two people enter into a partnership by contract, al-Shāfiʿī’s position is that neither partnership nor division of the assets is effected by contract. Ahmad, however, holds that both are effected by contract. He therefore permits capital partnerships even when the two capital contributions differ and are not mixed together. In his view, if the partners settle their accounts without physically separating their shares, this constitutes a division, so that any subsequent loss of capital is not made good from the earlier profit.

Al-Shāfiʿī does not permit labor partnerships, credit-based partnerships, or partnerships in which the two capital contributions are not mixed together. Nor does he permit a stipulation granting one partner a higher rate of profit on his capital than the other, since, in his view, the contract has no effect in this respect. He permits profit-sharing investment partnerships, certain forms of orchard-tending partnership, and crop-sharing as a subsidiary arrangement, on grounds of need rather than conformity with analogical reasoning.

Abū Hanīfah himself permits neither orchard-tending partnerships nor crop-sharing arrangements, because he regards them as contracts of hire, in which the remuneration must be known.

Mālik is more accommodating than either of them in this area: he permits orchard-tending partnerships for all kinds of fruit, alongside such forms of partnership as capital and labor partnerships. He does not, however, permit crop-sharing on bare land, agreeing in this with the scholars of Kufa.

As for the early authorities of Medina and other Companions and Successors, they would