The second argument:

These arrangements are of the same kind as profit-sharing partnerships. They involve an asset that yields an increase through labour, so it is permissible to work with it in return for a share of that increase, as with dirhams and dinars. All jurists have permitted profit-sharing partnerships, following the reports transmitted from the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, although no Sunnah report specifically concerning them is known from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Ahmad held that profit-sharing partnerships could be established by analogy with orchard-tending and sharecropping partnerships, since the latter are established by explicit texts and can therefore serve as the basis for analogy, notwithstanding the disagreement of some jurists concerning them. Analogy in either direction is valid: anyone for whom the permissibility of one is established can apply its ruling to the other, since they are equivalent.

If it is said:

“The profit in a profit-sharing partnership does not come from the original asset itself; rather, the original asset is disposed of and replaced. Thus, the wealth divided between the parties is generated by the labour itself, unlike fruit and crops, which come from the original asset.”

The reply is:

This is a difference in form with no bearing on the ruling in the Sharia. It is self-evident that the wealth earned results only from the combined benefit of the worker’s physical labour and the capital. Accordingly, the owner receives back the equivalent of his capital, and the two divide the profit, just as the worker retains his own person, which is the counterpart of the dirhams. Attributing the profit to one party’s bodily labour is no more justified than attributing it to the benefit derived from the other’s wealth.

Thus, the profit-sharing partnership you report from Umar actually arose without a contract, when