Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Do not ask for a woman in marriage when another muslim has already done so."

Malik said, "The explanation of the statement of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, according to what we think - and Allah knows best - is that 'Do not ask for a woman in marriage when another muslim has already done so' means that when a man has asked for a woman in marriage, and she has inclined to him and they have agreed on a bride-price, which she has suggested and with which they are mutually satisfied, it is forbidden for another man to ask for that woman in marriage. It does not mean that when a man has asked for a woman in marriage, and his suit does not agree with her and she does not incline to him that no one else can ask for her in marriage. That is a door to misery for people."

The Prophet (saws) said: If he is intoxicated, flog him; again if he is intoxicated, flog him; again if he is intoxicated, flog him if he does it again a fourth time, kill him.

Abu Dawud said: And there is a similar tradition of Umar ibn AbuSalamah, from his father, on the authority of AbuHurayrah, from the Prophet (saws): If he drinks wine, flog him if he does it so again, a fourth time, kill him.

Abu Dawud said: And there is similar tradition of Suhail from Abu Salih on the authority of Abu Hurairah, from the Prophet (saws): It they drink a fourth time, kill them. And there is similar tradition of Ibn Abi Nu'm on the authority of Ibn 'Umar from Prophet (saws). There is also similar tradition of 'Abd Allah b. 'Amr from the Prophet (saws), and from Sharid from the Prophet (saws). And in the tradition of al-Jadli from Mu'awiyah, the Prophet (saws) said: If he does so again third or fourth time, kill him.

The Prophet; said, "Allah has a sense of Ghira, and Allah's sense of Ghira is provoked when a believer does something which Allah has prohibited."

The Prophet said that his Lord said: "It does not befit a slave that he should say that he is better than Jonah (Yunus) bin Matta.

The Prophet forbade the making of vows and said, "It (a vow) does not prevent anything (that has to take place), but the property of a miser is spent (taken out) with it."

The Prophet (saws) said: A man's prayer does not avail him unless he keeps his back steady when bowing and prostrating.

I heard the Messenger of Allah (saws) say: Islam increases and does not diminish. He, therefore, appointed a Muslim heir (of a non-Muslim).

The Prophet (saws) said: If anyone cares for three daughters, disciplines them, marries them, and does good to them, he will go to Paradise.

Eleven women sat (at a place) and promised and contracted that they would not conceal anything of the news of their husbands. The first one said, "My husband is like the meat of a slim weak camel which is kept on the top of a mountain which is neither easy to climb, nor is the meat fat, so that one might put up with the trouble of fetching it." The second one said, "I shall not relate my husband's news, for I fear that I may not be able to finish his story, for if I describe him, I will mention all his defects and bad traits." The third one said, "My husband, the "too-tall"! if I describe him (and he hears of that) he will divorce me, and if I keep quiet, he will keep me hanging (neither divorcing me nor treating me as a wife)." The fourth one said, "My husband is (moderate in temper) like the night of Tihama: neither hot nor cold; I am neither afraid of him, nor am I discontented with him." The fifth one said, "My husband, when entering (the house) is a leopard (sleeps a lot), and when going out, is a lion (boasts a lot). He does not ask about whatever is in the house." The sixth one said, "If my husband eats, he eats too much (leaving the dishes empty), and if he drinks he leaves nothing; if he sleeps he sleeps he rolls himself (alone in our blankets); and he does not insert his palm to inquire about my feelings." The seventh one said, "My husband is a wrong-doer or weak and foolish. All the defects are present in him. He may injure your head or your body or may do both." The eighth one said, "My husband is soft to touch like a rabbit and smells like a Zarnab (a kind of good smelling grass)." The ninth one said, "My husband is a tall generous man wearing a long strap for carrying his sword. His ashes are abundant (i.e. generous to his guests) and his house is near to the people (who would easily consult him)." The tenth one said, "My husband is Malik (possessor), and what is Malik? Malik is greater than whatever I say about him. (He is beyond and above all praises which can come to my mind). Most of his camels are kept at home (ready to be slaughtered for the guests) and only a few are taken to the pastures. When the camels hear the sound of the lute (or the tambourine) they realize that they are going to be slaughtered for the guests." The eleventh one said, "My husband is Abu Zar` and what is Abu Zar` (i.e., what should I say about him)? He has given me many ornaments and my ears are heavily loaded with them and my arms have become fat (i.e., I have become fat). And he has pleased me, and I have become so happy that I feel proud of myself. He found me with my family who were mere owners of sheep and living in poverty, and brought me to a respected family having horses and camels and threshing and purifying grain. Whatever I say, he does not rebuke or insult me. When I sleep, I sleep till late in the morning, and when I drink water (or milk), I drink my fill. The mother of Abu Zar and what may one say in praise of the mother of Abu Zar? Her saddle bags were always full of provision and her house was spacious. As for the son of Abu Zar, what may one say of the son of Abu Zar? His bed is as narrow as an unsheathed sword and an arm of a kid (of four months) satisfies his hunger. As for the daughter of Abu Zar, she is obedient to her father and to her mother. She has a fat well-built body and that arouses the jealousy of her husband's other wife. As for the (maid) slave girl of Abu Zar, what may one say of the (maid) slavegirl of Abu Zar? She does not uncover our secrets but keeps them, and does not waste our provisions and does not leave the rubbish scattered everywhere in our house." The eleventh lady added, "One day it so happened that Abu Zar went out at the time when the milk was being milked from the animals, and he saw a woman who had two sons like two leopards playing with her two breasts. (On seeing her) he divorced me and married her. Thereafter I married a noble man who used to ride a fast tireless horse and keep a spear in his hand. He gave me many things, and also a pair of every kind of livestock and said, Eat (of this), O Um Zar, and give provision to your relatives." She added, "Yet, all those things which my second husband gave me could not fill the smallest utensil of Abu Zar's." `Aisha then said: Allah's Apostle said to me, "I am to you as Abu Zar was to his wife Um Zar."

Malik related to me that he heard that Abu Salama ibn Abd ar- Rahman and Sulayman ibn Yasar were both asked, "Does one pronounce judgement on the basis of an oath with one witness?" They both said, "Yes."

Malik said, "The precedent of the sunna in judging by an oath with one witness is that if the plaintiff takes an oath with his witness, he is confirmed in his right. If he draws back and refuses to take an oath, the defendant is made to take an oath. If he takes an oath, the claim against him is dropped. If he refuses to take an oath, the claim is confirmed against him."

Malik said, "This procedure pertains to property cases in particular. It does not occur in any of the hadd-punishments, nor in marriage, divorce, freeing slaves, theft or slander. If some one says, 'Freeing slaves comes under property,' he has erred. It is not as he said. Had it been as he said, a slave could take an oath with one witness, if he could find one, that his master had freed him.

"However, when a slave lays claim to a piece of property, he can take an oath with one witness and demand his right as the freeman demands his right."

Malik said, "The sunna with us is that when a slave brings somebody who witnesses that he has been set free, his master is made to take an oath that he has not freed him, and the slave's claim is dropped."

Malik said, "The sunna about divorce is also like that with us. When a woman brings somebody who witnesses that her husband has divorced her, the husband is made to take an oath that he has not divorced her. If he takes the oath, the divorce does not proceed . "

Malik said, "There is only one sunna of bringing a witness in cases of divorce and freeing a slave. The right to make an oath only belongs to the husband of the woman, and the master of the slave. Freeing is a hadd matter, and the testimony of women is not permitted in it because when a slave is freed, his inviolability is affirmed and the hadd punishments are applied for and against him. If he commits fornication and he is a muhsan, he is stoned. If he kills a slave, he is killed for it. Inheritance is established for him, between him and whoever inherits from him. If somebody disputes this, arguing that if a man frees his slave and then a man comes to demand from the master of the slave payment of a debt, and a man and two women testify to his right, that establishes the right against the master of the slave so that his freeing him is cancelled if he only has the slave as property, inferring by this case that the testimony of women is permitted in cases of setting free. The case is not as he suggests (i.e. it is a case of property not freeing). It is like a man who frees his slave, and then the claimant of a debt comes to the master and takes an oath with one witness, demanding his right. By that, the freeing of the slave would be cancelled. Or else a man comes who has frequent dealings and transactions with the master of the slave. He claims that he is owed money by the master of the slave. Someone says to the master of the slave, 'Take an oath that you don't owe what he claims'. If he draws back and refuses to take an oath, the one making the claim takes an oath and his right against the master of the slave is confirmed. That would cancel the freeing of the slave if it is confirmed that property is owed by the master."

Malik said, "It is the same case with a man who marries a slave-girl and then the master of the slave-girl comes to the man who has married her and claims, 'You and so-and-so have bought my slave-girl from me for such an amount of dinars. The husband of the slave-girl denies that. The master of the slave-girl brings a man and two women and they testify to what he has said. The sale is confirmed and his claim is considered true. So the slave-girl is haram for her husband and they have to separate, even though the testimony of women is not accepted in divorce."

Malik said, "It is also the same case with a man who accuses a free man, so the hadd falls on him. A man and two women come and testify that the one accused is a slave. That would remove the hadd from the accused after it had befallen him, even though the testimony of women is not accepted in accusations involving hadd punishments."

Malik said, "Another similar case in which judgement appears to go against the precedent of the sunna is that two women testify that a child is born alive and so it is necessary for him to inherit if a situation arises where he is entitled to inherit, and the child's property goes to those who inherit from him, if he dies, and it is not necessary that the two women witnesses should be accompanied by a man or an oath even though it may involve vast properties of gold, silver, live-stock, gardens and slaves and other properties. However, had two women testified to one dirham or more or less than that in a property case, their testimony would not affect anything and would not be permitted unless there was a witness or an oath with them."

Malik said, "There are people who say that an oath is not acceptable with only one witness and they argue by the word of Allah the Blessed, the Exalted, and His word is the Truth, 'And call in to witness two witnesses, men; or if the two be not men, then one man and two women, such witnesses as you approve of.' (Sura 2 ayat 282). Such people argue that if he does not bring one man and two women, he has no claim and he is not allowed to take an oath with one witness."

Malik said, "Part of the proof against those who argue this, is to reply to them, 'Do you think that if a man claimed property from a man, the one claimed from would not swear that the claim was false?' If he swears, the claim against him is dropped. If he refuses to take an oath, the claimant is made to take an oath that his claim is true, and his right against his companion is established. There is no dispute about this with any of the people nor in any country. By what does he take this? In what place in the Book of Allah does he find it? So if he confirms this, let him confirm the oath with one witness, even if it is not in the Book of Allah, the Mighty, the Majestic! It is enough that this is the precedent of the sunna. However, man wants to recognise the proper course of action and the location of the proof. In this there is a clarification for what is obscure about that, if Allah ta'ala wills."

Malik said that he had heard that Said ibn al-Musayyab and Sulayman ibn Yasar were asked, "Does one deal more harshly in taking the blood-money in the sacred month?" They said, "No. But it is increased in it because of violating the month." It was said to Said, "Does one increase for the wound as one increases for the life?" He said, "Yes."

Malik added, "I think that they meant the same as what Umar ibn al-Khattab did with respect to the blood-money of the Mudliji when he struck his son." (i.e. giving 120 camels instead of 100).

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar used to say, "Zakat does not have to be paid on property until a year has elapsed over it."

The Prophet (saws) said: (Does) one of you kneel down in his prayer as a camel kneels down (i.e. put his knees before his hands).

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about a man who rents an animal for a journey to a specified place and then he goes beyond that place and further, is that the owner of the animal has a choice. If he wants to take extra rent for his animal to cover the distance overstepped, he is given that on top of the first rent and the animal is returned. If the owner of the animal likes to sell the animal from the place where he over-steps, he has the price of the animal on top of the rent. If, however, the hirer rented the animal to go and return and then he overstepped when he reached the city to which he rented him, the owner of the animal only has half the first rent. That is because half of the rent is going, and half of it is returning. If he oversteps with the animal, only half of the first rent is obliged for him. Had the animal died when he reached the city to which it was rented, the hirer would not be liable and the renter would only have half the rent."

Malik said, "That is what is done with people who overstep and dispute about what they took the animal for."

Malik said, "It is also like that with some one who takes qirad-money from his companion. The owner of the property says to him, 'Do not buy such-and-such animals or such- and-such goods.' He names them and forbids them and disapproves of his money being invested in them. The one who takes the money then buys what he was forbidden. By that, he intends to be liable for the money and take the profit of his companion. When he does that, the owner of the money has an option. If he wants to enter with him in the goods according to the original stipulations between them about the profit, he does so. If he likes, he has his capital guaranteed against the one who took the capital and over stepped the mark."

Malik said, "It is also like that with a man with whom another man invests some goods. The owner of the property orders him to buy certain goods for him which he names. He differs, and buys with the goods something other than what he was ordered to buy. He exceeded his orders. The owner of the goods has an option. If he wants to take what was bought with his property, he takes it. If he wants the partner to be liable for his capital he has that."

Malik related to me that he had heard that Said ibn al-Musayyab was asked who had the wala' of the children whom a slave had by a free woman. Said said, "If their father dies and he is a slave who was not set free, their wala' belongs to the mawali of their mother."

Malik said, "That is like the child of a woman who is a mawla who has been divorced by lian; the child is attached to the mawali of his mother and they are his mawali. If he dies, they inherit from him. If he commits a crime, they pay the blood-money for him. If his father acknowledges him, he is given a kinship to him and his wala' goes to the mawali of his father. They are his heirs, they pay his blood-money and his father is punished with the hadd-punishment."

Malik said, "It is like that with a free-born woman divorced by lian. If her husband who curses her by lian does not acknowledge her child, the child is dealt with in the same way except that the rest of his inheritance after the inheritance of his mother and his brothers from his mother goes to all the muslims as long as he was not given kinship to his father. The child of the lian is attached to the patronage of the mawali of his mother until his father acknowledges him because he does not have a lineage or paternal relations. If his lineage is confirmed, it goes to his paternal relations."

Malik said, "The generally agreed-on way of doing things among us about a child of a slave by a free woman, while the father of the slave is free, is that the grandfather (the father of the slave), attracts the wala' of his son's free children by a free woman. They leave their inheritance to him as long as their father is a slave. If the father becomes free, the wala' returns to his mawali. If he dies and he is still a slave, the inheritance and the wala' go to the grandfather. If the slave has two free sons, and one of them dies while the father is still a slave, the grandfather, the father of the father, attracts the wala' and the inheritance."

Malik spoke about a slave-girl who was set free while she was pregnant and her husband was a slave and then her husband became free before she gave birth, or after she gave birth. He said, "The wala' of what is in her womb goes to the person who set the mother free because slavery touched the child before the mother was set free. It is not treated in the same way as a child conceived by its mother after she has been set free because the wala' of such a child, is attracted by the father when he is set free."

Malik said that if a slave asked his master's permission to free a slave of his and his master gave permission, the wala' of the freed slave went to the master of his master, and his wala' did not return to the master who had set him free, even if he were to become free himself."

Abu Huraira said, "Allah's Apostle said, 'Whoever does not recite Qur'an in a nice voice is not from us,' and others said extra," (that means) to recite it aloud."

A man said, "O Allah's Apostle! Which sin is the biggest in Allah's Sight?" The Prophet said, "To set up rivals unto Allah though He Alone created you." That man said, "What is next?" The Prophet said, "To kill your son lest he should share your food with you.'' The man said, "What is next?" The Prophet said, "To commit illegal sexual intercourse with the wife of your neighbor." Then Allah revealed in confirmation of that: "And those who invoke not with Allah any other god, nor kill such life as Allah has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit illegal sexual intercourse and whoever does this shall receive the punishment..... (25.68)

A man said, "O Allah's Apostle! Which sin is the greatest in Allah's Sight?" The Prophet said, "To set up a rival unto Allah though He Alone created you . " The man said, "What is next?" The Prophet said, "To kill your son lest he should share your food with you." The man said, "What is next?" The Prophet said, "To commit illegal sexual intercourse with the wife of your neighbor." So Allah revealed in confirmation of this narration:-- 'And those who invoke not with Allah, any other god. Nor kill, such life as Allah has forbidden except for just cause nor commit illegal sexual intercourse. And whoever does this shall receive the punishment.' (25.68)

On the day of the Battle of Uhud, my father was brought and he had been mutilated (in battle) and was placed in front of Allah's Apostle and a sheet was over him. I went intending to uncover my father but my people forbade me; again I wanted to uncover him but my people forbade me. Allah's Apostle gave his order and he was shifted away. At that time he heard the voice of a crying woman and asked, "Who is this?" They said, "It is the daughter or the sister of `Amr." He said, "Why does she weep? (or let her stop weeping), for the angels had been shading him with their wings till he (i.e. the body of the martyr) was shifted away."

Abu Dawud said: Malis said: This refers to a man gives his evidence, but he does not know for whom it is meant. Al-Hamdani said: "He should inform the authorities. Ibn al-Sarh said: "He should give it to the ruler. The work ikhbar (inform) occurs in the version of al-Hamdani." Ibn al-Sarh said: "Ibn Abi 'Amrah and not 'Abd al-Rahman."

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.

Mu’awiyah said: Rabi’ah b. Yazid narrated this tradition to me from Abu Idris and the authority of ‘Uqbah b.’Amir.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that Humayd ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf heard Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan say from the mimbar on the day of Ashura in the year in which he made the hajj, "People of Madina, where are your learned men? I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say about this day, 'This is the day of Ashura, and fasting it has not been prescribed for you. I am fasting it, and whoever of you wants to fast it can do so, and whoever does not want to, does not have to.' "

Malik said, "It is not halal to eat any game that has been hunted in the Haram, or has had a dog set after it in the Haram and then been killed outside the Haram. Anyone that does that has to pay a forfeit for what has been hunted. However, some one that sets his dog after game outside the Haram and then follows it until it is hunted down in the Haram does not have to pay any forfeit, unless he set the dog after the game near to the Haram. The game should not be eaten, however. If he set the dog loose near the Haram then he has to pay a forfeit for the game."

On his father's authority, said that his grandfather told that a A man came to the Prophet (saws) crying for help. He said: His slave-girl, Messenger of Allah! He said: Woe to you, what happened with you ? He said that it was an evil one. He saw the slave-girl of his master; he became jealous of him, and cut off his penis. The Messenger of Allah (saws) said: Bring the man to me. The man was called, but people could not get control over him. The Messenger of Allah (saws) then said: Go away, you are free. He asked: Messenger of Allah! upon whom does my help lie? He replied: On every believer, or he said: On every Muslim.

Abu Dawud said: The name of the man who was emancipated was Rawh b. Dinar

Abu Dawud said: The man who cut off the penis was Zinba'

Abu Dawud said: The Zinba' Abu Rawh was master of the slave.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said from Sulayman ibn Yasar that Said ibn Huzaba al-Makhzumi was thrown off his mount while he was in ihram on the road to Makka. He asked after the person in charge of the relay station where he was injured and he found Abdullah ibn Umar, Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr and Marwan ibn al-Hakam there. He told them what had happened to him and all of them said that he should take whatever medicine he had to take and pay compensation for it. Then, when he got better again, he should do umra and come out of his ihram, after which he had to do hajj another year and to offer whatever sacrificial animal he was able to in the future.

Malik said, "This is what we do here (in Madina) if someone is detained by something other than an enemy. And when Abu Ayyub al- Ansari and Habbar ibn al-Aswad came to the day of the sacrifice and had missed the hajj, Umar ibn al-Khattab told them to come out of ihram by doing umra and then to go home free of ihram and do hajj some time in the future and to sacrifice an animal, or, if they could not find one, to fast three days during the hajj and seven days after they had returned to their families."

Malik said, "Anyone who is detained from doing hajj after he has gone into ihram, whether by illness or otherwise, or by an error in calculating the month or because the new moon is concealed from him is in the same position as some one who is hindered from doing the hajj and must do the same as he does."

Yahya said that Malik was asked about the situation of someone from Makka who went into ihram for hajj and then broke a bone or had severe stomach pain, or of a woman who was in labour, and he said, "Someone to whom this happens is in the same situation as one who is hindered from doing the hajj, and he must do the same as people from outlying regions do when they are hindered from doing the hajj."

Malik said, about someone who arrived in the months of the hajj with the intention of doing umra, and completed his umra and went into ihram in Makka to do hajj, and then broke a bone or something else happened to him which stopped him from being present at Arafa with everybody else, "I think that he should stay where he is until he is better and then go outside the area of the Haram, and then return to Makka and do tawaf of the House and say between Safa and Marwa, and then leave ihram. He must then do hajj again another year and offer a sacrificial animal ."

Malik said, about someone who left ihram in Makka, and then did tawaf of the House and say between Safa and Marwa, and then fell ill and was unable to be present with everybody at Arafa, "If the hajj passes someone by he should, if he can, go out of the area of the Haram and then come back in again to do umra and do tawaf of the House and say between Safa and Marwa, because he had not intended his initial tawaf to be for an umra, and so for this reason he does it again. He must do the next hajj and offer a sacrificial animal.

If he is not one of the people of Makka, and something happens to him which stops him from doing the hajj, but he does tawaf of the House and say between Safa and Marwa, he should come out of ihram by doing an umra and then do tawaf of the House a second time, and say between Safa and Marwa, because his initial tawaf and say were intended for the hajj. He must do the next hajj and offer a sacrificial animal."

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.' "