerships in al-‘Utbiyya, concerning zakat on the dates of an orchard subject to such a partnership. There is no difference between stipulating who must bear the zakat on those dates and stipulating who must bear the zakat on the profit from a qirād.
Fourth: The reverse: the working partner may impose this condition on the investor, but the investor may not impose it on the working partner.
This opinion is not explicitly stated, but it may be deduced by analogy from the view that the portion stipulated for zakat is returned to the party upon whom the condition was imposed if the funds do not meet the conditions for zakat. For he says to the party who imposed it upon him: “You stipulated this only for zakat; if no zakat is due on the funds, return it to me.” According to this opinion, uncertainty arises only when the investor stipulates that the working partner must bear the zakat, not when the working partner stipulates that the investor must bear it. If the working partner is required to bear the zakat and none is due on the funds, he receives half the profit, because the portion stipulated from his share for zakat reverts to him. If zakat is due, he receives four-tenths of the profit plus three-quarters of one-tenth, because the condition required him to bear one-quarter of one-tenth, which he has paid as zakat. Thus, he does not know what share he is working for. If, however, the investor is required to bear the zakat, the working partner receives half the profit, whether or not the funds meet the conditions for zakat. This is because, if no zakat is due, the portion stipulated from the investor’s share for payment as zakat reverts to the investor, upon whom the condition was imposed.
The third opinion, transmitted by Ashhab from Mālik—that the investor may stipulate that the working partner must bear the zakat on the profit, but the working partner may not impose this condition on the investor—may be deduced by analogy from the view that, if no zakat is due on the funds, the portion stipulated for zakat belongs to the party who imposed the condition and does not revert to the party upon whom it was imposed. This is Ibn Habīb’s opinion in al-Wādiha. According to this view, if the working partner is required to bear the zakat, he receives only four-tenths of the profit plus three-quarters of one-tenth, whether zakat is due on the funds or not. This is because, if no zakat is due, the investor takes the portion stipulated for zakat, and no account is taken