Is it permissible for a father to bring one of his children as a partner with him in business to the exclusion of their siblings, thus depriving the others, some of whom may be in need and burdened with debts? Do these children have the right to claim their share in legitimate courts after the father's death?

It is permissible for a father to include one of his sons in his business and give him a share of the profit in exchange for his work or capital. It is preferable, if possible, to include all children. If the father chooses one son without justification, it is contrary to what is better and may cause alienation, but the other children do not have the right to object to it or to take the matter to court after the father's death.

If the son becomes a partner with his labor only, he is entitled to the agreed-upon share of the profit, but not the capital. A father preferring one of his sons by giving him a share of the capital is an act of injustice and favoritism in giving, which is forbidden.

After the father's death, the partner son has his independent share in the business, and he becomes a partner with the rest of the heirs in the remainder. If the father preferred one of his sons with money, the favored son should return the right to the other heirs. The majority of scholars hold that it is not obligatory to return it, while Ahmad, in one narration, held that the gift is void and it is obligatory to return the right to the rest of the heirs.