There is no objection to a partnership in which one party puts forward foodstuffs or other merchandise while the other contributes dinars or dirhams, and they agree to reckon the two capitals according to their market value. If the value of the food or goods is equal to the money, the partnership is valid, on the condition that profit and loss are divided equally and that the labour required for the venture is likewise shared equally.

It is not permissible for one partner to provide struck dirhams while the other provides ingots or uncoined metal. However, if both contribute gold or silver coins of different issues and mints, so long as the fineness and the weight are the same, the arrangement is lawful. Should one partner’s coins prove superior in fineness after they had entered the partnership on an equal basis, and they later dissolve the partnership while still holding cash or merchandise, they must divide according to the weight of each man’s capital, disregarding the superior quality of one party’s coins. No extra return may be awarded for that superiority, for any surplus in such a case amounts to usury.

There is also no harm in a partnership based on merchandise—whether of the same kind or of different kinds—provided that profit, loss, and labour are allotted to each partner in proportion to the value of his contribution.

A partnership is invalid when it involves dissimilar foodstuffs: wheat with barley, one type of wheat with another, lentils with broad beans, dates with raisins, oil with clarified butter, honey, cow ghee with sheep ghee, red oil with black oil, or any item exchanged for another of its genus that is not identical in substance, quality, and condition. In all such cases, and in everything comparable to them, no partnership is permissible—whether it is based on measure or on valuation.

If the partners contribute two different kinds of merchandise, set their respective valuations, and later each sells his own goods for more than the figure at which it was valued, each partner is entitled only to the amount of his merchandise as valued on the day of assessment, not to the price for which it was later sold. Once the valuations were fixed at the outset of the partnership, each of them effectively sold half of his goods for half of his companion’s, so that each became owner of half of every item. Do you not see that if he were to