holding his partner to the purchase and keeping it exclusively for himself, for he may say to him, “Had I known that the funds you set aside had been lost, I would have purchased only for myself.” Whatever he purchases after learning that his partner’s funds have been lost, however, belongs exclusively to him.

The second view is that the partnership does not take effect until they share the risk of loss. According to one opinion, this requires mixing the funds they have contributed; this is Sahnūn’s position. According to another, it is sufficient to place the funds together in the custody of either partner, even without mixing them; this is Ibn al-Qāsim’s position and his narration from Mālik in the Mudawwana.

Section

Partnership is a revocable contract: either partner may withdraw whenever he wishes. He is not obliged to remain in partnership with the other except on equitable and balanced terms. For if one contributes something of greater value than the other, he makes this concession only in the hope that the other will remain in partnership with him. Since the latter is not bound to do so, the arrangement involves undue uncertainty.

Consider how a joint-cultivation agreement is permissible even when the rental value of one partner’s contribution exceeds that of the other, according to those who hold that such an agreement becomes binding upon its conclusion. This is the position of Sahnūn and Ibn al-Mājishūn, and the opinion of Ibn Kināna and Ibn al-Qāsim recorded in Ibn Sahnūn’s book. Such an arrangement is impermissible, however, according to those who hold that a joint-cultivation agreement does not become binding upon its conclusion and that either party may withdraw before they sow. This is Ibn al-Qāsim’s opinion in the Mudawwana and the explicit wording of Asbagh’s narration from him in al-ʿUtbiyya. Nor is it permissible according to those who hold that it becomes binding only once work begins. This is Ibn Kināna’s opinion in al-Mabsūta, and it is the position followed in issuing fatwas here in Cordoba. It accords, by analogy, with ʿAlī ibn Ziyād’s narration from Mālik that an offer of a reward becomes binding on the offeror once its intended recipient begins the work.

Section

This disagreement concerning joint cultivation arises because it involves both partnership and hire on the part of each participant, the two being wholly interdependent, with neither extending beyond the other. Scholars therefore differed over which aspect should predominate. Those who gave precedence to partnership did not consider the agreement binding upon its conclusion and permitted it only where the contributions were equivalent. They did, however, allow either partner to make a gratuitous contribution to the other of something whose rental value was negligible. There are two views concerning equivalence. The first is that it is not achieved