the work undertaken by the other, so each acts as his partner’s agent in this regard.

The evidence supporting Mālik’s position permitting labor partnerships among artisans and others whose work entails no such liability is the saying of Allah, the Almighty and Majestic:

“Know that whatever spoils you gain, one-fifth is for Allah and the Messenger, his close relatives, orphans, the needy, and the traveller.” [al-Anfāl: 41]

He thus made those who acquire spoils partners in what they gain through fighting and what their swords secure for them. This involves neither capital nor trade; it is simply a labor partnership without such liability. The verse therefore constitutes evidence against al-Shāfi‘ī’s prohibition of labor partnerships under all circumstances, and against Abū Hanīfa’s prohibition of labor partnerships in activities involving no such liability, such as gathering firewood and hunting. Further evidence supporting Mālik is the report that “Ibn Mas‘ūd entered into partnership with Sa‘d on the day of Badr. Sa‘d acquired two horses, while Ibn Mas‘ūd acquired nothing, and the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not object to their arrangement.”

Sahnūn held that when two artisans enter into partnership, neither is liable for goods accepted by the other unless they receive them jointly. Nor is either bound to guarantee the performance of his partner’s work unless they both undertake that obligation. His position differs from that of Ibn al-Qāsim on both points.

Ibn al-Qāsim’s statement concerning two artisan partners—that if one falls ill or is absent for a prolonged period and the other works during his illness or absence, the latter’s work on his behalf is not gratuitous—is sound according to his own principles. He has performed work on his partner’s behalf under an obligation for which he was liable, and is therefore entitled to recover its value from him. This is what Ibn al-Qāsim means when he says that the proceeds of the work belong to the one who performed it, not to the sick or absent partner, unless he chooses to perform half his work on that partner’s behalf.

This does not contradict his statement in the Book of Reward Contracts and Trade that if a man hires two workers to dig a well, and one falls ill while the other continues working, the latter’s work on his behalf is gratuitous. Neither worker guarantees the other’s performance. The two cases are equivalent only according to Sahnūn’s position, which does not make either artisan partner liable for the other. He did indeed say that one case should be brought into line with the other. This is sound according to his own principles, but it does not bind Ibn al-Qāsim, whose principles differ.

His statement in the case concerning reward contracts and hiring—that the digger’s work is gratuitous for the owner of the well—does not contradict Ibn al-Qāsim’s position, because he construed the hiring as tied to the particular workers, terminating upon death