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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Malik related to me from Humayd ibn Qays al-Makki that a son of al-Mutawakkil had a mukatab who died at Makka and left (enough to pay) the rest of his kitaba and he owed some debts to people. He also left a daughter. The governor of Makka was not certain about how to judge in the case, so he wrote to Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan to ask him about it. Abd al-Malik wrote to him, "Begin with the debts owed to people, and then pay what remains of his kitaba. Then divide what remains of the property between the daughter and the master."

Malik said, "What is done among us is that the master of a slave does not have to give his slave a kitaba if he asks for it. I have not heard of any of the Imams forcing a man to give a kitaba to his slave. I heard that one of the people of knowledge, when someone asked about that and mentioned that Allah the Blessed, the Exalted, said, 'Give them their kitaba, if you know some good in them' (Sura 24 ayat 33) recited these two ayats, 'When you are free of the state of ihram, then hunt for game.' (Sura 5 ayat 3) 'When the prayer is finished, scatter in the land and seek Allah's favour.' " (Sura 62 ayat 10)

Malik commented, "It is a way of doing things for which Allah, the Mighty, the Majestic, has given permission to people, and it is not obligatory for them." Malik said, "I heard one of the people of knowledge say about the word of Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, 'Give them of the wealth which Allah has given you,' that it meant that a man give his slave a kitaba and then reduce the end of his kitaba for him by some specific amount."

Malik said, "This is what I have heard from the people of knowledge and what I see people doing here."

Malik said, "I have heard that Abdullah ibn Umar gave one of his slaves his kitaba for 35,000 dirhams, and then reduced the end of his kitaba by 5,000 dirhams."

Malik said, "What is done among us is that when a master gives a mukatab his kitaba, the mukatab's property goes with him but his children do not go with him unless he stipulates that in his kitaba."

Yahya said, "I heard Malik say that if a mukatab whose master had given him a kitaba had a slave- girl who was pregnant by him, and neither he nor his master knew that on the day he was given his kitaba, the child did not follow him because he was not included in the kitaba. He belonged to the master. As for the slave-girl, she belonged to the mukatab because she was his property."

Malik said that if a man and his wife's son (by another husband) inherited a mukatab from the wife and the mukatab died before he had completed his kitaba, they divided his inheritance between them according to the Book of Allah. If the slave paid his kitaba and then died, his inheritance went to the son of the woman, and the husband had nothing of his inheritance.

Malik said that if a mukatab gave his own slave a kitaba, the situation was looked at. If he wanted to do his slave a favour and it was obvious by his making it easy for him, that was not permitted. If he was giving him a kitaba from desire to find money to pay off his own kitaba, that was permitted for him.

Malik said that if a man had intercourse with a mukataba of his and she became pregnant by him, she had an option. If she liked she could be an umm walad. If she wished, she could confirm her kitaba. If she did not conceive, she still had her kitaba.

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us about a slave who is owned by two men is that one of them does not give a kitaba for his share, whether or not his companion gives him permission to do so, unless they both write the kitaba together, because that alone would effect setting him free. If the slave were to fulfil what he had agreed on to free half of himself, and then the one who had given a kitaba for half of him was not obliged to complete his setting free, that would be in opposition to the words of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. 'If someone frees his share in a slave and has enough money to cover the full price of the slave, justly evaluated for him, he must give his partners their shares, so the slave is completely free . ' "

Malik said, "If he is not aware of that until the mukatab has met the terms or before he has met them the owner who has written him the kitaba returns what he has taken from the mukatab to him, and then he and his partner divide him according to their original shares and the kitaba is invalid. He is the slave of both of them in his original state."

Malik spoke about a mukatab who was owned by two men and one of them granted him a delay in the payment of the right which he was owed, and the other refused to defer it, and so the one who refused to defer the payment exacted his part of the due. Malik said that if the mukatab then died and left property which did not complete his kitaba, "They divide it according to what they are still owed by him. Each of them takes according to his share. If the mukatab leaves more than his kitaba, each of them takes what remains to them of the kitaba, and what remains after that is divided equally between them. If the mukatab is unable to pay his kitaba fully and the one who did not allow him to defer his payment has exacted more than his associate did, the slave is still divided equally between them, and he does not return to his associates the excess of what he has exacted, because he only exacted his right with the permission of his associate. If one of them remits what is owed to him and then his associate exacts part of what he is owed by him and then the mukatab is unable to pay, he belongs to both of them. And the one who has exacted something does not return anything because he only demanded what he was owed. That is like the debt of two men in one writing against one man. One of them grants him time to pay and the other is greedy and exacts his due. Then the debtor goes bankrupt. The one who exacted his due does not have to return any of what he took."

The Prophet (saws) fixed the ransom of the people of pre-Islamic Arabia at four hundred dirhams per head on the day of the battle of Badr.

A woman came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have come to you to present myself to you (for marriage)." Allah's Apostle glanced at her. He looked at her carefully and fixed his glance on her and then lowered his head. When the lady saw that he did not say anything, she sat down. A man from his companions got up and said, "O Allah's Apostle! If you are not in need of her, then marry her to me." The Prophet said, "Have you got anything to offer." The man said, 'No, by Allah, O Allah's Apostle!" The Prophet said (to him), "Go to your family and try to find something." So the man went and returned, saying, "No, by Allah, O Allah's Apostle! I have not found anything." The Prophet said, "Go again and look for something, even if it were an iron ring." He went and returned, saying, "No, by Allah, O Allah's Apostle! I could not find even an iron ring, but this is my Izar (waist sheet).' He had no Rida (upper garment). He added, "I give half of it to her." Allah's Apostle said "What will she do with your Izar? If you wear it, she will have nothing over herself thereof (will be naked); and if she wears it, then you will have nothing over yourself thereof ' So the man sat for a long period and then got up (to leave). When Allah's Apostle saw him leaving, he ordered that he e called back. When he came, the Prophet asked (him), "How much of the Qur'an do you know (by heart)?" The man replied, I know such Sura and such Sura and such Sura," naming the suras. The Prophet said, "Can you recite it by heart?" He said, 'Yes." The Prophet said, "Go I let you marry her for what you know of the Qur'an (as her Mahr).

Yahya related to me that Malik asked Ibn Shihab about selling animals, two for one with delayed terms. He said, "There is no harm in it."

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us is that there is no harm in bartering a camel for a camel like it and adding some dirhams to the exchange, from hand to hand. There is no harm in bartering a camel for a camel like it with some dirhams on top of the exchange, the camels to be exchanged from hand to hand, and the dirhams to be paid within a period." He said, "There is no good however in bartering a camel for a camel like it with some dirhams on top of it, with the dirhams paid in cash and the camel to be delivered later. If both the camel and the dirhams are deferred there is no good in that either."

Malik said, "There is no harm in buying a riding camel with two or more pack-camels, if they are from inferior stock. There is no harm in bartering two of them for one with delayed terms, if they are different and their difference is clear. If they resemble each other whether their species are different or not, two are not to be taken for one with delayed terms."

Malik said, "The explanation of what is disapproved of in that, is that a camel should not be bought with two camels when there is no distinction between them in speed or hardiness. If this is according to what I have described to you, then one does not buy two of them for one with delayed terms. There is no harm in selling those of them you buy before you complete the deal to somebody other than the one from whom you bought them if you get the price in cash."

Malik said, "It is permitted for someone to advance something on animals for a fixed term and describe the amount and pay its price in cash. Whatever the buyer and seller have described is obliged for them. That is still permitted behaviour between people and what the people of knowledge in our land do."

Yahya related to me from Malik that Yahya ibn Said heard Said ibn al-Musayyab say, "Keeping gold and silver out of circulation is part of working corruption in the land."

Malik said, "There is no harm in buying gold with silver or silver with gold without measuring if it is unminted or a piece of jewellery which has been made. Counted dirhams and counted dinars should not be bought without reckoning until they are known and counted. To abandon number and buy them at random would only be to speculate. That is not part of the business transactions of Muslims. As for what is weighed of unminted objects and jewellery, there is no harm in buying such things without measuring. To buy them without measuring is like buying wheat, dried dates, and such food-stuffs, which are sold without measuring, even though things like them are measured "

Malik spoke about buying a Qur'an, a sword or a signet ring which had some gold or silver work on it with dinars or dirhams. He said, "The value of the object bought with dinars, which has gold in it is looked at. If the value of the gold is up to one-third of the price, it is permitted and there is no harm in it if the sale is hand to hand and there is no deferment in it. When something is bought with silver which has silver in it, the value is looked at. If the value of the silver is one- third, it is permitted and there is no harm in it if the sale is hand to hand. That is still the way of doing things among us."

Malik said, The best of what I have heard about a mukatab whose master frees him at death, is that the mukatab is valued according to what he would fetch if he were sold. If that value is less than what remains against him of his kitaba, his freedom is taken from the third that the deceased can bequeath. One does not look at the number of dirhams which remain against him in his kitaba. That is because had he been killed, his killer would not be in debt for other than his value on the day he killed him. Had he been injured, the one who injured him would not be liable for other than the blood-money of the injury on the day of his injury. One does not look at how much he has paid of dinars and dirhams of the contract he has written because he is a slave as long as any of his kitaba remains. If what remains in his kitaba is less than his value, only whatever of his kitaba remains owing from him is taken into account in the third of the property of the deceased. That is because the deceased left him what remains of his kitaba and so it becomes a bequest which the deceased made."

Malik said, "The illustration of that is that if the price of the mukatab is one thousand dirhams, and only one hundred dirhams remain of his kitaba, his master leaves him the one hundred dirhams which complete it for him. It is taken into account in the third of his master and by it he becomes free."

Malik said that if a man wrote his slave a kitaba at his death, the value of the slave was estimated. If there was enough to cover the price of the slave in one third of his property, that was permitted for him.

Malik said, "The illustration of that is that the price of the slave is one thousand dinars. His master writes him a kitaba for two hundred dinars at his death. The third of the property of his master is one thousand dinars, so that is permitted for him. It is only a bequest which he makes from one third of his property. If the master has left bequests to people, and there is no surplus in the third after the value of the mukatab, one begins with the mukatab because the kitaba is setting free, and setting free has priority over bequests. When those bequests are paid from the kitaba of the mukatab, they follow it. The heirs of the testator have a choice. If they want to give the people with bequests all their bequests and the kitaba of the mukatab is theirs, they have that. If they refuse and hand over the mukatab and what he owes to the people with bequests they can do that, because the third commences with the mukatab and because all the bequests which he makes are as one."

If the heirs then say, "What our fellow bequeathed was more than one third of his property and he has taken what was not his," Malik said, "His heirs choose. It is said to them, 'Your companion has made the bequests you know about and if you would like to give them to those who are to receive them according to the deceased's bequests, then do so. If not, hand over to the people with bequests one third of the total property of the deceased.' "

Malik continued, "If the heirs surrender the mukatab to the people with bequests, the people with bequests have what he owes of his kitaba. If the mukatab pays what he owes of his kitaba, they take that in their bequests according to their shares. If the mukatab cannot pay, he is a slave of the people with bequests and does not return to the heirs because they gave him up when they made their choice, and because when he was surrendered to the people with bequests, they were liable. If he died, they would not have anything against the heirs. If the mukatab dies before he pays his kitaba and he leaves property which is more than what he owes, his property goes to the people with bequests. If the mukatab pays what he owes, he is free and his wala' returns to the paternal relations of the one who wrote the kitaba for him."

Malik spoke about a mukatab who owed his master ten thousand dirhams in his kitaba, and when he died he remitted one thousand dirhams from it. He said, "The mukatab is valued and his value is taken into consideration. If his value is one thousand dirhams and the reduction is a tenth of the kitaba, that portion of the slave's price is one hundred dirhams. It is a tenth of the price. A tenth of the kitaba is therefore reduced for him. That is converted to a tenth of the price in cash. That is as if he had had all of what he owed reduced for him. Had he done that, only the value of the slave - one thousand dirhams - would have been taken into account in the third of the property of the deceased. If that which he had remitted is half of the kitaba, half the price is taken into account in the third of the property of the deceased. If it is more or less than that, it is according to this reckoning."

Malik said, "When a man reduces the kitaba of his mukatab by one thousand dirhams at his death from a kitaba of ten thousand dirhams, and he does not stipulate whether it is from the beginning or the end of his kitaba, each instalment is reduced for him by one tenth."

Malik said, "If a man remits one thousand dirhams from his mukatab at his death from the beginning or end of his kitaba, and the original basis of the kitaba is three thousand dirhams, the mukatab's cash value is estimated. Then that value is divided. That thousand which is from the beginning of the kitaba is converted into its portion of the price according to its proximity to the term and its precedence and then the thousand which follows the first thousand is according to its precedence also until it comes to its end, and every thousand is paid according to its place in advancing and deferring the term because what is deferred of that is less in respect of its price. Then it is placed in the third of the deceased according to whatever of the price befalls that thousand according to the difference in preference of that, whether it is more or less, then it is according to this reckoning."

Malik spoke about a man who willed a man a fourth of a mukatab or freed a fourth, and then the man died and the mukatab died and left a lot of property, more than he owed. He said, "The heirs of the first master and the one who was willed a fourth of the mukatab are given what they are still owed by the mukatab. Then they divide what is left over, and the one willed a fourth has a third of what is left after the kitaba is paid. The heirs of his master gets two-thirds. That is because the mukatab is a slave as long as any of his kitaba remains to be paid. He is inherited from by the possession of his person."

Malik said about a mukatab whose master freed him at death, "If the third of the deceased will not cover him, he is freed from it according to what the third will cover and his kitaba is decreased according to that. If the mukatab owed five thousand dirhams and his value is two thousand dirhams cash, and the third of the deceased is one thousand dirhams, half of him is freed and half of the kitaba has been reduced for him." Malik said about a man who said in his will, "My slave so-and-so is free and write a kitaba for so-and- so", that the setting free had priority over the kitaba.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Malik 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 from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar said that there was no harm in a man making an advance to another man for food, with a set description and price until a set date, as long as it was not in crops, or dates which had not begun to ripen.

Malik said, "The way of doing things among us concerning someone who makes an advance for foodstuffs at a known rate until a stated date, and the date arrives and he finds that there is not enough of what he was sold with the seller to fulfill his order, and so he revokes the sale, is that he must only take back the silver, gold, or price which he paid exactly. He does not buy anything else from the man for the same price until he has got back what he paid. That is because if he took something else besides the price which he paid him or exchanged it for goods other than the goods which he bought from him, it would be selling food before getting delivery of it."

Malik said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade selling food before getting delivery of it."

Malik said that it was not good if the buyer regretted his purchase and asked the seller to revoke the sale for him and he would not press him immediately for what he had paid. The people of knowledge forbade that. That was because when the food was made ready for the buyer by the seller, the buyer deferred his due from the seller in order that he might revoke the sale for him. That was the sale of food with delayed terms before taking delivery of the food.

Malik said, "The explanation of that is that when the date of delivery comes and the buyer dislikes the food, the seller takes by it money to be paid later and so it is not revocation. Revocation is that in which neither the buyer nor the seller is increased. When increase occurs by deferment of payment for a time period, or by anything which increases one of them over the other or anything which gives one of them profit, it is not revocation. When either of them do that, revocation becomes a sale. There is an indulgence for revocation, partnership, and transfer, as long as i ncrease, decrease, or deferment does not come into them. If increase, decrease, or deferment comes into it, it becomes a sale. Whatever makes a sale halal makes it halal and whatever makes a sale haram makes it haram."

Malik said, "If someone pays in advance for Syrian wheat, there is no harm if he takes a load after the term falls due."

Malik said, "It is the same with whoever advances for any kind of thing. There is no harm in him taking better than whatever he has made an advance for or worse than it after the agreed delivery date. The explanation of that is that if, for instance, a man advances for a certain weight of wheat. There is no harm if he decides to take some barley or Syrian wheat. If he has made an advance for good dates, there is no harm if he decides to take poor quality dates. If he paid in advance for red raisins, there is no harm if he takes black ones, when it happens after the agreed delivery date, and when the measure of what he takes is like the measure of what he paid for in advance."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Prophet (saws) had a man's hand cut off who had stolen from the place reserved for women a shield whose price was three dirhams.

I used to write (the account of) the expenditure incurred on orphans who were under the guardianship of so-and-so. They cheated him by one thousand dirhams and he paid these (this amount) to them. I then got double the property which they deserved. I said (to the man: Take one thousand (dirhams) which they have taken from you (by cheating). He said: No, my father has told me that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saws) say: Pay the deposit to him who deposited it with you, and do not betray him who betrays you.

On his father's authority, told that his grandfather reported the Prophet (saws) said: If any slave entered into an agreement to buy his freedom for one hundred uqiyahs and he pays them all but ten, he remains a slave (until he pays the remaining ten); and if a slave entered into an agreement to purchase his freedom for one hundred dinars, and he pays them all but ten dinars, he remains a slave (until he pays the remaining ten).

Abu Dawud said: This narrator 'Abbas al-Jariri is not the same person. They said: It is misunderstanding. He is some other narrator.

The Prophet (saws) said: When a mukatab (a slave who has made an agreement to purchase his freedom) gifts blood-money or an inheritance, he can inherit in accordance with the extent to which he has been emancipated.

Abu Dawud said: Wuhaib transmitted it from Ayyub, from 'Ikrimah, on the authority of 'Ali, from the Prophet (saws): and Hammad b. Zaid and Isma'il have transmitted it in a mursal form (i.e the link of the Companion being missing) from Ayyub, from 'Ikrimah, from the Prophet (saws). Isma'il b. 'Ulayyah has treated it as a statement of 'Ikrimah.

Yahya said that Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community is that retaliation is taken from someone who breaks someone's hand or foot intentionally and not blood-money."

Malik said, "Retaliation is not inflicted on anyone until the wound of the injured party has healed. Then retaliation is inflicted on him. If the wound of the person on whom the retaliation has been inflicted is like the first person's wound when it heals, it is retaliation. If the wound of the one on whom the retaliation has been inflicted becomes worse or he dies, there is nothing held against the one who has taken retaliation. If the wound of the person on whom the retaliation has been inflicted heals and the injured party is paralysed or his injury has healed but he has a scar, defect, or blemish, the person on whom the retaliation has been inflicted does not have his hand broken again and further retaliation is not taken for his injury."

He said, "But there is blood-money from him according to what he has impaired or maimed of the hand of the injured party. The bodily injury is also like that."

Malik said, "When a man intentionally goes to his wife and gouges out her eye or breaks her hand or cuts off her finger or such like, and does it intentionally, retaliation is inflicted on him. As for a man who strikes his wife with a rope or a whip and hits what he did not mean to hit or does what he did not intend to do, he pays blood-money for what he has struck according to this principle, and retaliation is not inflicted on him."

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Abu Bakr ibn Muhammd ibn Amr ibn Hazm took retaliation for the breaking of a leg.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said from Sulayman ibn Yasar that Zayd ibn Thabit used to say, "When the eye remains but the sight is lost, one hundred dinars are payable for it."

Yahya said, "Malik was asked about cutting off the lower lid of the eye and the bone around the eye. He said, 'There is only ijtihad in that unless the vision of the eye is impaired. He is entitled to an amount that is compatible to the extent the vision of the eye has been impaired."

Yahya said that Malik said, "What is done in our community about removing the bad eye of a one-eyed man when it has already been blinded and still remains there in its place and the paralyzed hand when it is cut off, is that there is only ijtihad in that, and there is no prescribed blood-money."

Three persons were brought to Ali (Allah be pleased with him) when he was in the Yemen. They and sexual intercourse with a woman during a single state of purity. He asked two of them: Do you acknowledge this child for this (man)? They replied: No. He then put this (question) to all of them. Whenever he asked two of them, they replied in the negative. He, therefore, cast a lot among them, and attributed the child to the one who received the lot. He imposed two-third of the blood-money (i.e. the price of the mother) on him. This was then mentioned to the Prophet (saws) and he laughed so much that his molar teeth appeared.

On the authority of his father (Sa'd) and his grandfather (Dumayrah) (according to Musa's version) who were present in the battle of Hunayn with the Messenger of Allah (saws): After the advent of Islam, Muhallam ibn Jaththamah al-Laythi killed a man of Ashja'.

That was the first blood-money decided by the Messenger of Allah (saws) (for payment). Uyaynah spoke about the killing of al-Ashja'i, for he belonged to Ghatafan, and al-Aqra' ibn Habis spoke on behalf of Muhallam, for he belonged to Khunduf. The voices rose high, and the dispute and noise grew.

So the Messenger of Allah (saws) said: Do you not accept blood-money, Uyaynah?

Uyaynah then said: No, I swear by Allah, until I cause his women to suffer the same fighting and grief as he caused my women to suffer. Again the voices rose high, and the dispute and noise grew.

The Messenger of Allah (saws) said: Do you not accept the blood-money Uyaynah? Uyaynah gave the same reply as before, and a man of Banu Layth called Mukaytil stood up. He had a weapon and a skin shield in his hand.

He said: I do not find in the beginning of Islam any illustration for what he has done except the one that "some sheep came on, and those in the front were shot; hence those in the rear ran away". (The other example is that) "make a law today and change it."

The Messenger of Allah (saws) said: Fifty (camels) here immediately and fifty when we return to Medina. This happened during some of his journeys. Muhallam was a tall man of dark complexion. He was with the people. They continued (to make effort for him) until he was released. He sat before the Messenger of Allah (saws), with his eyes flowing.

He said: Messenger of Allah! I have done (the act) of which you have been informed. I repent to Allah, the Exalted, so ask Allah's forgiveness for me. Messenger of Allah!

The Messenger of Allah (saws) then said: Did you kill him with your weapon at the beginning of Islam. O Allah! do not forgive Muhallam. He said these words loudly.

AbuSalamah added: He (Muhallam) then got up while he was wiping his tears with the end of his garment.

Ibn Ishaq said: His people alleged that the Messenger of Allah (saws) asked forgiveness for him after that.

Abu Dawud said: Al-Nadr b. Shumail said: al-ghiyar means blood-wit.

Yahya said from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Bushayr ibn Yasar informed him that Abdullah ibn Sahl al-Ansari and Muhayyisa ibn Masud went out to Khaybar, and they separated on their various businesses and Abdullah ibn Sahl was killed. Muhayyisa, and his brother Huwayyisa and Abd ar-Rahman ibn Sahl went to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and Abd ar-Rahman began to speak before his brother. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "The older first, the older first.

Therefore Huwayyisa and then Muhayyisa spoke and mentioned the affair of Abdullah ibn Sahl. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to them, "Do you swear with fifty oaths and claim the blood-money of your companion or the life of the murderer?" They said, "Messenger of Allah, we did not see it and we were not present." The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Will you acquit the jews for fifty oaths?' They said, "Messenger of Allah, how can we accept the oaths of a people who are kafirun?"

Yahya ibn Said said, "Bushayr ibn Yasar claimed that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, paid the blood-money from his own property."

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community and that which I heard from whoever I am content with, concerning the oath of qasama, and upon which the past and present imams agree, is that those who claim revenge begin with the oaths and swear. The oath for revenge is only obligatory in two situations. Either the slain person says, 'My blood is against so-and-so,' or the relatives entitled to the blood bring a partial proof of it that is not irrefutable against the one who is the object of the blood-claim. This obliges taking an oath on the part of those who claim the blood against those who are the object of the blood-claim. With us, swearing is only obliged in these two situations."

Malik said, "That is the sunna in which there is no dispute with us and which is still the behaviour of the people. The people who claim blood begin the swearings, whether it is an intentional killing or an accident."

Malik said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, began with Banu Harith in the case of the killing of their kinsman murdered at Khaybar."

Malik said, "If those who make the claim swear, they deserve the blood of their kinsman and whoever they swear against is slain. Only one man can be killed in the qasama. Two cannot be killed in it. Fifty men from the blood-relatives must swear fifty oaths. If their number is less or some of them draw back, they can repeat their oaths, unless one of the relatives of the murdered man who deserves blood and who is permitted to pardon it, draws back. If one of these draws back, there is no way to revenge."

Yahya said that Malik said, "The oaths can be made by those of them who remain if one of them draws back who is not permitted to pardon. If one of the blood-relatives draws back who is permitted to pardon, even if he is only one, more oaths can not be made after that by the blood- relatives. If that occurs, the oaths can be on behalf of the one against whom the claim is made. So fifty of the men of his people swear fifty oaths. If there are not fifty men, more oaths can be made by those of them who already swore. If there is only the defendant, he swears fifty oaths and is acquitted."

Yahya said that Malik said, "One distinguishes between swearing for blood and oaths for one's rights. When a man has a money-claim against another man, he seeks to verify his due. When a man wants to kill another man, he does not kill him in the midst of people. He keeps to a place away from people. Had there only been swearing in cases where there is a clear proof and had one acted in it as one acts about one's rights (i.e. needing witnesses), the right of blood retribution would have been lost and people would have been swift to take advantage of it when they learned of the decision on it. However, the relatives of the murdered man were allowed to initiate swearing so that people might restrain themselves from blood and the murderer might beware lest he was put into a situation like that (i.e. qasama) by the statement of the murdered man.' "

Yahya said, "Malik said about a people of whom a certain number are suspected of murder and the relatives of the murdered man ask them to take oaths and they are numerous, so they ask that each man swears fifty oaths on his own behalf. The oaths are not divided out between them according to their number and they are not acquitted unless each man among them swears fifty oaths on his own behalf."

Malik said, "This is the best I have heard about the matter."

He said, "Swearing goes to the paternal relatives of the slain. They are the blood-relatives who swear against the killer and by whose swearing he is killed."