| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 7, Hadith 59 |
| English translation | : Book 7, Hadith 830 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 7, Hadith 827 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 2, Hadith 174 |
| English translation | : Book 2, Hadith 286 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 2, Hadith 288 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 2, Hadith 430 |
| English translation | : Book 2, Hadith 500 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 2, Hadith 502 |
| Reference | : Hisn al-Muslim 187 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 1049 |
| In-book reference | : Book 42, Hadith 86 |
| English translation | : Book 42, Hadith 1049 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 1184 |
| In-book reference | : Book 48, Hadith 10 |
| English translation | : Book 48, Hadith 1184 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 738 |
| In-book reference | : Book 31, Hadith 135 |
| English translation | : Book 31, Hadith 738 |
| Grade: | Da’if (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Sunan Ibn Majah 4336 |
| In-book reference | : Book 37, Hadith 237 |
| English translation | : Vol. 5, Book 37, Hadith 4336 |
Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Marwan ibn al-Hakam decided about a man who had made a vow to abstain from intercourse with his wife, that when four months had passed, it was a divorce and he could return to her as long as she was in her idda.
Malik added, "That was also the opinion of Ibn Shihab."
Malik said that if a man made a vow to abstain from intercourse with his wife and at the end of four months he declared his intent to continue to abstain, he was divorced. He could go back to his wife, but if he did not have intercourse with her before the end of her idda, he had no access to her and he could not go back to her unless he had an excuse - illness, imprisonment, or a similar excuse. His return to her maintained her as his wife. If her idda passed and then he married her after that and did not have intercourse with her until four months had passed and he declared his intent to continue to abstain, divorce was applied to him by the first vow. If four months passed, and he had not returned to her, he had no idda against her nor access because he had married her and then divorced her before touching her.
Malik said that a man who made a vow to abstain from intercourse with his wife and continued to abstain after four months and so divorced her, but then returned and did not touch her and four months were completed before her idda was completed, did not have to declare his intent and divorce did not befall him. If he had intercourse with her before the end of her idda, he was entitled to her. If her idda passed before he had intercourse with her, he had no access to her. This is what Malik preferred of what he had heard on the subject.
Malik said that if a man made a vow to abstain from intercourse with his wife and then divorced her, and the four months of the vow were completed before completion of the idda of the divorce, it counted as two pronouncements of divorce. If he declared his intention to continue to abstain and the idda of the divorce finished before the four months the vow of abstention was not a divorce. That was because the four months had passed and she was not his on that day.
Malik said, "If someone makes a vow not to have intercourse with his wife for a day or a month and then waits until more than four months have passed, it is not ila. Ila only applies to someone who vows more than four months. As for the one who vows not to have intercourse with his wife for four months or less than that, I do not think that it is ila because when the term enters into it at which it stops, he comes out of his oath and he does not have to declare his intention."
Malik said, "If someone vows to his wife not to have intercourse with her until her child has been weaned, that is not ila. I have heard that Ali ibn Abi Talib was asked about that and he did not think that it was ila."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 29, Hadith 19 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 29, Hadith 1173 |
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)."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 37, Hadith 4 |
| Grade: | Hasan (Darussalam)] (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Musnad Ahmad 656 |
| In-book reference | : Book 5, Hadith 92 |
| صَحِيح (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 1630 |
| In-book reference | : Book 5, Hadith 106 |
| Grade: | Sahih (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Sunan Ibn Majah 2066 |
| In-book reference | : Book 10, Hadith 51 |
| English translation | : Vol. 3, Book 10, Hadith 2066 |
| Grade: | Hasan (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Sunan Ibn Majah 2732 |
| In-book reference | : Book 23, Hadith 14 |
| English translation | : Vol. 4, Book 23, Hadith 2732 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 776 |
| In-book reference | : Book 33, Hadith 23 |
| English translation | : Book 33, Hadith 776 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 1159 |
| In-book reference | : Book 47, Hadith 6 |
| English translation | : Book 47, Hadith 1159 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 4, Hadith 46 |
| English translation | : Book 4, Hadith 665 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 4, Hadith 644 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 5, Hadith 18 |
| English translation | : Book 5, Hadith 688 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 5, Hadith 667 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 10, Hadith 38 |
| English translation | : Book 10, Hadith 1280 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 10, Hadith 1241 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 7, Hadith 203 |
| English translation | : Book 7, Hadith 949 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 7, Hadith 942 |
Also on the authority of Abu Dharr (may Allah be pleased with him):
| Reference | : Hadith 25, 40 Hadith an-Nawawi |
Yahya said that he heard Malik speak about someone who pledged goods as security for a loan, and they perished with the broker. The one who took out the loan confirmed its specification. They agreed on the amount of the loan, but challenged each other about the value of the pledge, the pledger saying that it had been worth twenty dinars, whilst the broker said that it had been worth only ten, and that the amount loaned on security was twenty dinars. Malik said, "It is said to the one in whose hand the pledge is, 'describe it.' If he describes it he is made to take an oath on it and then the people of experience evaluate that description. If the value is more than what was loaned on security for it, it is said to the broker, 'Return the rest of his due to the pledger.' If the value is less than what was loaned on security for it, the broker takes the rest of his due from the pledger. If the value is the exact amount of the loan, the pledge is compensated for by the loan."
Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about two men who have a dispute about an amount of money loaned on the security of a pledge - the pledger claiming that he pledged it for ten dinars and the broker insisting that he took the pledge as security for twenty dinars, and the pledge is clearly in the possession of the broker - is that the broker is made to take an oath when the value of the pledge is fully known. If the value of the pledge is exactly what he swore that he had loaned on security for it, the broker takes the pledge as his right. He is more entitled to take precedence with an oath since he has possession of the pledge. If the owner of the pledge wants to give him the amount which he swore that he was owed, he can take the pledge back. If the pledge is worth less than the twenty dinars he loaned, then it is said to the pledger, 'Either you give him what he has sworn to and take your pledge back, or you swear to what you said you pledged it for.' If the pledger takes the oath, then what the broker has increased over the value of the pledge will become invalid. If the pledger does not take an oath, he must pay what the broker swore to."
Malik said, "If a pledge given on security for a loan perishes, and both parties deny each other's rights, with the broker who is owed the loan saying that he gave twenty dinars, and the pledger who owes the loan saying that he was given only ten, and with the broker who is owed the loan saying the pledge was worth ten dinars, and the broker who owes the loan saying it was worth twenty, then the broker who is owed the loan is asked to describe the pledge. If he describes it, he must take an oath on its description. Then people with experience of it evaluate that description. If the value of the pledge is estimated to be more than what the broker claims it was, he takes an oath as to what he claimed, and the pledger is given what is over from the value of the pledge. If its value is less than what the broker claims of it, he is made to take an oath as to what he claims is his. Then he demands settlement according to the actual value of the pledge. The one who owes the loan is then made to take an oath on the extra amount which remains owing against him to the claimant after the price of the pledge is reached. That is because the broker becomes a claimant against the pledger. If he takes an oath, the rest of what the broker swore to of what he claimed above the value of the pledge is invalidated. If he draws back, he is bound to pay what remains due to the broker after the value of the pledge."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 36, Hadith 13 |
Malik said, "When a mukatab sets his own slaves free, it is only permitted for a mukatab to set his own slaves free with the consent of his master. If his master gives his consent and the mukatab sets his slave free, his wala' goes to the mukatab . If the mukatab then dies before he has been set free himself, the wala' of the freed slave goes to the master of the mukatab. If the freed one dies before the mukatab has been set free, the master of the mukatab inherits from him."
Malik said, "It is like that also when a mukatab gives his slave a kitaba and his mukatab is set free before he is himself. The wala' goes to the master of the mukatab as long as he is not free. If this one who wrote the kitaba is set free, then the wala' of his mukatab who was freed before him reverts to him. If the first mukatab dies before he pays, or he cannot pay his kitaba and he has free children, they do not inherit the wala' of their father's mukatab because the wala' has not been established for their father and he does not have the wala' until he is free."
Malik spoke about a mukatab who was shared between two men and one of them forewent what the mukatab owed him and the other insisted on his due. Then the mukatab died and left property.
Malik said, "The one who did not abandon any of what he was owed, is paid in full. Then the property is divided between them both just as if a slave had died because what the first one did was not setting him free. He only abandoned a debt that was owed to him ."
Malik said, "One clarification of that is that when a man dies and leaves a mukatab and he also leaves male and female children and one of the children frees his portion of the mukatab, that does not establish any of the wala' for him. Had it been a true setting free, the wala' would have been established for whichever men and women freed him."
Malik said, "Another clarification of that is that if one of them freed his portion and then the mukatab could not pay, the value of what was left of the mukatab would be altered because of the one who freed his portion. Had it been a true setting-free, his estimated value would have been taken from the property of the one who set free until he had been set completely free as the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'Whoever frees his share in a slave and has money to cover the full price of the slave, justly evaluated for him, gives his partners their shares. If not, he frees of him what he frees.' " (See Book 37 hadith 1).
He said, "Another clarification of that is that part of the sunna of the muslims in which there is no dispute, is that whoever frees his share of a mukatab, the mukatab is not set fully free using his property. Had he been truly set free, the wala' would have been his alone rather than his partners. Part of what will clarify that also is that part of the sunna of the muslims is that the wala' belongs to whoever writes the contract of kitaba. The women who inherit from the master of the mukatab do not have any of the wala' of the mukatab. If they free any of their share, the wala' belongs to the male children of the master of the mukatab or his male paternal relations."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 39, Hadith 12 |
| Grade: | Da'if (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2369 |
| In-book reference | : Book 36, Hadith 66 |
| English translation | : Vol. 4, Book 10, Hadith 2369 |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 5582 |
| In-book reference | : Book 28, Hadith 57 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 187 |
| In-book reference | : Book 9, Hadith 32 |
| English translation | : Book 9, Hadith 187 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 256 |
| In-book reference | : Book 13, Hadith 1 |
| English translation | : Book 13, Hadith 256 |
| Grade: | Hasan (Zubair `Aliza'i) |
| Reference | : Ash-Shama'il Al-Muhammadiyah 109 |
| In-book reference | : Book 14, Hadith 1 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 132 |
| In-book reference | : Book 7, Hadith 4 |
| English translation | : Book 7, Hadith 132 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 4, Hadith 3 |
| English translation | : Book 4, Hadith 625 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 4, Hadith 600 |
| Reference | : Bulugh al-Maram 1397 |
| In-book reference | : Book 14, Hadith 1 |
| English translation | : Book 14, Hadith 1397 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 8, Hadith 152 |
| English translation | : Book 8, Hadith 1106 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 8, Hadith 1095 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 7, Hadith 37 |
| English translation | : Book 7, Hadith 814 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 7, Hadith 811 |
| Reference | : Hisn al-Muslim 98 |
On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) who said:
| Reference | : Hadith 26, 40 Hadith an-Nawawi |
| Grade: | Da’if (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Sunan Ibn Majah 1235 |
| In-book reference | : Book 5, Hadith 433 |
| English translation | : Vol. 1, Book 5, Hadith 1235 |
Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafic from Abdullah ibn Umar that a man cursed his wife in the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and disowned her child. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, separated them and gave the child to the woman.
Malik said, "Allah the Blessed, the Exalted, said, 'The testimony of men who accuse their wives but do not have any witnesses except themselves is to testify by Allah four times that he is being truthful, and a fifth time, that the curse of Allah will be upon him, if he should be a liar. She will avoid punishment if she testifies by Allah four times that he is a liar, and a fifth time, that the wrath of Allah shall be upon her, if he should be telling the truth. ' "(Sura 24 ayat 6).
Malik said, "The sunna with us is that those who curse each other are never to be remarried. If the man calls himself a liar, (i.e. takes back his accusation), he is flogged with the hadd-punishment, and the child is given to him, and his wife can never return to him. There is no doubt or dispute about this sunna among us. "
Malik said, "If a man separates from his wife by an irrevocable divorce by which he cannot return to her, and then he denies the paternity of the child she is carrying, whilst she claims that he is the father, and it is possible by the timing, that he be so, he must curse her, and the child is not recognised as his."
Malik said, "That is what is done among us, and it is what I have heard from the people of knowledge."
Malik said that a man who accused his wife after he had divorced her trebly while she was pregnant, and he had at first accepted being the father but then claimed that he had seen her committing adultery before he separated from her, was flogged with the hadd-punishment, and did not curse her.
If he denied the paternity of her child after he had divorced her trebly, and he had not previously accepted it, then he cursed her.
Malik said, "This is what I have heard."
Malik said, "The slave is in the same position as the free man as regards making accusations and invoking mutual curses (lian). He acts in the lian as the free man acts although there is no hadd applied for slandering a female-slave."
Malik said, "The muslim slave-girl and the christian and jewish free woman also do lian when a free muslim marries one of them and has intercourse with her. That is because Allah - may He be blessed and Exalted, said in His Book, 'As for those who accuse their wives,' and they are their wives. This is what is done among us.
Malik said that a man who did the lian with his wife, and then stopped and called himself a liar after one or two oaths and he had not cursed himself in the fifth one, had to be flogged with the hadd-punishment, but they did not have to be separated.
Malik said that if a man divorced his wife and then after three months the woman said, "I am pregnant," and he denied paternity, then he had to do lian.
Malik said that the husband of a female slave who pronounced the lian on her and then bought her, was not to have intercourse with her, even if he owned her. The sunna which had been handed down about a couple who mutually cursed each other in the lian was that they were never to return to each other.
Malik said that when a man pronounced the lian against his wife before he had consummated the marriage, she only had half of the bride price.
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 29, Hadith 35 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 29, Hadith 1192 |
| صَحِيح (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 3562 |
| In-book reference | : Book 17, Hadith 8 |
Malik related to me that he heard the like of that from Sulayman ibn Yasar.
Malik spoke about a man who bought out one of the partners in a shared property, by paying the man with an animal, a slave, a slave-girl, or the equivalent of that in goods. Then another partner decided to exercise his right of pre-emption after that, and he found that the slave or slave-girl had died, and no one knew what her value had been. The buyer claimed, "The value of the slave or slave-girl was 100 dinars." The partner with the right of pre-emption claimed, "The value was 50 dinars."
Malik said, "The buyer takes an oath that the value of what he payed was 100 dinars. Then if the one with the right of pre-emption wishes, he can compensate him, or else he can leave it, unless he can bring a clear proof that the slave or slave-girl's value is less than what the buyer said. If someone gives away his portion of a shared house or land and the recipient repays him for it by cash or goods, the partners can take it by pre-emption if they wish and pay off the recipient the value of what he gave in dinars or dirhams. If someone makes a gift of his portion of a shared house or land, and does not take any remuneration and does not seek to, and a partner wants to take it for its value, he cannot do so as long as the original partner has not been given recompense for it. If there is any recompense, the one with the right of pre-emption can have it for the price of the recompense."
Malik spoke about a man who bought into a piece of shared land for a price on credit, and one of the partners wanted to possess it by right of pre-emption . Malik said, "If it seems likely that the partner can meet the terms, he has right of pre-emption for the same credit terms. If it is feared that he will not be able to meet the terms, but he can bring a wealthy and reliable guarantor of equal standing to the one who bought into the land, he can also take possession."
Malik said, "A person's absence does not sever his right of pre-emption. Even if he is a way for a long time, there is no time limit after which the right of preemption is cut off."
Malik said that if a man left land to a number of his children, then one of them who had a child died and the child of the deceased sold his right in that land, the brother of the seller was more entitled to pre-empt him than his paternal uncles, the partners of his father.
Malik said, "This is what is done in our community."
Malik said, "Pre- emption is shared between partners according to their existing shares. Each of them takes according to his portion. If it is small, he has little. If it is great, it is according to that. That is if they are tenacious and contend with each other about it."
Malik said, "As for a man who buys out the share of one of his partners, and one of the other partners says, 'I will take a portion according to my share,' and the first partner says, 'If you wish to take all the preemption, I will give it up to you. If you wish to leave it, then leave it.' If the first partner gives him the choice and hands it over to him, the second partner can only take all the pre-emption or give it back. If he takes it, he is entitled to it. If not, he has nothing."
Malik spoke about a man who bought land, and developed it by planting trees or digging a well etc., and then someone came, and seeing that he had a right in the land, wanted to take possession of it by pre-emption. Malik said "He has no right of preemption unless he compensates the other for his expenditure. If he gives him the price of what he has developed, he is entitled to pre- emption . If not, he has no right in it."
Malik said that someone who sold off his portion of a shared house or land and then, on learning that some one with a right of pre-emption was to take possession by that right, asked the buyer to revoke the sale, and he did so, did not have the right to do that. The pre-emptor has more right to the property for the price for which he sold it.
In the case of some one who bought along with a section of a shared house or land, an animal and goods (that were not shared), so that when any one demanded his right of pre-emption in the house or land he said, "Take what I have bought altogether, for I bought it altogether," Malik said, "The pre-emptor need only take possession of the house or land. Each thing the man bought is assessed according to its share of the lump sum the man paid. Then the pre-emptor takes possession of his right for a price which is appropriate on that basis. He does not take any animals or goods unless he wants to do that."
Malik said, "If someone sells a section of shared land, and one of those who have the right of preemption surrenders it to the buyer and another refuses to do other than take his pre-emption, the one who refuses to surrender has to take all the preemption, and he cannot take according to his right and leave what remains.
In the case where one of a number of partners in one house sold his share when all his partners were away except for one man, the one present was given the choice of either taking the pre-emption or leaving it, and he said, 'I will take my portion and leave the portions of my partners until they are present. If they take it, that is that. If they leave it, I will take all the pre-emption,' Malik said, 'He can only take it all or leave it. If his partners come, they can take from him or leave it as they wish. If this is offered to him and he does not accept, I think that he has no pre-emption.' "
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 35, Hadith 3 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 35, Hadith 1400 |
Yahya related to me from Malik that Abu'z-Zinad informed him that a governor of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz took some people in battle and had not killed any of them. He wanted to cut off their hands or kill them, so he wrote to Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz about that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz wrote to him, "Better to take less than that."
Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done among us about a person who steals the goods of people which are placed under guard in the markets, and their owners put them in their containers and store them together is that if anyone steals any of that from where it is kept, and its value reaches that for which cutting off the hand is obliged, his hand must be cut off, whether or not the owner of the goods is with his goods and whether it is night or day."
Malik said about some one who stole something for which cutting off the hand was obliged and then what he stole was found with him and he returned it to its owner, "His hand is cut off."
Malik said, "If someon says, 'How can his hand be cut off when the goods have been taken from him and returned to their owner?', it is because he is in the same position as the wine drinker when the smell of the wine is found on his breath and he is not drunk. He is flogged with the hadd.
"The hadd is imposed for drinking wine even if it does not make the man intoxicated. That is because he drank it to become intoxicated. It is the same as that with cutting off the hand of the thief for theft when it is taken from him, even if he has not profited from it and it was returned to its owner. When he stole it, he stole it to take it away."
Malik said that if some people came to a house and robbed it together, and then they left with a sack or box or a board or basket or the like of that which they carried together, and when they took it out of its guarded place, they carried it together, and the price of what they took reached that for which cutting off the hand was obliged, and that was three dirhams and upwards, each of them had his hand cut off.
"If each of them takes out something by himself, whoever of them takes out something whose value reaches three dirhams and upwards must have his hand cut off. If any of them takes out something whose value does not reach three dirhams, he does not have his hand cut off."
Yahya said that Malik said, "What is done among us is that when a man's house is locked and he is the only one living in it, cutting off the hand is not obliged against the one who steals something from it until he takes it out of the house completely. That is because all of the house is a place of custody. If someone other than him lives in the house and each of them locks his door, and it is a place of custody for each of them, whoever steals anything from the apartments of that house must have his hand cut off when he leaves the apartment and goes into the main house. He has removed it from its place of custody to another place and he must have his hand cut off."
Malik said, "What is done in our community about a slave who steals from the property of his master is that if he is not in service and among those trusted in the house and he enters secretly and steals from his master something that for which cutting off the hand is obliged, his hand is not cut off. It is like that with a slave-girl when she steals from her master's property. Her hand is not cut off."
Malik then spoke about a slave who was not in service and not one of those trusted in the house, and he entered secretly and stole from the property of his master's wife that for which cutting off the hand was obliged. He said, "His hand is cut off."
"It is like that with the wife's slave-girl when she does not serve her or her husband nor is she trusted in the house and she enters secretly and steals from her mistress's property that for which cutting off the hand is obliged. Her hand is not cut off."
"It is like that with the wife's slave-girl who is not in her service and is not trusted in the house and she enters secretly and steals from the property of her mistress's husband something for which cutting off the hand is obliged. Her hand is cut off."
It is like that with the man who steals from his wife's goods or the wife who steals from her husband's goods something for which cutting off the hand is obliged. If the thing which one of them steals from his spouse's property is in a room other than the room which they both lock for themselves, or it is in a place of custody in a room other than the room which they are in, whichever of them steals something for which cutting off the hand is obliged, their hand should be cut off."
Malik spoke about a small child and a foreigner who does not speak clearly. He said, "If they are robbed of something from its place of custody or from under a lock, the one who stole it has his hand cut off. If the property is outside of its place of custody or locked room(when it is stolen), the one who robbed them does not have his hand cut off. It is then in the position of sheep stolen from the mountain and uncut fruit hanging on the trees "
Malik said, "What is done among us about a person who robs graves is that if what he takes from the grave reaches what cutting off the hand is obliged for, his hand is cut off . That is because the grave is a place of custody for what is in it just as houses are a place of custody for what is in them. "
Malik added, "Cutting off the hand is not obliged for him until he takes it out of the grave."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 41, Hadith 31 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 41, Hadith 1535 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 587 |
| In-book reference | : Book 30, Hadith 50 |
| English translation | : Book 30, Hadith 587 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 4, Hadith 8 |
| English translation | : Book 4, Hadith 629 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 4, Hadith 605 |
| Grade: | Sahih (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Sunan Ibn Majah 2622 |
| In-book reference | : Book 21, Hadith 8 |
| English translation | : Vol. 3, Book 21, Hadith 2622 |
| Reference | : Sunan Ibn Majah 3920 |
| In-book reference | : Book 35, Hadith 28 |
| English translation | : Vol. 5, Book 35, Hadith 3920 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 163 |
| In-book reference | : Book 9, Hadith 8 |
| English translation | : Book 9, Hadith 163 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 11, Hadith 59 |
| English translation | : Book 11, Hadith 1354 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 11, Hadith 1328 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 8, Hadith 123 |
| English translation | : Book 8, Hadith 0 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 8, Hadith 1070 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 7, Hadith 223 |
| English translation | : Book 7, Hadith 966 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 7, Hadith 959 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 2, Hadith 305 |
| English translation | : Book 2, Hadith 396 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 2, Hadith 401 |