Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu'z Zinad from al-Araj from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "A man said to his family that he had never done a good action, and that when he died they were to burn him and then scatter half of him on the land and half of him on the sea, and by Allah, if Allah destined it for him He would punish him with a punishment which He had not punished anyone else with in all the worlds. When the man died, they did as he had told them. Then Allah told the land to collect everything that was in it, and told the sea to collect everything that was in it, and then He said to the man, 'Why did you do this?' and he said, 'From fear of You, Lord, and You know best.' "

Abu Hurayra added, "And He forgave him."

When Negus died, the Prophet said, "Today a pious man has died. So get up and offer the funeral prayer for your brother Ashama."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "This ayat is abrogated. It is the word of Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, 'If he leaves goods, the testament is for parents and kinsmen.' What came down about the division of the fixed shares of inheritance in the Book of Allah, the Mighty, the Exalted, abrogated it."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "The established sunna with us, in which there is no dispute, is that it is not permitted for a testator to make a bequest (in addition to the fixed share) in favour of an heir, unless the other heirs permit him. If some of them permit him and others refuse, he is allowed to diminish the share of those who have given their permission. Those who refuse take their full share from the inheritance.

Yahya said that he heard Malik speak about an invalid who made a bequest and asked his heirs to give him permission to make a bequest when he was so ill that he only had command of a third of his property, and they gave him permission to leave some of his heirs more than his third. Malik said, "They cannot revoke that. Had they been permitted to do so, every heir would have done that, and then, when the testator died, they would take that for themselves and prevent him from bequeathing his third and what was permitted to him with respect to his property."

Malik said, "If he asks permission of his heirs to grant a bequest to an heir while he is well and they give him permission, that is not binding on them. The heirs can rescind that if they wish. That is because when a man is well, he is entitled to all his property and can do what he wishes with it. If he wishes, he can spend all of it. He can spend it and give sadaqa with it or give it to whomever he likes. His asking permission of his heirs is permitted for the heirs, when they give him permission when authority over all his property is closed off from him and nothing outside of the third is permitted to him, and when they are more entitled to the two-thirds of his property than he is himself. That is when their permission becomes relevant. If he asks one of the heirs to give his inheritance to him when he is dying, and the heir agrees and then the dying man does not dispose of it at all, it is returned to the one who gave it unless the deceased said to him, 'So-and-so - (one of his heirs) - is weak, and I would like you to give him your inheritance.' So he gives it to him. That is permitted when the deceased specified it for him."

Malik said, "When a man gives the dying man free use of his share of the inheritance, and the dying man distributes some of it and some remains, it is returned to the giver, after the man has died."

Yahya said that he heard Malik speak about someone who made a bequest and mentioned that he had given one of his heirs something which he had not taken possession of, so the heirs refused to permit that. Malik said, "That gift returns to the heirs as inheritance according to the Book of Allah because the deceased did not mean that to be taken out of the third and the heirs do not have a portion in the third (which the dying man is allowed to bequeath)."

Yahya said that Malik said, "The position with us concerning a man who has zakat to pay on one hundred camels but then the zakat collector does not come to him until zakat is due for a second timeand by that time all his camels have died except five, is that the zakat collector assesses from the five camels the two amounts of zakat that are due from the owner of the animals, which in this case is only two sheep, one for each year. This is because the only zakat which an owner of livestock has to pay is what is due from him on the day that the zakat is (actually) assessed. His livestock may have died or it may have increased, and the zakat collector only assesses the zakat on what he (actually) finds on the day he makes the assessment. If more than one payment of zakat is due from the owner of the livestock, he still only has to pay zakat according to what the zakat collector (actually) finds in his possession, and if his livestock has died, or several payments of zakat are due from him and nothing is taken until all his livestock has died, or has been reduced to an amount below that on which he has to pay zakat, then he does not have to pay any zakat, and there is no liability (on him) for what has died or for the years that have passed.

Malik related to me that he had heard that Said ibn al-Musayyab spoke about a man who died and left three sons and left mawali whom he had freed. Then two of his sons died and left children. He said, "The third remaining son inherits the mawali. When he dies, his children and the children of his brothers share equally in the wala' of the mawali."

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us is that when slaves write their kitaba together in one kitaba, and some are responsible for others, and they are not reduced anything by the death of one of the responsible ones, and then one of them says, 'I can't do it,' and gives up, his companions can use him in whatever work he can do and they help each other with that in their kitaba until they are freed, if they are freed, or remain slaves if they remain slaves."

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us is that when a master gives a slave his kitaba, it is not permitted for the master to let anyone assume the responsibility for the kitaba of his slave if the slave dies or is incapable. This is not part of the sunna of the muslims. That is because when a man assumes responsibility to the master of a mukatab for what the mukatab owes of his kitaba, and then the master of the mukatab pursues that from the one who assumes the responsibility, he takes his money falsely. It is not as if he is buying the mukatab, so that what he gives is part of the price of something that is his, and neither is the mukatab being freed so that the price established for him buys his inviolability as a free man. If the mukatab is unable to meet the payments he reverts to his master and is his slave. That is because kitaba is not a fixed debt which can be assumed by the master of the mukatab. It is something which, when it is paid by the mukatab, sets him free. If the mukatab dies and has a debt, his master is not one of the creditors for what remains unpaid of the kitaba. The creditors have precedence over the master. If the mukatab cannot meet the payments, and he owes debts to people, he reverts to being a slave owned by his master and the debts to the people are the liability of the mukatab. The creditors do not enter with the master into any share of the price of his person."

Malik said, "When people are written together in one kitaba and there is no kinship between them by which they inherit from each other, and some of them are responsible for others, then none of them are freed before the others until all the kitaba has been paid. If one of them dies and leaves property and it is more than all of what is against them, it pays all that is against them . The excess of the property goes to the master, and none of those who have been written in the kitaba with the deceased have any of the excess. The master's claims are overshadowed by their claims for the portions which remain against them of the kitaba which can be fulfilled from the property of the deceased, because the deceased had assumed their responsibility and they must use his property to pay for their freedom. If the deceased mukatab has a free child not born in kitaba and who was not written in the kitaba, it does not inherit from him because the mukatab was not freed until he died."

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard people of knowledge say, "When a woman dies and there are no women with her to wash her and no man who has the right by blood ties to take charge of that for her and no husband to take charge of it for her, she should be purified by tayammum ,that is, by wiping her face and hands with earth."

Malik said, "When a man dies and there are only women with him, they also should purify him with earth ."

Malik said, "There is no particular way with us for washing the dead nor any recognised way to do it. They are just washed and purified."

Hudhaifa said, "I saw a person not performing his bowing and prostrations perfectly. When he completed the prayer, I told him that he had not prayed." I think that Hudhaifa added (i.e. said to the man), "Had you died, you would have died on a tradition other than that of the Prophet Muhammad."

Some of the wives of the Prophet asked him, "Who amongst us will be the first to follow you (i.e. die after you)?" He said, "Whoever has the longest hand." So they started measuring their hands with a stick and Sauda's hand turned out to be the longest. (When Zainab bint Jahsh died first of all in the caliphate of `Umar), we came to know that the long hand was a symbol of practicing charity, so she was the first to follow the Prophet and she used to love to practice charity. (Sauda died later in the caliphate of Muawiya).

Malik related to me that he had heard that Said ibn al-Musayyab was asked about a mukatab who was shared between two men. One of them freed his portion and then the mukatab died and left a lot of money. Said replied, "The one who kept his kitaba is paid what remains due to him, and then they divide what is left between them both equally."

Malik said, "When a mukatab who fulfils his kitaba and becomes free dies, he is inherited from by the people who wrote his kitaba and their children and paternal relations - whoever is most deserving."

He said, "This is also for whoever is set free when he dies after being set free - his inheritance is for the nearest people to him of children or paternal relations who inherit by means of the wala'."

Malik said, "Brothers, written together in the same kitaba, are in the same position as children to each other when none of them have children written in the kitaba or born in the kitaba. When one of them dies and leaves property, he pays for them all that is against them of their kitaba and sets them free. The money left over after that goes to his children rather than his brothers."

An Nu`man bin Bashir said, "Abdullah bin Rawaha fell down unconscious.." (and mentioned the above Hadith adding, "Thereupon, when he died she (i.e. his sister) did not weep over him."

When a man who had dyed himself with henna passed by the Prophet (saws), he said: How fine this is! When another man who had dyed himself with henna and katam passed by, he said: This is better than that. Then another man who had dyed himself with yellow dye, passed by, he said: This is better than all that.

Yahya said that Malik said, "The way of doing things in our community about which there is no dispute is that women do not swear in the swearing for the intentional act. If the murdered man only has female relatives, the women have no right to swear for blood and no pardon in murder."

Yahya said that Malik said about a man who is murdered, "If the paternal relatives of the murdered man or his mawali say, 'We swear and we demand our companion's blood,' that is their right."

Malik said, "If the women want to pardon him, they cannot do that. The paternal relatives and mawali are entitled to do that more than them because they are the ones who demand blood and swear for it."

Malik said, "If the paternal relatives or mawali pardon after they demand blood and the women refuse and say, 'We will not abandon our right against the murderer of our companion,' the women are more entitled to that because whoever takes retaliation is more entitled than the one who leaves it among the women and paternal relatives when the murder is established and killing obliged."

Malik said, "At least two claimants must swear in murder. The oaths are repeated by them until they swear fifty oaths, then they have the right to blood. That is how things are done in our community."

Malik said, "When people beat a man and he dies in their hands, they are all slain for him. If he dies after their beating, there is swearing. If there is swearing, it is only against one man and only he is slain. We have never known the swearing to be against more than one man."

Malik spoke about a slave who had his hand or foot broken and then the break mended . He said, "The one who injured him is not obliged to pay anything. If that break causes him loss or scar, the one who injured him must pay according to what he diminished of the value of the slave."

Malik said, "What is done in our community about retaliation between slaves is that it is like retaliation between freemen. The life of the slave-girl for the life of the slave, and her injury for his injury. When a slave intentionally kills a slave, the master of the murdered slave has a choice. If he wishes, he kills him, and if he wishes, he takes the blood-money. If he takes the blood-money, he takes the value of his slave. If the owner of the slave who killed wishes to give the value of the murdered slave, he does it. If he wishes, he surrenders his slave. If he surrenders him, he is not obliged to do anything other than that. When the owner of the murdered slave takes the slave who murdered and is satisifed with him, he must not kill him. All retaliations between slaves for cutting off of the hand and foot and such things are dealt with in the same way as in the murder."

Malik said about a muslim slave who injures a jew or christian, "If the master of the slave wishes to pay blood-money for him according to the injury, he does it. Or else he surrenders him and he is sold, and the jew or christian is given the blood-money of the injury or all the price of the slave if the blood-money is greater than his price. The jew or christian is not given a muslim slave."

Malik related to me that he heard that Urwa ibn az-Zubayr and Sulayman ibn Yasar when asked whether the sons of a man, who had a kitaba written for himself and his children and then died, worked for the kitaba of their father or were slaves, said, "They work for the kitaba of their father and they have no reduction at all for the death of their father."

Malik said, "If they are small and unable to work, one does not wait for them to grow up and they are slaves of their father's master unless the mukatab has left what will pay their instalments for them until they can work. If there is enough to pay for them in what he has left, that is paid for on their behalf and they are left in their condition until they can work, and then if they pay, they are free. If they cannot do it, they are slaves."

Malik spoke about a mukatab who died and left property which was not enough to pay his kitaba, and he also left a child with him in his kitaba and an umm walad, and the umm walad wanted to work for them. He said, "The money is paid to her if she is trustworthy with it and strong enough to work. If she is not strong enough to work and not trustworthy with property, she is not given any of it and she and the children of the mukatab revert to being slaves of the master of the mukatab."

Malik said, "If people are written together in one kitaba and there is no kinship between them, and some of them are incapable and others work until they are all set free, those who worked can claim from those who were unable, the portion of what they paid for them because some of them assumed the responsibility for others."

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Marwan ibn al-Hakam wrote to Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan to mention to him that a drunkard was brought to him who had killed a man. Muawiya wrote to him to kill him in retaliation for the dead man.

Yahya said that Malik said, "The best of what I have heard on the interpretation of this ayat, the word of Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, 'The free man for the free man and the slave for the slave - these are men and the woman for the woman,' (Sura 2 ayat 178) is that retaliation is between women as it is between men. The free woman is killed for the free woman as the free man is killed for the free man. The slave-girl is slain for the slave-girl as the slave is slain for the slave. Retaliation is between women as it is between men. That is because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'We have written for them in it that it is a life for a life and an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds there is retaliation.' (Sura 5 ayat 48) Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, mentioned that it is a life for a life. It is the life of a free woman for the life of a free man, and her injury for his injury."

Malik said about a man who held a man fast for another man to hit, and he died on the spot, "If he held him and he thought that he meant to kill him, the two of them are both killed for him. If he held him and he thought that he meant to beat him as people sometimes do, and he did not think that he meant to kill him, the murderer is slain and the one who held him is punished with a very severe punishment and jailed for a year. There is no killing against him."

Malik said about a man who murdered a man intentionally or gouged out his eye intentionally, and then was slain or had his eye gouged out himself before retaliation was inflicted on him, "There is no blood-money nor retaliation against him. The right of the one who was killed or had his eye gouged out goes when the thing which he is claiming as retaliation goes. It is the same with a man who murders another man intentionally and then the murderer dies. When the murderer dies, the one seeking blood-revenge has nothing of blood- money or anything else. That is by the word of Allah, the Blessed the Exalted, 'Retaliation is written for you in killing. The free man for the free man and the slave for the slave.' "

Malik said, "He only has retaliation against the one who killed him. If the man who murdered him dies, he has no retaliation or blood-money."

Malik said, "There is no retaliation held against a free man by a slave for any injury. The slave is killed for the free man when he intentionally murders him. The free man is not slain for the slave, even if he murders him intentionally. It is the best of what I have heard."

The Prophet (saws) as saying: If anyone dies when some fast is due from him (i.e. which he could not keep) his heir must fast on his behalf.

Abu Dawud said: This applies to the fast which a man vows ; and this is the opinion of Ahmad b. Hanbal.

Malik said, "The generally agreed-on way of doing things in our community is that any setting-free which a man makes in a bequest that he wills in health or illness can be rescinded by him when he likes and changed when he likes as long as it is not a tadbir. There is no way to rescind a tadbir once he has made it.

"As for every child born to him by a slave-girl who he wills to be set free but he does not make mudabbara, her children are not freed with her when she is freed. That is because her master can change his will when he likes and rescind it when he likes, and being set free is not confirmed for her. She is in the position of a slave-girl whose master says, 'If so- and-so remains with me until I die, she is free.' " (i.e. he does not make a definite contract.)

Malik said, "If she fulfils that, that is hers. If he wishes, before that, he can sell her and her child because he has not entered her child into any condition he has made for her.

"The bequest in setting free is different from the tadbir. The precedent of the sunna makes a distinction between them. Had a bequest been in the position of a tadbir, no testator would be able to change his will and what he mentioned in it of setting free. His property would be tied up and he would not be able to use it."

Malik said about a man who made all his slaves mudabbar while he was well and they were his only property, "If he made some of them mudabbar before the others, one begins with the first until the third of his property is reached. (i.e. their value is matched against the third, and those whose value is covered are free.) If he makes the mall mudabbar in his illness, and says in one statement, 'So-and-so is free. So-and-so is free. So-and-so is free if my death occurs in this illness,' or he makes them all mudabbar in one statement, they are matched against the third and one does not begin with any of them before the others. It is a bequest and they have a third of his property divided between them in shares. Then the third of his property frees each of them according to the extent of his share.

"No single one of them is given preference when that all occurs in his illness."

Malik spoke about a master who made his slave a mudabbar and then he died and the only property he had was the mudabbar slave and the slave had property. He said, "A third of the mudabbar is freed and his property remains in his possession."

Malik said about a mudabbar whose master gave him a kitaba and then the master died and did not leave any property other than him, "A third of him is freed and a third of his kitaba is reduced, and he owes two-thirds."

Malik spoke about a man who freed half of his slave while he was ill and made irrevocable his freeing half of him or all of him, and he had made another slave of his mudabbar before that. He said, "One begins with the slave he made mudabbar before the one he freed while he was ill. That is because the man cannot revoke what he has made mudabbar and cannot follow it with a matter which will rescind it. When this mudabbar is freed, then what remains of the third goes to the one who had half of him freed so as to complete his setting-free entirely in the third of the property of the deceased. If what is left of the third does not cover that, whatever is covered by what is left of the third is freed after the first mudabbar is freed . "

One of the sons of Abu Talha became sick and died and Abu Talha at that time was not at home. When his wife saw that he was dead, she prepared him (washed and shrouded him) and placed him somewhere in the house. When Abu Talha came, he asked, "How is the boy?" She said, "The child is quiet and I hope he is in peace." Abu Talha thought that she had spoken the truth. Abu Talha passed the night and in the morning took a bath and when he intended to go out, she told him that his son had died, Abu Talha offered the (morning) prayer with the Prophet and informed the Prophet of what happened to them. Allah's Apostle said, "May Allah bless you concerning your night. (That is, may Allah bless you with good offspring)." Sufyan said, "One of the Ansar said, 'They (i.e. Abu Talha and his wife) had nine sons and all of them became reciters of the Qur'an (by heart).' "

Um Habiba and Um Salama mentioned a church they had seen in Ethiopia and in the church there were pictures. When they told the Prophet of this, he said, "Those people are such that if a pious man amongst them died, they build a place of worship over his grave and paint these pictures in it. Those people will be Allah's worst creatures on the Day of Resurrection . "

A man was injured during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (saws); he then had a sexual dream, and he was advised to wash and he washed himself. Consequently he died. When this was reported to the Messenger of Allah (saws) he said: They killed him; may Allah kill them! Is not inquiry the cure of ignorance?

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community about a mudabbar is that the owner cannot sell him or change the position in which he has put him. If a debt overtakes the master, his creditors cannot sell the mudabbar as long as the master is alive. If the master dies and has no debts, the mudabbar is included in the third (of the bequest) because he expected his work from him as long as he lived. He cannot serve him all his life, and then he frees him from his heirs out of the main portion of his property when he dies. If the master of the mudabbar dies and has no property other than him, one third of him is freed, and two thirds of him belong to the heirs. If the master of the mudabbar dies and owes a debt which encompasses the mudabbar, he is sold to meet the debt because he can only be freed in the third (which is allowed for bequest) ."

He said, "If the debt only includes half of the slave, half of him is sold for the debt. Then a third of what remains after the debt is freed. "

Malik said, "It is not permitted to sell a mudabbar and it is not permitted for anyone to buy him unless the mudabbar buys himself from his master. He is permitted to do that. Or else some one gives the master of the mudabbar money and his master who made him a mudabbar frees him. That is also permitted for him."

Malik said, "His wala' belongs to his master who made him a mudabbar."

Malik said, "It is not permitted to sell the service of a mudabbar because it is an uncertain transaction since one does not know how long his master will live. That is uncertain and it is not good."

Malik spoke about a slave who was shared between two men, and one of them made his portion mudabbar. He said, "They estimate his value between them. If the one who made him mudabbar buys him, he is all mudabbar. If he does not buy him, his tadbir is revoked unless the one who retains ownership of him wishes to give his partner who made him mudabbar his value. If he gives him to him for his value, that is binding, and he is all mudabbar."

Malik spoke about the christian man who made a christian slave of his mudabbar and then the slave became muslim. He said, "One separates the master and the slave, and the slave is removed from his christian master and is not sold until his situation becomes clear. If the christian dies and has a debt, his debt is paid from the price of the slave unless he has in his estate what will pay the debt. Then the mudabbar is set free."

regarding the Divine Verse: "O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will, and you should not treat them with harshness that you may take back part of the (Mahr) dower you have given them." (4.19) (Before this revelation) if a man died, his relatives used to have the right to inherit his wife, and one of them could marry her if he would, or they would give her in marriage if they wished, or, if they wished, they would not give her in marriage at all, and they would be more entitled to dispose her, than her own relatives. So the above Verse was revealed in this connection.

A man from the Companions of the Prophet (saws) came to Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him). He bore witness before him that when he (the Prophet) was suffering from a disease of which he died he heard the Messenger of Allah (saws) prohibiting performing of umrah before hajj.

A man from Banu Sahm went out with Tamim ad-Dari and Adi ibn Badda'. The man of Banu Sahm died in the land where no Muslim was present. When they returned with his inheritance, they (the heirs) did not find a silver cup with lines of gold (in his property). The Messenger of Allah (saws) administered on oath to them. The cup was then found (with someone) at Mecca. They said: We have bought it from Tamim and Adi.

Then two men from the heirs of the man of Banu Sahm got up and swore saying: Our witness is more reliable than their witness. They said that the cup belonged to their man.

He (Ibn Abbas) said: The following verse was revealed about them: "O ye who believe! when death approaches any of you....."

'Aishah, the wife of the Prophet (saws) told him that there were four types of marriage during Pre-Islamic period of Ignorance. One type was similar to that of the present day i.e. a man used to ask somebody else for the hand of a girl under his guardianship or for his daughter's hand, and give her Mahr and then marry her. The second type was that a man would say to his wife after she had become clean from her period. "Send for so-and-so and have sexual intercourse with him." Her husband would then keep away from her and would never sleep with her till she got pregnant from the other man with whom she was sleeping. When her pregnancy became evident, he husband would sleep with her if he wished. Her husband did so (i.e. let his wife sleep with some other man) so that he might have a child of noble breed. Such marriage was called as Al-Istibda'. Another type of marriage was that a group of less than ten men would assemble and enter upon a woman, and all of them would have sexual relation with her. If she became pregnant and delivered a child and some days had passed after delivery, she would sent for all of them and none of them would refuse to come, and when they all gathered before her, she would say to them, "You (all) know waht you have done, and now I have given birth to a child. So, it is your child so-and-so!" naming whoever she liked, and her child would follow him and he could not refuse to take him. The fourth type of marriage was that many people would enter upon a lady and she would never refuse anyone who came to her. Those were the prostitutes who used to fix flags at their doors as sign, and he who would wished, could have sexual intercourse with them. If anyone of them got pregnant and delivered a child, then all those men would be gathered for her and they would call the Qa'if (persons skilled in recognizing the likeness of a child to his father) to them and would let the child follow the man (whom they recognized as his father) and she would let him adhere to him and be called his son. The man would not refuse all that. But when Muhammad (saws) was sent with the Truth, he abolished all the types of marriages observed in pre-Islamic period of Ignorance except the type of marriage the people recognize today.

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Said ibn al-Musayyab was asked whether a man who had vowed to fast a month could fast voluntarily, and Said said, "He should fulfil his vow before he does any voluntary fasting."

Malik said, "I have heard the same thing from Sulayman ibn Yasar."

Malik said, "If someone dies with an unfulfilled vow to free a slave or to fast or to give sadaqa or to give away a camel, and makes a bequest that his vow should be fulfilled from his estate, then the sadaqa or the gift of the camel are taken from one third of his estate. Preference is given to it over other bequests, except things of a similar nature, because by his vow it has become incumbent on him, and this is not the case with something he donates voluntarily. They (vows and voluntary donations) are settled from a limited one-third of his estate, and not from the whole of it, since if the dying man were free to dispose of all of his estate, he might delay settling what had become incumbent on him (i.e. his vows), so that when death came and the estate passed into the hands of his heirs, he would have bequeathed such things (i.e. his vows) that were not claimed by anyone (like debts). If that (i.e. to dispose freely of his property) were allowed him, he would delay these things (i.e. his vows) until when he was near death, he would designate them and they might take up all of his estate. He must not do that."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about a man who refers a creditor to another man for the debt he owes him is that if the one referred to goes bankrupt or dies, and does not leave enough to pay the debt, then the creditor has nothing against the one who referred him and the debt does not return to the first party."

Malik said, "This is the way of doing things about which there is no dispute in our community."

Malik said, "If a man has his debt to somebody taken on for him by another man and then the man who took it on dies or goes bankrupt, then whatever was taken on by him returns to the first debtor."

All the idols which were worshiped by the people of Noah were worshiped by the Arabs later on. As for the idol Wadd, it was worshiped by the tribe of Kalb at Daumat-al-Jandal; Suwa` was the idol of (the tribe of) Hudhail; Yaghouth was worshiped by (the tribe of) Murad and then by Bani Ghutaif at Al-Jurf near Saba; Ya`uq was the idol of Hamdan, and Nasr was the idol of Himyar, the branch of Dhi-al-Kala`. The names (of the idols) formerly belonged to some pious men of the people of Noah, and when they died Satan inspired their people to (prepare and place idols at the places where they used to sit, and to call those idols by their names. The people did so, but the idols were not worshiped till those people (who initiated them) had died and the origin of the idols had become obscure, whereupon people began worshiping them.

One day we were praying behind the Prophet. When he raised his head from bowing, he said, "Sami`a l-lahu liman hamidah." A man behind him said, "Rabbana wa laka l-hamdu, hamdan kathiran taiyiban mubarakan fihi" (O our Lord! All the praises are for You, many good and blessed praises). When the Prophet completed the prayer, he asked, "Who has said these words?" The man replied, "I." The Prophet said, "I saw over thirty angels competing to write it first." Prophet rose (from bowing) and stood straight till all the vertebrae of his spinal column came to a natural position.

A man fell ill and a cry was raised (for his death). So his neighbour came to the Messenger of Allah (saws) and said to him: He has died. He asked: Who told you? He said: I have seen him. The Messenger of Allah (saws) said: He has not died. He then returned.

A cry was again raised (for his death). He came to the Messenger of Allah (saws) and said: He has died. The Prophet (saws) said: He has not died. He then returned.

A cry was again raised over him. His wife said: Go to the Messenger of Allah (saws) and inform him. The man said: O Allah, curse him.

He said: The man then went and saw that he had killed himself with an arrowhead. So he went to the Prophet (saws) and informed him that he had died.

He asked: Who told you? He replied: I myself saw that he had killed himself with arrowheads. He asked: Have you seen him? He replied: Yes. He then said: Then I shall not pray over him.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Said ibn al-Musayyab used to say, "For the pigeon of Makka, when it is killed, a sheep is due."

Malik said, that if a man of the people of Makka were to enter ihram for hajj or umra and there was a flock of Makkan pigeons in his house and they were shut in and died, "I think that he should pay for that with a sheep for each bird."

Yahya said that he heard Malik speak about a man who died and left properties in Aliya and Safila (outlying districts of Madina). He said, "Unirrigated naturally watered land is not in the same category as irrigated land unless the family are satisfied with that. Unirrigated land is only in the same category as land with a spring when it resembles it. When the properties are in one land, and are close together, each individual property is evaluated and then divided between the heirs. Dwellings and houses are in the same position."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "The way of doing things generally agreed upon in our community in the case of a man who dies and has sons and one of them claims, 'My father confirmed that so-and- so was his son,' is that the relationship is not established by the testimony of one man, and the confirmation of the one who confirmed it is only permitted as regards his own share in the division of his father's property. The one testified for is only given his due from the share of the testifier."

Malik said, "An example of this is that a man dies leaving two sons, and 600 dinars. Each of them takes 300 dinars. Then one of them testifies that his deceased father confirmed that so-and-so was his son. The one who testifies is obliged to give 100 dinars to the one thus connected. This is half of the inheritance of the one thought to be related, had he been related. If the other confirms him, he takes the other 100 and so he completes his right and his relationship is established. His position is similar to that of a woman who confirms a debt against her father or her husband and the other heirs deny it. She must pay to the person whose debt she confirms, the amount according to her share of the full debt, had it been confirmed against all the heirs. If the woman inherits an eighth, she pays the creditor an eighth of his debt. If a daughter inherits a half, she pays the creditor half of his debt. Whichever women confirm him, pay him according to this.

Malik said, "If a man's testimony is in agreement with what the woman testified to, that so- and-so had a debt against his father, the creditor is made to take an oath with one witness and he is given all his due. This is not the position with women because a man's testimony is allowed and the creditor must take an oath with the testimony of his witness, and take all his due. If he does not take an oath, he only takes from the inheritance of the one who confirmed him according to his share of the debt, because he confirmed his right and the other heirs denied it. It is permitted for him to confirm it."