On this basis, a partnership involving similar animals or garments should be valid, just as one whose capital consists of dirhams—if we recognize the validity of partnerships funded with non-monetary assets. When people become co-owners because their property has become mixed or indistinguishable, it is divided in proportion to their respective holdings. If everything belonging to them is returned, the matter is clear. If only part is returned, that part belongs to the jointly owned property, just as when some commingled dirhams are returned.

There remains the question of livestock: is there only one view—that it must be divided in kind when some of the owners request this—or do the two views concerning jointly owned livestock apply? The more appropriate conclusion is that the same disagreement applies. For if one person owned ten head and the other twenty, one is entitled to a third of whatever is recovered and the other to two-thirds.

The difficulty in this case, however, concerns valuation. If the value of each person’s property is known, the matter is clear. But if only the number is known, even though one person’s sheep may be better than the other’s, then, when it is impossible to establish whether one person’s sheep are superior to the other’s, they must be treated equally, since necessity compels equal treatment.

Accordingly, whether one person’s sheep became mixed with the other’s deliberately or by mistake, the combined property is divided in proportion to their numbers if no superiority in value is known. If such superiority is known but its extent is not, the amount established with certainty is recognized, while any doubtful excess is disregarded, since the presumption is that it does not exist.