to invest the capital under a profit-sharing arrangement, with the profit divided between them. The capital owner may, however, wish to make the working partner liable for half the capital. This is impermissible by agreement, because entitlement to returns accompanies liability. When a sale and a partnership are combined, the partnership is invalid by agreement. A stratagem is therefore employed to achieve this: the working partner sells half the capital. This is why all the capital is placed in his hands. Had the intention been purely to establish a partnership, they would have acted as partners in a joint-capital partnership do, with the capital held by both of them.

This provides a third ground for invalidating the partnership: their agreement that the capital should be held by only one of the two partners. Whether this constitutes a partnership based on non-monetary assets is disputed. However, a false acknowledgment contrary to the facts is forbidden and compromises one’s religious integrity.

That being so, the capital remains the property of its owner. Even if he were a partner, he would not be entitled to leave the conclusion of contracts and receipt of payments exclusively to the other partner. Such an arrangement belongs to a profit-sharing investment partnership, not a joint-capital partnership.

If the sale is invalid, he has no right to demand the stipulated price. If, however, the property itself cannot be returned, its value must be paid instead. If the purchaser, who is also the working partner, has put it to productive use, he is entitled to the customary profit share for someone performing comparable work, drawn from the other partner’s share. The jurists disagree over invalid partnerships, profit-sharing investment arrangements, orchard-tending arrangements and sharecropping arrangements in which the worker has performed the work: is he entitled to the customary wage for comparable work, or to the customary share of the profit?

There are two opinions. The stronger is the second, which is the position of Ibn al-Qāsim. Compensation under invalid contracts corresponds to what is customarily due under their valid counterparts, just as the amount due in