What is the ruling if a principal gives money and states, 'Trade with it, and all the profit belongs to me'?

Supporting text

If the principal adds, 'And you have liability for it,' the agent is not liable because the contract inherently establishes the fund as a trust (*amanah*) that is not guaranteed, and this status is not removed by the stipulation. If the principal states, 'Take this as Mudharabah, and all the profit is yours, or all is mine,' the contract is invalid. Al-Shafi' agrees with this ruling. Abu Hanifah holds that if the principal states, 'All the profit is mine,' it is a valid *Ibda'ah*. Malik holds that in both cases (all profit to one or the other), it is a valid Mudharabah, arguing that since they entered into *Qirad* (Mudharabah), stipulating the profit for one party is like the other gifting his share, which does not invalidate the contract. The contrary view holds that since Mudharabah necessitates the profit being shared between them, stipulating the entire profit for one party contradicts the essence of the contract, thus invalidating it, similar to stipulating all profit in a *Shirkat al-'Inan* (Partnership of Capital) for one partner. The distinction from the case where 'Mudharabah' was not explicitly mentioned lies in the fact that the latter wording suffices for the established ruling of either *Ibda'ah* or *Qirad*, unlike the explicit statement of Mudharabah. Malik's position is rejected because a gift cannot be valid before the gifted item comes into existence.