As for an ‘inān partnership, it is a partnership in a particular undertaking, as though a matter had presented itself to the two partners—that is, had arisen—and they entered into partnership in it. Its name thus derives from the verb ‘anna, meaning “to arise or present itself,” which has two imperfect forms. This partnership is permissible by scholarly consensus; I know of no disagreement among scholars concerning it. It is permissible between any people who agree to it and willingly accept it. For market traders, such sharing is binding in purchases made for trade without competitive bidding, in the case of food bought in the food market by those trading in that type of commodity, or outside the market, even if it is food, or for purposes other than trade in that category—subject to] disagreement. By “outside the market,” I mean in one of the alleyways. As for anything a man purchases in his home or shop, those present at the purchase have no right to share in it, by agreement.

Section

As for a labor partnership, Mālik and his followers permit it among artisans and others, provided that they undertake the same kind of work, cooperate in it, and do not work in separate locations. Ashhab, as reported by Asbagh, permits two artisan partners to work in separate shops, provided that their work is of the same kind. Ibn Habīb permits those who hire out animals to operate in different locations and towns, provided that the animals are jointly owned. In my view, his position does not conflict with that of Ibn al-Qāsim.

Al-Shāfi‘ī holds that a labor partnership is impermissible under all circumstances. Abū Hanīfa permits it among artisans but not for hunting or gathering firewood, since these activities entail no liability on the part of either partner toward the other, unlike artisans, where each guarantees