The ruling on profit in a defective profit-sharing partnership

The questioner : Yes. If there is a profit, the profit belongs to the owner of the capital, because it is the growth of his wealth, and neither party is entitled to a wage, because the first did not work, and the second worked in another’s wealth without his permission, so he is like a usurper. However, it is said that he is entitled to a wage equivalent to the market rate, because he worked in the wealth under the ambiguity of the profit-sharing partnership, so it is like a defective profit-sharing partnership. It is also possible that if he purchased…

The Shaykh : …in such a case, in all defective contracts, the correct view is that if the worker was aware of the defect, he is entitled to nothing. If he was not aware, he is entitled to a share equivalent to the market rate, not a wage equivalent to the market rate. The difference is clear, because his equivalent share may be more than the wage, or the wage may be more, or there may be no profit. If we say the owner of the capital owes the wage, it is problematic, especially if there was no profit. So the correct view is that if the profit-sharing partnership is defective, the worker is entitled to an equivalent share. If it results in a loss, he is entitled to nothing. Yes.

The questioner : It is also possible that if he purchased on credit, the profit belongs to him. However, if he transferred it to another person with the permission of the owner of the capital, it is valid, and the second person becomes the profit-sharing partner. If the transferor stipulated for himself a portion of the profit, he is not entitled to anything, because profit is earned through capital or work, and he has neither.