Malik related to me that Zayd ibn Aslam said, "Usury in the Jahiliyya was that a man would give a loan to a man for a set term. When the term was due, he would say, 'Will you pay it off or increase me?' If the man paid, he took it. If not, he increased him in his debt and lengthened the term for him ."

Malik said, "The disapproved of way of doing things about which there is no dispute among us, is that a man should give a loan to a man for a term, and then the demander reduce it and the one from whom it is demanded pay it in advance. To us that is like someone who delays repaying his debt after it is due to his creditor and his creditor increases his debt." Malik said, "This is nothing else but usury. No doubt about it."

Malik spoke about a man who loaned one hundred dinars to a man for two terms. When it was due, the person who owed the debt said to him, "Sell me some goods, whose price is one hundred dinars in cash for one hundred and fifty on credit." Malik said, "This transaction is not good, and the people of knowledge still forbid it."

Malik said, "This is disapproved of because the creditor himself gives the debtor the price of what the man sells him, and he defers repayment of the hundred of the first transaction for the debtor for the term which is mentioned to him in the second transaction, and the debtor increases him with fifty dinars for his deferring him. That is disapproved of and it is not good. It also resembles the hadith of Zayd ibn Aslam about the transactions of the people of the Jahiliyya. When their debts were due, they said to the person with the debt, 'Either you pay in full or you increase it.' If they paid, they took it, and if not they increased debtors in their debts, and extended the term for them."

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, "Delay in payment by a rich man is injustice, but when one of you is referred for payment to a wealthy man, let him be referred."

86 Malik related to me from Musa ibn Maysara that he heard a man ask Said ibn al-Musayyab, "I am a man who sells for a debt." Said said, "Do not sell except for what you take to your camel."

Malik spoke about a person who bought goods from a man provided that he provide him with those goods by a specific date, either in time for a market in which he hoped for their saleability, or to fulfil a need at the time he stipulated. Then the seller failed him about the date, and the buyer wanted to return those goods to the seller. Malik said, "The buyer cannot do that, and the sale is binding on him. If the seller does bring the goods before the completion of the term, the buyer cannot be forced to take them."

Malik spoke about a person who bought food and measured it. Then some one came to him to buy it and he told him that he had measured it for himself and taken it in full. The new buyer wanted to trust him and accept his measure. Malik said, "Whatever is sold in this way for cash has no harm in it but whatever is sold in this way on delayed terms is disapproved of until the new buyer measures it out for himself. The sale with delayed terms is disapproved of because it leads to usury and it is feared that it will be circulated in this way without weight or measure. If the terms are delayed it is disapproved of and there is no disagreement about that with us."

Malik said, "One should not buy a debt owed by a man whether present or absent, without the confirmation of the one who owes the debt, nor should one buy a debt owed to a man by a dead person even if one knows what the deceased man has left. That is because to buy that is an uncertain transaction and one does not know whether the transaction will be completed or not completed."

He said, "The explanation of what is disapproved of in buying a debt owed by someone absent or dead, is that it is not known what unknown debtor may be connected to the dead person. If the dead person is liable for another debt, the price which the buyer gave on strength of the debt may become worthless."

Malik said, "There is another fault in that as well. He is buying something which is not guaranteed for him, and so if the deal is not completed, what he paid becomes worthless. This is an uncertain transaction and it is not good."

Malik said, "One distinguishes between a man who is only selling what he actually has and a man who is being paid in advance for something which is not yet in his possession. The man advancing the money brings his gold which he intends to buy with. The seller says, 'This is 10 dinars. What do you want me to buy for you with it?' It is as if he sold 10 dinars cash for 15 dinars to be paid later. Because of this, it is disapproved of. It is something leading to usury and fraud."

Malik said there was no harm if a man who sold some drapery and excluded some garments by their markings, stipulated that he chose the marked ones from that. If he did not stipulate that he would choose from them when he made the exclusion, I think that he is partner in the number of drapery goods which were purchased from him. That is because two garments can be alike in marking and be greatly different in price.

Malik said, "The way of doing things among us is that there is no harm in partnership, transferring responsibility to an agent, and revocation when dealing with food and other things, whether or not possession was taken, when the transaction is with cash, and there is no profit, loss, or deferment of price in it. If profit or loss or deferment of price from one of the two enters any of these transactions, it becomes sale which is made halal by what makes sale halal, and made haram by what makes sale haram, and it is not partnership, transferring responsibility to an agent, or revocation."

Malik spoke about some one who bought drapery goods or slaves, and the sale was concluded, then a man asked him to be his partner and he agreed and the new partner paid the whole price to the seller and then something happened to the goods which removed them from their possession. Malik said, "The new partner takes the price from the original partner and the original partner demands from the seller the whole price unless the original partner stipulated on the new partner during the sale and before the transaction with the seller was completed that the seller was responsible to him. If the transaction has ended and the seller has gone, the pre-condition of the original partner is void, and he has the responsibility."

Malik spoke about a man who asked another man to buy certain goods to share between them, and he wanted the other man to pay for him and he would sell the goods for the other man. Malik said, "That is not good. When he says, 'Pay for me and I will sell it for you,' it becomes a loan which he makes to him in order that he sell it for him and if those goods are destroyed, or pass, the man who paid the price will demand from his partner what he put in for him. This is part of the advance which brings in profit."

Malik said, "If a man buys goods, and they are settled for him, and then a man says to him, 'Share half of these goods with me, and I will sell them all for you,' that is halal, there is no harm in it. The explanation of that is that this is a new sale and he sells him half of the goods provided that he sells the whole lot."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Abu Bakr ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn al-Harith ibn Hisham that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Whenever a man sells wares and then the buyer becomes bankrupt and the seller has not taken any of the price and he finds some of his property intact with the buyer, he is more entitled to it than anyone else. If the buyer dies, then the seller is the same as other creditors with respect to it."

Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said from Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Hazm from Umar ibn Abdal-Aziz from Abu Bakr ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn al-Harith ibn Hisham from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "If anyone goes bankrupt, and a man finds his own property intact with him, he is more entitled to it than anyone else."

Malik spoke about a man who sold a man wares, and the buyer went bankrupt. He said, "The seller takes whatever of his goods he finds. If the buyer has sold some of them and distributed them, the seller of the wares is more entitled to them than the creditors. What the buyer has distributed does not prevent the seller from taking whatever of it he finds. It is the seller's right if he has received any of the price from the buyer and he wants to return it to take what he finds of his wares, and in what he does not find, he is like the creditors."

Malik spoke about some one who bought spun wool or a plot of land, and then did some work on it, like building a house on the plot of land or weaving the spun wool into cloth. Then he went bankrupt after he had bought it, and the original owner of the plot said, "I will take the plot and whatever structure is on it." Malik said, "That structure is not his. However, the plot and what is in it that the buyer has improved is appraised. Then one sees what the price of the plot is and how much of that value is the price of the structure. They are partners in that. The owner of the plot has as much as his portion, and the creditors have the amount of the portion of the structure."

Malik said, "The explanation of that is that the value of it all is fifteen hundred dirhams. The value of the plot is five hundred dirhams, and the value of the building is one thousand dirhams. The owner of the plot has a third, and the creditors have two-thirds."

Malik said, "It is like that with spinning and other things of the same nature in these circumstances and the buyer has a debt which he cannot pay. This is the behaviour in such cases."

Malik said, "As for goods which have been sold and which the buyer does not improve, but those goods sell well and have gone up in price, so their owner wants them and the creditors also want to seize them, then the creditors choose between giving the owner of the goods the price for which he sold them and not giving him any loss and surrendering his goods to him.

"If the price of the goods has gone down, the one who sold them has a choice. If he likes, he can take his goods and he has no claim to any of his debtor's property, and that is his right. If he likes, he can be one of the creditors and take a portion of his due and not take his goods. That is up to him."

Malik said about someone who bought a slave-girl or animal and she gave birth in his possession and the buyer went bankrupt, "The slave-girl or the animal and the offspring belong to the seller unless the creditors desire it. In that case they give him his complete due and they take it."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam from Ata ibn Yasar that Abu Rafi, the mawla of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, borrowed a young camel and then the camels of sadaqa came to him." Abu Rafi said, "He ordered me to repay the man his young camel. I said, 'I can only find a good camel in its seventh year in the camels.' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'Give it to him. The best of people are those who discharge their debts in the best manner.' "

Malik related to me from Humayd ibn Qays al-Makki that Mujahid said, "Abdullah ibn Umar borrowed some dirhams from a man, then he discharged his debt with dirhams better than them. The man said, 'Abu Abdar-Rahman. These are better than the dirhams which I lent you.' Abdullah ibn Umar said, 'I know that. But I am happy with myself about that.' "

Malik said, "There is no harm in a person who has borrowed gold, silver, food, or animals, taking to the person who lent it, something better than what he lent, when that is not a stipulation between them nor a custom. If that is by a stipulation or promise or custom, then it is disapproved, and there is no good in it."

He said, "That is because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, discharged his debt with a good camel in its seventh year in place of a young camel which he borrowed, and Abdullah ibn Umar borrowed some dirhams, and repaid them with better ones. If that is from the goodness of the borrower, and it is not by a stipulation, promise, or custom, it is halal and there is no harm in it."

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Umar ibn al-Khattab said that he disapproved of one man lending another food on the provision that he gave it back to him in another city. He said, "Where is the transport?"

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that he heard Abdullah ibn Umar say, "If someone lends something, let the only condition be that it is repaid."

Malik related to me that he had heard that Abdullah ibn Masud used to say, "If someone makes a loan, they should not stipulate better than it. Even if it is a handful of grass, it is usury."

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us is that there is no harm in borrowing any animals with a set description and itemisation, and one must return the like of them. This is not done in the case of female slaves. It is feared about that that it will lead to making halal what is not halal, so it is not good. The explanation of what is disapproved of in that, is that a man borrow a slave-girl and have intercourse with her as seems proper to him. Then he returns her to her owner. That is not good and it is not halal. The people of knowledge still forbid it and do not give an indulgence to any one in it."

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 let any of you bid against each other."

Malik related to me from Abu'z-Zinad from al-Araj from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Do not go out to meet the caravans for trade, do not bid against each other, outbidding in order to raise the price, and a townsman must not buy on behalf of a man of the desert, and do not tie up the udders of camels and sheep so that they appear to have a lot of milk, for a person who buys them after that has two recourses open to him after he milks them. If he is pleased with them, he keeps them and if he is displeased with them, he can return them along with a sa of dates."

Malik said, "The explanation of the words of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, according to what we think - and Allah knows best - 'do not bid against each other,' is that it is forbidden for a man to offer a price over the price of his brother when the seller has inclined to the bargainer and made conditions about the weight of the gold and he has declared himself not liable for faults and such things by which it is recognised that the seller wants to make a transaction with the bargainer. This is what he forbade, and Allah knows best."

Malik said, "There is no harm, however, in more than one person bidding against each other over goods put up for sale."

He said, "Were people to leave off haggling when the first person started haggling, an unreal price might be taken and the disapproved would enter into the sale of the goods. This is still the way of doing things among us."

Malik said, from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade najsh.

Malik said, "Najsh is to offer a man more than the worth of his goods when you do not mean to buy them and someone else follows you in bidding."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Abdullah ibn Dinar from Abdullah ibn Umar that a man mentioned to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that he was always being cheated in business transactions. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "When you enter a transaction, say, 'No trickery.' So whenever that man entered a transaction, he would say, 'No trickery.' "

Malik related to me that Yahya ibn Said heard Said ibn al- Musayyab say, "When you come to a land where they give full measure and full weight, stay there. When you come to a land where they shorten the measure and weight, then do not stay there very long."

Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said that he heard Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir say, "Allah loves his slave who is generous when he sells, and generous when he buys, generous when he repays, and generous when he is repaid."

Malik said about a man who bought camels or sheep or dry goods or slaves or any goods without measuring precisely, "There is no buying without measuring precisely in anything which can be counted . "

Malik said about a man who gave a man goods to sell for him and set their price saying, "If you sell them for this price as I have ordered you to do, you will have a dinar (or something which he has specified, which they are both satisfied with), if you do not sell them, you will have nothing," "There is no harm in that when he names a price to sell them at and names a known fee. If he sells the goods, he takes the fee, and if he does not sell them, he has nothing."

Malik said, "This is like saying to another man, 'If you capture my runaway slave or bring my stray camel, you will have such-and-such.' This is from the category of reward, and not from the category of giving a wage. Had it been from the category of giving a wage, it would not be good."

Malik said, "As for a man who is given goods and told that if he sells them he will have a named percentage for every dinar, that is not good because whenever he is a dinar less than the price of the goods, he decreases the due which was named for him. This is an uncertain transaction. He does not know how much he will be given."

Malik related to me that he asked Ibn Shihab about a man who hired an animal, and then re-hired it out for more than what he hired it for. He said, "There is no harm in that."

Malik related to me from Zayd ibn Aslam that his father said, "Abdullah and Ubaydullah, the sons of Umar ibn al-Khattab went out with the army to Iraq. On the way home, they passed by Abu Musa al- Ashari who was the amir of Basra. He greeted them and made them welcome, and told them that if there was anything he could do to help them, he would do it. Then he said, 'There is some of the property of Allah which I want to send to the amir al-muminin, so I will lend it to you, and you can buy wares from Iraq and sell them in Madina. Then give the principal to the amir al-muminin, and you keep the profit.' They said that they would like to do it, and so he gave them the money and wrote to Umar ibn al-Khattab to take the money from them. When they came to sell they made a profit, and when they paid the principal to Umar he asked, 'Did he lend everyone in the army the like of what he lent you?' They said, 'No.' Umar ibn al-Khattab said, 'He made you the loan, because you are the sons of the amir al-muminin, so pay the principal and the profit.' Abdullah was silent. Ubaydullah said, 'You do not need to do this, amir al-muminin. Had the principal decreased or been destroyed, we would have guaranteed it.' Umar said, 'Pay it.' Abdullah was silent, and Ubaydullah repeated it. A man who was sitting with Umar said, 'Amir al-muminin, better that you make it a qirad. 'Umar said, 'I have made it qirad.' Umar then took the principal and half of the profit, and Abdullah and Ubaydullah, the sons of Umar ibn al-Khattab took half of the profit."

Malik related to me from al-Ala ibn Abd ar-Rahman from his father from his father that Uthman ibn Affan gave him some money as qirad to use provided the profit was shared between them.

Malik said, "The recognised and permitted form of qirad is that a man take capital from an associate to use. He does not guarantee it and in travelling pays out of the capital for food and clothes and what he makes good use of, according to the amount of capital. That is, when he travels to do the work and the capital can support it. If he remains with his people, he does not have expenses or clothing from the capital."

Malik said, "There is no harm in the two parties in a qirad helping each other by way of a favour when it is acceptable to them both."

Malik said, "There is no harm in the investor of the capital buying some of the goods from the agent in the qirad if that is acceptable and without conditions."

Malik spoke about an investor making a qirad loan to a man and his slave, to be used by both. He said, "That is permitted, and there is no harm in it because the profit is property for his slave, and the profit is not for the master until he takes it from him. It is like the rest of his earnings."

Malik said, "When a man owes money to another man and he asks him to let it stay with him as a quirad, that is disapproved of until the creditor receives his property. Then he can make it a qirad loan or keep it. That is because the debtor may be in a tight situation, and want to delay it to increase it for him."

Malik spoke about an investor who made a qirad loan to a man, and some of the principal was lost before he used it, and then he used it and made a profit. The agent wanted to make the principal the remainder of the money after what was lost from it. Malik said, "His statement is not accepted, and the principal is made up to its original amount from his profit. Then they divide what remains after the principal has been repaid according to the conditions of the qirad."

Malik said, "Qirad loan is only good in gold or silver coin and it is never permitted in any kind of wares or goods or articles."

Malik said, "There are certain transactions which if a long span of time passes after the transaction takes place, its revocation becomes unacceptable. As for usury, there is never anything except its rejection whether it is a little or a lot. What is permitted in other than it is not permitted in it because Allah, the Blessed and the Exalted, said in His Book, 'If you repent, you have your capital back, not wronging and not wronged. ' "

32.4 Conditions Permitted in Qirad

Yahya said that Malik spoke about an investor who made a qirad loan and stipulated to the agent that only certain goods should be bought with his money or he forbade certain goods which he named to be bought. He said, "There is no harm in an investor making a condition on an agent in qirad not to buy a certain kind of animal or goods which he specifies. It is disapproved of for an investor to make as a condition on an agent in qirad that he only buy certain goods unless the goods which he orders him to buy are in plentiful supply and do not fail either in winter or summer. There is no harm in that case."

Malik spoke about an investor who loaned qirad money and stipulated that something of the profit should be his alone without the agent sharing in it. He said, "That is not good, even if it is only one dirham unless he stipulates that half the profit is his and half the profit is the agent's or a third or a fourth or whatever. When he names a percentage, whether great or small, everything specified by that is halal. This is the qirad of the muslims."

He said, "It is also not good if the investor stipulates that one dirham or more of the profit is purely his, with out the agent sharing it and then what remains of the profit is to be divided in half between them. That is not the qirad of the Muslims."

Yahya said that Malik said, "The person who puts up the principal must not stipulate that he has something of the profit alone without the agent sharing in it, nor must the agent stipulate that he has something of the profit alone without the investor sharing. In qirad, there is no sale, no rent, no work, no advance, and no convenience which one party specifies to himself without the other party sharing unless one party allows it to the other unconditionally as a favour and that is alright to both. Neither of the parties should make a condition over the other which increases him in gold or silver or food over the other party."

He said, "If any of that enters the qirad, it becomes hire, and hire is only good with known and fixed terms. The agent should not stipulate when he takes the principal that he repay or commission anyone with the goods, nor that he take any of them for himself. When there is a profit, and it is time to separate the capital, then they divide the profit according to the terms of the contract. If the principal does not increase or there is a loss, the agent does not have to make up for what he spent on himself or for the loss. That falls to the investor from the principal. Qirad is permitted upon whatever terms the investor and the agent make a mutual agreement, of half the profit, or a third or a fourth or whatever."

Malik said, "It is not permitted for the agent to stipulate that he use the qirad money for a certain number of years and that it not be taken from him during that time."

He said, "It is not good for the investor to stipulate that the qirad money should not be returned for a certain number of years which are specified, because the qirad is not for a term. The investor loans it to an agent to use for him. If it seems proper to either of them to abandon the project and the money is coin, and nothing has been bought with it, it can be abandoned, and the investor takes his money back. If it seems proper to the investor to take the qirad loan back after goods have been purchased with it, he cannot do so until the buyer has sold the goods and they have become money. If it seems proper to the agent to return the loan, and it has been turned to goods he cannot do so until he has sold them. He returns the loan in cash as he took it."

Malik said, "It is not good for the investor to stipulate that the agent pay any zakat due from his portion of the profit in particular, because the investor by stipulating that, stipulates fixed increase for himself from the profit because the portion of zakat he would be liable for by his portion of the profit, is removed from him.

"It is not permitted for the investor to stipulate to the agent to only buy from so-and-so, referring to a specific man. That is not permitted because by doing so he would become his hireling for a wage."

Malik spoke about an investor in qirad who stipulated a guarantee for an amount of money from the agent, "The investor is not permitted to stipulate conditions about his principal other than the conditions on which qirad is based or according to the precedent of the sunna of the Muslims. If the principal is increased by the condition of guarantee, the investor has increased his share of the profit because of the position of the guarantee. But the profit is only to be divided according to what it would have been had the loan been given without the guarantee. If the principal is destroyed, I do not think that the agent has a guarantee held against him because the stipulation of guarantees in qirad is null and void."

Malik spoke about an investor who gave qirad money to a man and the man stipulated that he would only buy palms or animals with it because he sought to eat the dates or the offspring of the animals and he kept them for some time to use for himself. He said, "That is not permitted. It is not the sunna of the Muslims in qirad unless he buys it and then sells it as other goods are sold."

Malik said, "There is no harm in the agent stipulating on the investor a slave to help him provided that the slave stands to gain along with him out of the investment, and when the slave only helps him with the investment, not with anything else."

Yahya said that Malik spoke about a man who made a qirad loan to a man and he bought wares with it and transported them to a commercial centre. It was not profitable to sell them and the agent feared a loss if he sold them, so he hired transport to take them to another city, and he sold them there and made a loss, and the cost of the hire was greater than the principal.

Malik said, "If the agent can pay the cost of the hire from what the capital realized, his way is that. Whatever portion of the hire is not covered by the principal, the agent must pay it. The investor is not answerable for any of it. That is because the investor only ordered him to trade with the principal. The investor is not answerable for other than the principal. Had the investor been liable, it would have been an additional loss to him on top of the principal which he invested. The agent cannot put that on to the investor."

Yahya said that Malik spoke about an investor who made a qirad loan to a man, who used it and made a profit. Then the man bought with all the profit a slave-girl and he had intercourse with her and she became pregnant by him, and so the capital decreased. Malik said, "If he has money, the price of the slave-girl is taken from his property, and the capital is restored by it. If there is something left over after the money is paid, it is divided between them according to the first qirad. If he cannot pay it, the slave-girl is sold so that the capital is restored from her price."

Malik spoke about an investor who made a qirad loan to a man, and the agent spent more than the amount of the qirad loan when buying goods with it and paid the increase from his own money. Malik said, "The investor has a choice if the goods are sold for a profit or loss or if they are not sold. If he wishes to take the goods, he takes them and pays the agent back what he put in for them. If the agent refuses, the investor is a partner for his share of the price in increase and decrease according to what the agent paid extra for them from himself."

Malik spoke about an agent who took qirad money from a man and then gave it to another man to use as a qirad without the consent of the investor. He said, "The agent is responsible for the property. If it is decreased, he is responsible for the loss. If there is profit, the investor has his stipulation of the profit, and then the agent has his stipulation of what remains of the money."

Malik spoke about an agent who exceeded and borrowed some of what he had of qirad in money and he bought goods for himself with it. Malik said, "If he has a profit, the profit is divided according to the condition between them in the qirad. If he has a loss, he is responsible for the loss."

Malik said about an investor who paid qirad money to a man, and the agent borrowed some of the cash and bought goods for himself with it, "The investor of the capital has a choice. If he wishes, he shares with him in the goods according to the qirad, and if he wishes, he frees himself of them, and takes all of the principal back from the agent. That is what is done with some one who oversteps."

Yahya said that Malik spoke about an investor who made a qirad loan to a man.

He said, "When the investment is large, the travelling expenses of the agent are taken from it. He can use it to eat and clothe himself in an acceptable fashion according to the size of the investment. If it saves him trouble, he can take a wage from some of the capital, if it is large, and he cannot support himself. There are certain jobs which an agent or his like are not responsible for, amongst them are collecting debts, transporting the goods, loading up and so forth. He can hire from the capital someone to do that for him. The agent should not spend from the capital nor clothe himself from it while he resides with his family. It is only permitted for him to have expenses when he travels for the investment. The expenses are taken from the capital. If he is only trading with the property in the city in which he resides, he has no expenses from the capital and no clothing."

Malik spoke about an investor who paid qirad money to a man, and the agent went out with it and with his own capital. He said, "The expenses come from the qirad and from his own capital according to their proportions."

Yahya said that Malik spoke about an agent who had qirad money with him and he spent from it and clothed himself. He said, "He cannot give away any of it, and neither a beggar nor anyone else is to be given any of it and he does not pay anyone compensation from it. If he meets some people, and they bring out food and he brings out food, I hope that that will be permitted to him if he does not intend to bestow something on them. If he intends that or what is like that without the permission of the investor, he must get the sanction of the investor for it. If he sanctions it, there is no harm. If he refuses to sanction it, he must repay it with like if he has something which is suitable as compensation."

Yahya said that Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us about an investor who pays qirad money to an agent to buy goods, and the agent then sells the goods for a price to be paid later, and has a profit in the transaction, then the agent dies before he has received payment, is that if his heirs want to take that money, they have their father's stipulated portion from the profit. That is theirs if they are trustworthy to take the payment. If they dislike to collect it from the debtor and they refer him to the investor, they are not obliged to collect it and there is nothing against them and nothing for them by their surrendering it to the investor. If they do collect it, they have a share of it and expenses like their father had. They are in the position of their father. If they are not trustworthy to do so, they can bring someone reliable and trustworthy to collect the money. If he collects all the capital and all the profit, they are in the position of their father."

Malik spoke about an investor who paid qirad money to a man provided that he used it and was responsible for any delayed payment for which he sold it. He said, "This is obligatory on the agent. If he sells it for delayed payment, he is responsible for it."

Yahya said that Malik spoke about an investor who gave qirad money to a man, and then the man sought a loan from the investor or the investor borrowed money from the agent, or the investor left goods with the agent to sell for him, or the investor gave the agent dinars to buy goods with. Malik said, "There is no harm if the investor leaves his goods with him knowing that if the agent did not have his money and he had asked a similar thing of him, he would have still done it because of the brotherhood between them or because it would have been no bother to him and that had the agent refused that, he would not have removed his capital from him. Or if the agent had borrowed from the investor or carried his goods for him and he knew that if the investor had not had his capital with him, he would have still done the same for him, and had he refused that to him, he would not have returned his capital to him. If that is true between both of them and it is in the way of a favour between them and it is not a condition in the terms of the qirad, it is permitted and there is no harm in it. If a condition comes into it, or it is feared that the agent is only doing it for the investor in order to safeguard the capital in his possession, or the investor is only doing it because the agent has taken his capital and will not return it to him, that is not permitted in qirad and it is part of what the people of knowledge forbid.' "

Yahya said that Malik spoke about a man who loaned another man money and then the debtor asked him to leave it with him as a qirad. Malik said, "I do not like that unless he takes his money back from him, and then pays it to him as a qirad if he wishes or if he wishes keep it."

Malik spoke about an investor who paid a man qirad money and the man told him that it was collected with him and asked him to write it for him as a loan. He said, "I do not like that unless he takes his money from him and then lends it to him or keeps it as he wishes. That is only out of fear that he has lost some of it, and wants to defer it so that he can make up what has been lost of it. That is disapproved of and is not permitted and it is not good."

Yahya said that Malik spoke about an investor paying qirad money to an agent who made a profit and then wanted to take his share of the profit and the investor was away. He said, "He should not take any of it unless the investor is present. If he takes something from it, he is responsible for it until it is accounted for in the division of the capital."

Malik said, "It is not permitted for the parties involved in a qirad to account and divide property which is away from them until the capital is present, and the investor is given the principal in full. Then they divide the profit into their agreed portions."

Malik spoke about a man taking qirad money, and buying goods with it while he had a debt. His creditors sought and found him while he was in a city away from the investor, and he had profitable merchandise whose good quality was clear. They wanted him to sell the merchandise for them so that they could take his share of the profit. Malik said, "None of the profit of the qirad is taken until the investor is present. He takes his principal and then the profit is divided mutually between them."

Malik spoke about an investor who put qirad money with an agent and he used it and had a profit. Then the principal was set aside and the profit divided. He took his share and added the share of the investor to his principal in the presence of witnesses he had called. Malik said, "It is not permitted to divide the profit unless the investor is present. If he has taken something here turns it until the investor has received the principal in full. Then what remains is divided into their respective portions."

Malik spoke about an investor who put qirad money with an agent. The agent used it and then came to the investor and said, "This is your portion of the profit, and I have taken the like of it for myself, and I have retained your principal in full." Malik said, "I do not like that, unless all the capital is present, the principal is there and he knows that it is complete and he receives it. Then they divide the profit between them. He returns the principal to him if he wishes, or he keeps it. The presence of the principal is necessary out of fear that the agent might have lost some of it, and so may want it not to be removed from him and to keep it in his hand."

Yahya said that Malik spoke about an investor who put qirad money with an agent who bought goods with it, and the investor told him to sell them. The agent said that he did not see any way to sell at that time and they quarrelled about it. He said, "One does not look at the statement of either of them. The people of experience and insight concerning such goods are asked about these goods. If they can see anyway of selling them they are sold for them. If they think it is time to wait, they should wait."

Malik spoke about a man who took qirad money from an investor and used it and when the investor asked him for his money, he said that he had it in full. When he held him to his settlement he admitted that "Such-and-such of it was lost with me," and he named an amount of money. "I told you that so that you would leave it with me." Malik said, "He does not benefit by denying it after he had confirmed that he had it all . He is answerable by his confession against himself unless he produces evidence about the loss of that property which confirms his statement. If he does not produce an acceptable reason he is answerable by his confession, and his denial does not avail him."

Malik said, "Similarly, had he said, 'I have had such-and-such a profit from the capital,' and then the owner of the capital asked him to pay him the principal and his profit, and he said that he had not had any profit in it and had said that only so it might be left in his possession, it does not benefit him. He is taken to account for what he affirmed unless he brings acceptable proof of his word, so that the first statement is not binding on him."

Malik spoke about an investor who put qirad money with an agent who made a profit with it. The agent said, "I took the qirad from you provided that I would have two-thirds." The owner of the capital says, "I gave you a qirad provided that you had a third." Malik said, "The word is the word of the agent, and he must take an oath on that if what he says resembles the known practice of qirad or is close to it. If he brings a matter which is unacceptable and people do not make qirads like that, he is not believed, and it is judged to be according to how a qirad like it would normally be."

Malik spoke about a man who gave a man one hundred dinars as a qirad. He bought goods with it and then went to pay the one hundred dinars to the owner of the goods and found that they had been stolen. The investor says, "Sell the goods. If there is anything over, it is mine. If there is a loss, it is against you because you lost it." The agent says, "Rather you must fulfil what the seller is owed. I bought them with your capital which you gave me." Malik said, "The agent is obliged to pay the price to the seller and the investor is told, 'If you wish, pay the hundred dinars to the agent and the goods are between you. The qirad is according to what the first hundred was based on. If you wish, you are free of the goods.' If the hundred dinars are paid to the agent, it is a qirad according to the conditions of the first qirad. If he refuses, the goods belong to the agent and he must pay their price."

Malik spoke about two people in a qirad who settled up and the agent still had some of the goods which he used - threadbare cloth or a waterskin or the like of that. Malik said, "Any of that which is insignificant is of no importance and belongs to the agent. I have not heard anyone give a decision calling for the return of that. Anything which has a price is returned. If it is something which has value like an animal, camel, coarse cloth or the like of that which fetches a price, I think that he should return what he has remaining of such things unless the owner overlooks it."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Said ibn al- Musayyab that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to the jews of Khaybar on the day of the conquest of Khaybar, "I confirm you in it as long as Allah, the Mighty, the Majestic, establishes you in it, provided that the fruits are divided between us and you." Said continued, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used to send Abdullah ibn Rawaha, to assess the division of the fruit crop between him and them, and he would say, 'If you wish, you can buy it back, and if you wish, it is mine.' They would take it."

Malik said, "Share-cropping is also permitted in any crop which emerges from the earth if it is a crop which is picked, and its owner cannot water, work on it and tend it.

"Share- cropping becomes reprehensible in anything in which share-cropping is normally permitted if the fruit is sound and the good condition is clear and it is halal to sell it. He must share-crop in it the next year. If a man waters fruit whose good condition is clear and it is halal to sell it, and he picks it for the owner, for a share of the crop, it is not sharecropping. It is similar to him being paid in dirhams and dinars. Share-cropping is what is between pruning the palms and when the fruit becomes sound and its sale is halal."

Malik said, "If some one makes a share-cropping contract for fruit trees before the condition becomes clear and its sale is halal, it is share-cropping and is permitted . "

Malik said, "Uncultivated land must not be involved in a share-cropping contract. That is because it is halal for the owner to rent it for dinars and dirhams or the equivalent for an accepted price."

Malik said, "As for a man who gives his uncultivated earth for a third or a fourth of what comes out of it, that is an uncertain transaction because crops may be scant one time and plentiful another time. It may perish completely and the owner of the land will have abandoned a set rent which would have been good for him to rent the land for. He takes an uncertain situation, and does not know whether or not it will be satisfactory. This is disapproved. It is like a man having someone travel for him for a set amount, and then saying, 'Shall I give you a tenth of the profit of the journey as your wage?' This is not halal and must not be done."

Malik summed up,"A man must not hire out himself or his land or his ship unless for a set amount."

Malik said, "A distinction is made between sharecropping in palms and in cultivated land because the owner of the palms cannot sell the fruit until its good condition is clear. The owner of the land can rent it when it is uncultivated with nothing on it."

Malik said, "What is done in our community about palms is that they can also be share-cropped for three and four years, and less or more than that."

Malik said, "That is what I have heard. Any fruit trees like that are in the position of palms. Contracts for several years are permissible for the sharecropper as they are permissible in the palms."

Malik said about the owner, "He does not take anything additional from the share-cropper in the way of gold or silver or crops which increases him. That is not good. The share-cropper also must not take from the owner of the garden anything additional which will increase him of gold, silver, crops or anything. Increase beyond what is stipulated in the contract is not good. It is also not good for the lender of a qirad to be in this position. If such an increase does enter share- cropping or quirad, it becomes by it hire. It is not good when hire enters it. Hire must never occur in a situation which has uncertainty in it."

Malik spoke about a man who gave land to another man in a share-cropping contract in which there were palms, vines, or the like of that of fruit trees and there was also uncultivated land in it. He said, "If the uncultivated land is secondary to the fruit trees, either in importance or in size of land, there is no harm in share-cropping. That is if the palms take up two-thirds of the land or more, and the uncultivated land is a third or less. This is because when the land that the fruit trees take up is secondary to the uncultivated land and the cultivated land in which the palms, vines or the like is a third or less, and the uncultivated land is two-thirds or more, it is permitted to rent the land and share-cropping in it is haram."

"One of the practices of people is to give out sharecropping contracts on property with fruit trees when there is uncultivated land in it, and to rent land while there are fruit trees on it, just as a Qur'an or sword which has some embellishment on it of silver is sold for silver, or a necklace or ring which have stones and gold in them are sold for dinars. These sales continue to be permitted. People buy and sell by them. Nothing described or instituted has come on that which if exceeded, makes it haram, and if fallen below makes it halal. What is done in our community about that is what people practise and permit among themselves. That is, if the gold or silver is secondary to what it is incorporated in, it is permitted to sell it. That is, if the value of the blade, the Qur'an, or the stones is two-thirds or more, and the value of the decoration is one-third or less."

Yahya said that Malik said, "The best of what has been heard about a sharecropper stipulating on the owner of the property the inclusion of some slave workers, is that there is no harm in that if they are workers that come with the property. They are like the property. There is no profit in them for the share-cropper except to lighten some of his burden. If they did not come with the property, his toil would be harder. It is like share-cropping land with a spring or land with a watering trough. You will not find anyone who receives the same share for share-cropping two lands which are equal in property and yield, when one property has a constant plentiful spring and the other has a watering trough, because of the lightness of working land with a spring, and the hardship of working land with a watering trough."

Malik added, "That is what is done in our community."

Malik said, "A share-cropper cannot employ workers from the property in other work, and he cannot make that a stipulation with the one who gives him the share-cropping contract. Nor is it permitted to one who share-crops to stipulate on the owner of the property inclusion of slaves for use in the garden who are not in it when he makes the share-cropping contract."

"Nor must the owner of the property stipulate on the one who uses his property for share-cropping that he take any of the slaves of the property and remove him from the property. The share-cropping of property is based on the state which it is currently in."

"If the owner of the property wants to remove one of the slaves of the property, he removes him before the share-cropping, or if he wants to put someone into the property, he does it before the share-cropping. Then he grants the share-cropping contract after that if he wishes. If any of the slaves die or go off or become ill, the owner of the property must replace them."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Rabia ibn Abd ar-Rahman from Handhala ibn Qays az-Zuraqi from Rafi ibn Khadij that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade renting out fields.

Handhala said, "I asked Rafi ibn Khadij, about paying in gold and silver, and he said, 'There is no harm in it.' "

Malik related to me that Ibn Shihab said, "I asked Said ibn al- Musayyab about renting land for gold or silver, and he said, 'There is no harm in it.' "

Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab that he asked Salim ibn 'Abdullah ibn Umar about renting out fields. He said, "There is no harm in it for gold or silver." Ibn Shihab said, "I said to him, 'What do you think of the hadith which is mentioned from Rafi ibn Khadij?'" He said, ''Rafi has exaggerated. If I had a field, I would rent it out."

Malik related to me that he had heard that Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf rented land, and he continued to have it in his possession until he died. His son said, "I thought that it was ours because of the length of time which it had remained in his hands, until he mentioned it to us at his death. He ordered us to pay some rent which he owed in gold or silver."

Malik related to me from Hisham ibn Urwa that his father used to rent out his land for gold and silver.

Malik was asked about a man who rented his field for 100 sa of dates or part of its produce of wheat or from other than its produce. He disapproved of that.

Malik said that he heard that Said ibn al-Musayyab, when asked about pre-emption and whether there was a sunna in it, said, "Yes. Pre-emption is in houses and land, and it is only between partners."

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.' "

Yahya said that Malik related from Muhammad ibn Umara from Abu Bakr ibn Hazm that Uthman ibn Affan said, "When boundaries are fixed in land, there is no pre-emption in it. There is no pre-emption in a well or in male palm trees. "

Malik said, "This is what is done in our community."

Malik said, "There is no pre-emption in a road, whether or not it is practical to divide it."

Malik said, "What is done in our community is that there is no pre- emption in the courtyard of a house, whether or not it is practical to divide it."

Malik spoke about a man who bought into a shared property provided that he had the option of withdrawal and the partners of the seller wanted to take what their partner was selling by pre-emption before the buyer had exercised his option. Malik said, "They cannot do that until the buyer has taken possession and the sale is confirmed for him. When the sale is confirmed, they have the right of pre-emption."

Malik spoke about a man who bought land and it remained in his hands for some time. Then a man came and saw that he had a share of the land by inheritance. Malik said, "If the man's right of inheritance is established, he also has a right of preemption. If the land has produced a crop, the crop belongs to the buyer until the day when the right of the other is established, because he has tended what was planted against being destroyed or being carried away by a flood."

Malik continued, "If the time has been long, or the witnesses are dead or the seller has died, or the buyer has died, or they are both alive and the basis of the sale and purchase has been forgotten because of the length of time, pre- emption is discontinued. A man only takes his right by inheritance which has been established for him. If his situation differs from this, because the sale transaction is recent and he sees that the seller has concealed the price in order to sever his right of pre- emption, the value of the land is estimated, and he buys the land for that price by his right of pre-emption. Then the buildings, plants, or structures which are extra to the land are looked at, so he is in the position of some one who bought the land for a known price, and then after that built on it and planted. The owner of pre-emption takes possession after that is included."

Malik said, "Pre-emption is applied to the property of the deceased as it is applied to the property of the living. If the family of the deceased fear to break up the property of the deceased, then they share it and sell it, and they have no pre-emption in it."

Malik said, "There is no pre- emption among us in a slave or a slave-girl or a camel, a cow, sheep, or any animal, nor in clothes or a well which does not have any uncultivated land around it. Pre-emption is in what can be usefully divided, and in land in which boundaries occur. As for what cannot be usefully divided, there is no pre-emption in it."

Malik said, "Some one who buys land in which people who are present have a right of pre-emption, refers them to the Sultan and either they claim their right or the Sultan surrenders it to him. If he were to leave them, and not refer their situation to the Sultan and they knew about his purchase, and then they left it until a long time had passed and then came demanding their pre-emption, I do not think that they would have it."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Hisham ibn Urwa from his father from Zaynab bint Abi Salama from Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "I am but a man to whom you bring your disputes. Perhaps one of you is more eloquent in his proof than the other, so I give judgement according to what I have heard from him. Whatever I decide for him which is part of the right of his brother, he must not take any of it, for I am granting him a portion of the Fire."

Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said from Said ibn al-Musayyab that Umar ibn al-Khattab had a dispute brought to him between a muslim and a jew. Umar saw that the right belonged to the jew and decided in his favour. The jew said to him, "By Allah! You have judged correctly.'' So Umar ibn al-Khattab struck him with a whip and said, "How can you be sure." The jew said to him, "We find that there is no judge who judges correctly but that there is an angel on his right side and an angel on his left side who guide him and give him success in the truth as long as he is with the truth. When he leaves the truth, they rise and leave him."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Hazm from his father from Abdullah ibn Amr ibn Uthman from Abu Amra al-Ansari from Zayd ibn Khalid al-Juhani that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Shall I not tell you who is the best of witnesses? The one who brings his testimony before he is asked for it, or tells his testimony before he is asked for it."

Yahya said, "Malik said from Jafar ibn Muhammad from his father that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, pronounced judgement on the basis of an oath with one witness."

From Malik from Abu'z-Zinad that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz wrote to Abd al-Hamid ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Zayd ibn al-Khattab who was the governor of Kufa, "Pronounce judgement on the basis of an oath with one witness."

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."

Yahya said that Malik spoke about a man who died and had a debt owing to him and there was one witness, and some people had a debt against him and they had only one witness, and his heirs refused to take an oath on their rights with their witness. He said, "The creditors take an oath and take their rights. If there is anything left over, the heirs do not take any of it. That is because the oaths were offered to them before and they abandoned them, unless they say, 'We did not know that our companion had extra,' and it is known that they only abandoned the oaths because of that. I think that they should take an oath and take what remains after his debt."

Yahya said, "Malik said about Jamil ibn Abd ar-Rahman al-Muadhdin that he was present with Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz when he was judging between people. If a man came to him with a claim against a man, he examined whether or not there were frequent transactions and dealings between them. If there were, the defendant could make an oath. If there was nothing of that nature he did not accept an oath from him."

Malik summed up, "What is done in our community is that if some one makes a claim against a man, it is examined. If there are frequent transactions and dealings between them, the defendant is made to take an oath. If he takes an oath, the claim against him is dropped. If the defendant refuses to take an oath, and returns the oath to the claimant, the one claiming his right takes an oath and takes his due."

Yahya said, "Malik said from Hisham ibn Urwa that Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr gave judgment based on the testimony of children concerning the injuries between them."

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community is that the testimony of children is permitted concerning injuries between them. It is not accepted about anything else. It is only permitted between them if they testify before they leave the scene of the incident and have been deceived or instructed. If they leave the scene, they have no testimony unless they call just witnesses to witness their testimony before they leave."

Yahya said, Malik related to us from Hisham ibn Hisham ibn Utba ibn Abi Waqqas from Abdullah ibn Nistas from Jabir ibn Abdullah al- Ansari that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'If someone swears a false oath near this mimbar of mine, he will take his seat in the fire.' "

Malik related to me from al-Ala ibn Abd ar-Rahman from Mabad ibn Kab as-Salami from his brother Abdullah ibn Kab ibn Malik al-Ansari from Abu Umama that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Whoever cuts off the right of a muslim man by his oath, Allah forbids him the Garden and obliges the Fire for him." They said, "Even if it is something insignificant, Messenger of Allah?" He said, "Even if it is a tooth-stick, even if it is a tooth- stick," repeating it three times.

Yahya said that Malik had said from Da'ud ibn al-Husayn that he heard Abu Ghatafan ibn Tarif al-Muriyi say, "Zayd ibn Thabit al-Ansari and Ibn Muti had a dispute about a house which they shared. They went to Marwan ibn al-Hakam who was the Amir of Madina. Marwan decided that Zayd ibn Thabit must take an oath on the mimbar. Zayd ibn Thabit said, 'I swear to it where I am.' Marwan said, 'No, by Allah! only in the place of sorting out claims (i.e. the mimbar).' Zayd ibn Thabit began to take an oath that his right was true, and he refused to take an oath near the mimbar. Marwan ibn al-Hakam began to wonder at that."

Malik said, "I do not think that anyone should be made to take an oath near the mimbar for less than a fourth of a dinar, and that is three dirhams."

Yahya said, "Malik related to us from Ibn Shihab from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'The pledge given as security is not forfeited.' "

Malik said, "The explanation of that according to what we think - and Allah knows best - is that a man gives a pledge to somebody in security for something. The pledge is superior to that for which he pawned it. The pledger says to the pawn-broker, 'I will bring you your due, after such-and-such a time. If not, the pledge is yours for what it was pawned for.' "

Malik said, "This transaction is not good and it is not halal. This is what was forbidden. If the owner brings what he pledged it for after the period, it is his. I think that the time condition is void."

Yahya said, "I heard Malik say that if a man pledges his garden for a stated period and the fruits of that garden are ready before the end of that period, the fruits are not included in the pledge with the real estate, unless it is stipulated by the pledger in his pledge. However, if a man receives a slave-girl as a pledge and she is pregnant or she becomes pregnant after his taking her as a pledge, her child is included with her.

"A distinction is made between the fruit and the child of the slave-girl. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'If someone sells a palm which has been pollinated, the fruit belongs to the seller unless the buyer stipulates its inclusion.' The undisputed way of doing things in our community is that if a man sells a slave-girl or an animal with a foetus in its womb, the foetus belongs to the buyer, whether or not the buyer stipulates it. The palm is not like the animal. Fruit is not like the foetus in its mother's womb. Part of what clarifies that is also that it is the usage of people to have a man pawn the fruit of the palm apart from the palm. No one pawns the foetus in its mother's womb whether of slaves or animals."

Yahya said that he had heard Malik say, "The undisputed way of doing things in our community concerning pledges is that in cases where land or a house or an animal are known to have been destroyed whilst in the possession of the broker of the pledge, and the circumstances of the loss are known, the loss is against the pledger. There is no deduction made from what is due to the broker at all. Any pledge which perishes in the possession of the broker and the circumstances of its loss are only known by his word, the loss is against the broker and he is liable for its value. He is asked to describe whatever was destroyed and then he is made to take an oath about that description and what he loaned on security for it. "Then people of discernment evaluate the description. If the pledge was worth more than what the broker loaned, the pledger takes the extra. If the assessed value of the pledge is less than what he was loaned, the pledger is made to take an oath as to what the broker loaned and he does not have to pay the extra which the broker loaned above the assessed value of the pledge. If the pledger refuses to take an oath, he has to give the broker the extra above the assessed value of the pledge. If the broker says that he doesn't know the value of the pledge, the pledger is made to take an oath on the description of the pledge and that is his if he brings a matter which is not disapproved of."

Malik said, "All this applies when the broker takes the pledge and does not put it in the hands of another."

Yahya said that he heard Malik speak about two men who had a pledge between them. One of them undertook to sell his pledge, and the other one had asked him to wait a year for his due. He said, "If it is possible to divide the pledge, and the due of the one who asked him to wait will not be decreased, half the pledge which is between them is sold for him and he is given his due. If it is feared that his right will be decreased, all the pledge is sold, and the one who undertook to sell his pledge is given his due from that. If the one who asked him to wait for his due is pleased in himself, half of the price is paid to the pledger. If not, the pledgee is made to take an oath that he only asked him to wait so that he could transfer my pledge to me in its form.' Then he is given his due immediately."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say about a slave whose master had pledged him and the slave had property of his own, "The property of the slave is not part of the pledge unless the broker stipulates that."

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."

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 from Ibn Shihab that Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan gave a judgment that the rapist had to pay the raped woman her bride- price.

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about the man who rapes a woman, virgin or non-virgin, if she is free, is that he must pay the bride-price of the like of her. If she is a slave, he must pay what he has diminished of her worth. The hadd-punishment in such cases is applied to the rapist, and there is no punishment applied to the raped woman. If the rapist is a slave, that is against his master unless he wishes to surrender him."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about someone who consumed an animal without the permission of its owner, is that he must pay its price on the day he consumed it. He is not obliged to replace it with a similar animal nor does he compensate the owner with any kind of animal. He must pay its price on the day it was consumed, and giving the value is more equitable in compensation for animals and goods."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say about someone who consumes some food without the permission of its owner, "He returns to the owner a like weight of the same kind of food. Food is in the position of gold and silver. Gold and silver are returned with gold and silver. The animal is not in the position of gold in that. What distinguishes between them is the sunna and the behaviour which is in force.

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "If a man is entrusted with some wealth and then trades with it for himself and makes a profit, the profit is his because he is responsible for the property until he returns it to its owner. "

Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "If someone changes his deen - strike his neck!"

The meaning of the statement of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in our opinion and Allah knows best, is that "if someone changes his deen, strike his neck!" refers to those who leave Islam for other than it - like the heretics and their like, about whom it is known. They are killed without being called to tawba because their tawba is not recognised. They were hiding their kufr and publishing their Islam, so I do not think that one calls such people to tawba, and one does not accept their word. As for the one who goes out of Islam to something else and divulges it, one calls him to tawba. If he does not turn in tawba, he is killed. If there are people in that situation, I think that one should call them to Islam and call them to tawba. If they turn in tawba, that is accepted from them. If they do not turn in tawba, they are killed. That does not refer as we see it, and Allah knows best, to those who come out of Judaism to Christianity or from Christianity to Judaism, nor to someone who changes his deen from the various forms of deen except for Islam. Whoever comes out of Islam to other than it and divulges that, that is the one who is referred to, and Allah knows best!

Malik related to me from Abd ar-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al-Qari that his father said, "A man came to Umar ibn al- Khattab from Abu Musa al-Ashari. Umar asked after various people, and he informed him. Then Umar inquired, 'Do you have any recent news?' He said, 'Yes. A man has become a kafir after his Islam.' Umar asked, 'What have you done with him?' He said, 'We let him approach and struck off his head.' Umar said, 'Didn't you imprison him for three days and feed him a loaf of bread every day and call on him to tawba that he might turn in tawba and return to the command of Allah?' Then Umar said, 'O Allah! I was not present and I did not order it and I am not pleased since it has come to me!' "

Yahya related to me from Malik from Suhayl ibn Abi Salih as- Samman from his father from Abu Hurayra that Sad ibn Ubada said to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "What do you think if I find a man with my wife? Shall I grant him a respite until I bring four witnesses?" The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, replied, "Yes."

Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said from Said ibn al-Musayyab that a Syrian man called Ibn Khaybari found a man with his wife and killed him, or killed them both. Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan found it difficult to make a decision and he wrote to Abu Musa al-Ashari to ask Ali ibn Abi Talib for him about that. So Abu Musa asked Ali ibn Abi Talib and AIi said to him, "Is this thing in my land? I adjure you, you must tell me." Abu Musa explained to him how Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan had written him to ask Ali about it. Ali said, "I am Abu Hasan. If he does not bring four witnesses, then let him be completely handed over," (to the relatives of the murdered man).

Yahya said that Malik related from Ibn Shihab that Sunayn Abi Jamila, a man from the Banu Sulaym, found an abandoned child in the time of Umar ibn al-Khattab. Sunayn took him to Umar ibn al-Khattab. He asked, "What has induced you to take this person?" He answered, "I found him lost, so I took him.'' Umar's advisor said to him,' 'Amir al-Muminin! He is a man who does good." Umar inquired of him, "Is it so?" He replied, "Yes." Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "Go, he is free, and you have his wala' inheritance, and we will provide for him."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about an abandoned child is that he is free, and his wala' inheritance belongs to the muslims, and they inherit from him and pay his blood money."

Yahya said from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az-Zubayr that A'isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ''Utba ibn Abi Waqqas disclosed to his brother, Sad ibn Abi Waqqas, that he was the father of the son of the slave-girl of Zama, and made him promise to look after him (after his death). In the year of the conquest, Sad took him and said, 'He is the son of my brother. He covenanted with me about him.' Abd ibn Zama stood up and said, 'He is my brother and the son of my father's slave-girl. He was born on his bed.' They went to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Sad said, 'Messenger of Allah! He is the son of my brother, he made a covenant with me about him.' Abd ibn Zama said, 'He is my brother and the son of my father's slave-girl and was born on my father's bed.' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'He is yours, Abd ibn Zama.' Then the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'A child belongs to the household (where he was born) and the adulterer is stoned.' Then he told Sawda bint Zama, 'Veil yourself from him,' since he saw in him a resemblance to Utba ibn Abi Waqqas." A'isha added, "He did not see her until he met Allah, the Mighty, the Majestic!"

Malik related to me from Yazid ibn Abdullah ibn al-Hadi from Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn al-Harith at-Taymi from Sulayman ibn Yasar from Abdullah ibn Abi Umayya that a woman's husband died, and she did the idda of four months and ten days. Then she married when she was free to marry. She stayed with her husband for four and a half months, then gave birth to a fully developed child. Her husband went to Umar ibn al-Khattab and mentioned that to him, so Umar called some of the old women of the Jahiliyya and asked them about that. One of the women said, "I will tell you what happened with this woman. When her husband died, she was pregnant by him, but then the blood flowed from her because of his death and the child became dry in her womb. When her new husband had intercourse with her and the water reached the child, the child moved in the womb and grew." Umar ibn al-Khattab believed her and separated them (until she had completed her idda). Umar said, "Only good has reached me about you two," and he connected the child to the first husband.

Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said from Sulayman ibn Yasar that Umar ibn al-Khattab used to attach the children of the Jahiliyya to whoever claimed them in Islam. Two men came and each of them claimed a woman's child. Umar ibn al-Khattab summoned a person who scrutinized features and he looked at them. The scrutinizer said, "They both share in him." Umar ibn al-Khattab hit him with a whip. Then he summoned the woman, and said, "Tell me your tale." She said, "It was this one (indicating one of the two men) who used to come to me while I was with my people's camels. He did not leave me until he thought and I thought that I was pregnant. Then he left me, and blood flowed from me, and this other one took his place. I do not know from which of them the child is." The scrutinizer said, "Allah is greater." Umar said to the child, "Go to whichever of them you wish."

Malik related to me that he had heard that Umar ibn al-Khattab or Uthman ibn Affan gave a judgement about a slave woman who misled a man about herself and said that she was free. He married her and she bore children. It was decided that he should ransom his children with their like of slaves.

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "To ransom them with their price is more equitable in this case, Allah willing."

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."

Yahya said that Malik related from Ibn Shihab from Salim ibn Abdullah ibn Umar from his father that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "What's the matter with men who have intercourse with their slave- girls and then dismiss them? No slave-girl comes to me whose master confesses that he has had intercourse with her but that I connect her child to him, whether or not he has practised coitus interruptus or stopped having intercourse with her."

Malik related to me from Nafi that Safiyya bint Abi Ubayd informed him that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "What is the matter with men who have intercourse with their slave-girls and then leave them to go? No slave-girl comes to me whose master confesses that he has had intercourse with her but that I connect her child to him, whether or not he has practised coitus interruptus or left off from intercourse with her."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about an umm walad who commits a crime is that her master is liable for what she has done up to her value. He does not have to surrender her, and he cannot be made to bear more than her value for her crime."

Yahya related from Malik from Hisham ibn Urwa from his father that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "If anyone revives dead land, it belongs to him, and the unjust root has no right."

Malik explained, "The unjust root is whatever is taken, or planted without right."

Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab from Salim ibn Abdullah from his father that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "Whoever revives dead land, it belongs to him."

Malik said, "That is what is done in our community."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Hazm that he heard that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said about the flood-channels of Mahzur and Mudhaynib (in Madina), "Dam them systematically, so that the water is diverted into each property in turn up to ankle level, starting upstream."

Malik related to me from Abu'z-Zinad from al-Araj from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Excess water is not withheld in order to prevent herbage from growing."

Malik related to me from Abu'r-Rijal Muhammad ibn Abd ar-Rahman from his mother Amra bint Abd ar-Rahman that she informed him that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Do not withhold the surplus water of a well from people."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Amr ibn Yahya al-Mazini from his father that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "There is no injury nor return of injury."

Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab from al-Araj from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "No one should prevent his neighbour from fixing a wooden peg in his wall." Then Abu Hurayra said, "Why do I see you turning away from it? By Allah! I shall keep on at you about it."