the ʿinān partnership.
Abū Ḥanīfah adds:
“Neither of the two partners may keep anything outside the partnership; every asset he owns must be brought into it.”
Their chief proof is that the very word “mufāwaḍah” carries two implications—namely, equality of the two capitals and the complete pooling of ownership.

Ruling on the Partnership of Labor (sharikat al-abdān)
As a general rule, Abū Ḥanīfah and the Mālikīs deem a labor partnership valid, whereas al-Shāfiʿī prohibits it.

The Shāfiʿī school relies on the principle that partnership pertains to property, not to services. Labor cannot be precisely measured; therefore it constitutes gharar in their view, for the work each partner will perform is unknown to the other.

The Mālikīs base their position on the fact that those who actually seize war-booty share it, and they deserve that share solely by virtue of their labor. They also cite the report:
“It is related that Ibn Masʿūd entered into partnership with Saʿd on the Day of Badr; Saʿd captured two horses while Ibn Masʿūd obtained nothing, and the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—raised no objection to their arrangement.”
Moreover, a muḍārabah contract is itself concluded on the basis of labor, so—by analogy—a partnership may likewise be concluded on labor.

Al-Shāfiʿī replies that mufāwaḍah lies outside the recognized legal categories and therefore cannot serve as an analogy, and that the rules governing booty are likewise distinct from commercial partnership. Mālik, for his part, stipulates that the two partners must practice the same craft and work in the same place.

Abū Ḥanīfah, however, allows the partnership even when the crafts differ: a tanner and a fuller, for example, may combine under his doctrine, although Mālik would not permit them to do so.

Mālik’s rationale is that differing crafts or locations increase gharar, whereas Abū Ḥanīfah’s cornerstone remains the basic permissibility of a partnership founded on labor.

Ruling on the Partnership of Reputation (sharikat al-wujūh)
According to Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī, this form of partnership is invalid; Abū Ḥanīfah declares it lawful.
This arrangement rests solely on the partners’ personal credit—no capital, no craft.

Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī argue that partnership must rest either on property or on labor, both of which are absent here, and that the agreement entails gharar, for each party exchanges with the other an indeterminate earning not tied to any specific craft or task.
Abū Ḥanīfah, by contrast, treats personal credit as a form of labor; hence a partnership may legitimately be concluded upon it.