namely, where the recipient of the funds is not someone whose like would be employed in a profit-sharing partnership, and where he is someone who works for others in such partnerships. Likewise, the craftsman’s case has three distinct forms: where he is not someone who would plausibly work for payment; where he is someone who would plausibly work for payment; and where he is one of the craftsmen who work for others for payment. Each of these two cases is treated by analogy with the other, since there is no substantive difference between them. If he is not someone who would plausibly work for payment, the garment owner’s word is accepted that he did the work free of charge. If he is someone who would plausibly work for payment but is not a craftsman, both parties swear an oath, and he receives the customary remuneration for such work. If he is a craftsman, Ibn al-Qāsim’s ruling is what he stated in the Book of Rewards and Hiring, while the other authority’s ruling is what he stated there, as we have explained in full. Success comes from Allah alone.

Section

If the recipient says, “I received the funds under a profit-sharing partnership,” while the provider says, “Rather, I gave them to you as a loan,” there are three possible situations:

First: all or part of the funds were lost before the recipient began trading with them.

Second: the funds were lost or diminished after he began trading with them.

Third: the funds increased through profit.

If all or part of the funds were lost before he began trading with them, there are three views:

First: the provider’s word is accepted. This is Ibn al-Qāsim’s view and what he transmitted from Mālik.

Second: the recipient’s word is accepted. This is Rabīʿa’s view and what Ibn ʿAbd al-Hakam transmitted from Mālik.

Third: a distinction is drawn between loss before he began trading with the funds and loss after he began trading with them. This is Ashhab’s view. Thus, Ashhab and Ibn al-Qāsim agree that the provider’s word is accepted if the funds were lost after