Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard the same as that from al-Qasim ibn Muhammad from Ibn Muayqib ad-Dawsi.

Malik said, "This is the way of doing things among us . "

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us is that wheat is not sold for wheat, dates for dates, wheat for dates, dates for raisins, wheat for raisins, nor any kind of food sold for food at all, except from hand to hand. If there is any sort of delayed terms in the transaction, it is not good. It is haram. Condiments are not bartered except from hand to hand."

Malik said, "Food and condiments are not bartered when they are the same type, two of one kind for one of the other. A mudd of wheat is not sold for two mudds of wheat, nor a mudd of dates for two mudds of dates, nor a mudd of raisins for two mudds of raisins, nor is anything of that sort done with grains and condiments when they are of one kind, even if it is hand to hand.

"This is the same position as silver for silver and gold for gold. No increase is halal in the transaction, and only like for like, from hand to hand is halal."

Malik said, "If there is a clear difference in foodstuffs which are measured and weighed, there is no harm in taking two of one kind for one of another, hand to hand. There is no harm in taking a sa of dates for two sa of wheat, and a sa of dates for two sa of raisins, and a sa of wheat for two sa of ghee. If the two sorts in the transaction are different, there is no harm in two for one or more than that from hand to hand. If delayed terms enter into the sale, it is not halal ."

Malik said, "It is not halal to trade a heap of wheat for a heap of wheat. There is no harm in a heap of wheat for a heap of dates, from hand to hand. That is because there is no harm in buying wheat with dates without precise measurement."

Malik said, "With kinds of foods and condiments that differ from each other, and the difference is clear, there is no harm in bartering one kind for another, without precise measurement from hand to hand. If delayed terms enter into the sale, there is no good in it. Bartering such things without precise measurement is like buying it with gold and silver without measuring precisely."

Malik said, "That is because you buy wheat with silver without measuring precisely, and dates with gold without measuring precisely, and it is halal. There is no harm in it."

Malik said, "It is not good for someone to make a heap of food, knowing its measure and then to sell it as if it had not been measured precisely, concealing its measure from the buyer. If the buyer wants to return that food to the seller, he can, because he concealed its measure and so it is an uncertain transaction. This is done with any kind of food or other goods whose measure and number the seller knows, and which he then sells without measurement and the buyer does not know that. If the buyer wants to return that to the seller, he can return t. The people of knowledge still forbid such a transaction."

Malik said, "There is no good in selling one round loaf of bread for two round loaves, nor large for small when some of them are bigger than others. When care is taken that they are like for like, there is no harm in the sale, even if they are not weighed."

Malik said, "It is not good to sell a mudd of butter and a mudd of milk for two mudds of butter. This is like what we described of selling dates when two sa of kabis and a sa of poor quality dates were sold for three sa of ajwa dates after the buyer had said to the seller, 'Two sa of kabis dates for three sa of ajwa dates is not good,' and then he did that to make the transaction possible. The owner of the milk puts the milk with his butter so that he can use the superiority of his butter over the butter of the other party to put his milk in with it."

Malik said, "Flour for wheat is like for like, and there is no harm in that. That is if he does not mix up anything with the flour and sell it for wheat, like for like. Had he put half a mudd of flour and half of wheat, and then sold that for a mudd of wheat, it would be like what we described, and it would not be good because he would want to use the superiority of his good wheat to put flour along with it. Such a transaction is not good."

Malik related to me that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a judgement about the mudabbar who did an injury. He said, "The master must surrender what he owns of him to the injured person. He is made to serve the injured person and recompense (in the form of service) is taken from him as the blood-money of the injury. If he completes that before his master dies, he reverts to his master."

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community about a mudabbar who does an injury and then his master dies and the master has no property except him is that the third (allowed to be bequeathed) is freed, and then the blood-money for the in jury is divided into thirds. A third of the blood-money is against the third of him which was set free, and two-thirds are against the two-thirds which the heirs have. If they wish, they surrender what they have of him to the party with the injury, and if they wish, they give the injured person two-thirds of the blood-money and keep their portion of the slave. That is because that injury is a criminal action by the slave and it is not a debt against the master by which whatever setting free and tadbir the master had done would be abrogated. If there were a debt to people held against the master of the slave, as well as the criminal action of the slave, part of the mudabbar would be sold in proportion to the blood-money of the injury and according to the debt. Then one would begin with the blood-money which was for the criminal action of the slave and it would be paid from the price of the slave. Then the debt of his master would be paid, and then one would look at what remained after that of the slave. His third would b be set free, and two-thirds of him would belong to the heirs. That is because the criminal action of the slave is more important than the debt of his master. That is because, if the man dies and leaves a mudabbar slave whose value is one hundred and fifty dinars, and the slave strikes a free man on the head with a blow that lays open the skull, and the blood-money is fifty dinars, and the master of the slave has a debt of fifty dinars, one begins with the fifty dinars which are the blood-money of the head wound, and it is paid from the price of the slave. Then the debt of the master is paid. Then one looks at what remains of the slave, and a third of him is set free and two-thirds of him remain for the heirs. The blood-money is more pressing against his person than the debt of his master. The debt of his master is more pressing than the tadbir which is a bequest from the third of the property of the deceased. None of the tadbir is permitted while the master of the mudabbar has a debt which is not paid. It is a bequest. That is because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said, 'After any bequest that is made or any debt.' " (Sura 4 ayat 10)

Malik said, "If there is enough in the third property that the deceased can bequeath to free all the mudabbar, he is freed and the blood-money due from his criminal action is held as a debt against him which follows him after he is set free even if that blood-money is the full blood-money. It is not a debt on the master."

Malik spoke about a mudabbar who injured a man and his master surrendered him to the injured party, and then the master died and had a debt and did not leave any property other than the mudabbar, and the heirs said, "We surrender the mudabbar to the party," whilst the creditor said, "My debt exceeds that." Malik said that if the creditor's debt did exceed that at all , he was more entitled to it and it was taken from the one who owed the debt, according to what the creditor was owed in excess of the blood-money of the injury. If his debt did not exceed it at all, he did not take the slave.

Malik spoke about a mudabbar who did an injury and had property, and his master refused to ransom him. He said, "The injured party takes the property of the mudabbar for the blood-money of his injury. If there is enough to pay it, the injured party is paid in full for the blood-money of his injury and the mudabbar is returned to his master. If there is not enough to pay it, he takes it from the blood-money and uses the mudabbar for what remains of the blood-money."

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."

[Muslim].

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."

Malik related to me that he heard that Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, made a settlement with her mukatab for an agreed amount of gold and silver.

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us in the case of a mukatab who is shared by two partners, is that one of them cannot make a settlement with him for an agreed price according to his portion without the consent of his partner. That is because the slave and his property are owned by both of them, and so one of them is not permitted to take any of the property except with the consent of his partner. If one of them settled with the mukatab and his partner did not, and he took the agreed price, and then the mukatab died while he had property or was unable to pay, the one who settled would not have anything of the mukatab's property and he could not return that for which he made settlement so that his right to the slave's person would return to him. However, when someone settles with a mukatab with the permission of his partner and then the mukatab is unable to pay, it is preferable that the one who broke with him return what he has taken from the mukatab for the severance and he can have back his portion of the mukatab. He can do that. If the mukatab dies and leaves property, the partner who has kept hold of the kitaba is paid in full the amount of the kitaba which remains to him against the mukatab from the mukatab's property. Then what remains of property of the mukatab is between the partner who broke with him and his partner, according to their shares in the mukatab. If one of the partners breaks off with him and the other keeps the kitaba, and the mukatab is unable to pay, it is said to the partner who settled with him, 'If you wish to give your partner half of what you took so the slave is divided between you, then do so. If you refuse, then all of the slave belongs to the one who held on to possession of the slave.' "

Malik spoke about a mukatab who was shared between two men and one of them made a settlement with him with the permission of his partner. Then the one who retained possession of the slave demanded the like of that for which his partner had settled or more than that and the mukatab could not pay it. He said, "The mukatab is shared between them because the man has only demanded what is owed to him. If he demands less than what the one who settled with him took and the mukatab can not manage that, and the one who settled with him prefers to return to his partner half of what he took so the slave is divided in halves between them, he can do that. If he refuses then all of the slave belongs to the one who did not settle with him. If the mukatab dies and leaves property, and the one who settled with him prefers to return to his companion half of what he has taken so the inheritance is divided between them, he can do that. If the one who has kept the kitaba takes the like of what the one who has settled with him took, or more, the inheritance is between them according to their shares in the slave because he is only taking his right."

Malik spoke about a mukatab who was shared between two men and one of them made a settlement with him for half of what was due to him with the permission of his partner, and then the one who retained possession of the slave took less than what his partner settled with him for and the mukatab was unable to pay. He said, "If the one who made a settlement with the slave prefers to return half of what he was awarded to his partner, the slave is divided between them. If he refuses to return it, the one who retained possession has the portion of the share for which his partner made a settlement with the mukatab."

Malik said, "The explanation of that is that the slave is divided in two halves between them. They write him a kitaba together and then one of them makes a settlement with the mukatab for half his due with the permission of his partner. That is a fourth of all the slave. Then the mukatab is unable to continue, so it is said to the one who settled with him, 'If you wish, return to your partner half of what you were awarded and the slave is divided equally between you.' If he refuses, the one who held to the kitaba takes in full the fourth of his partner for which he made settlement with the mukatab. He had half the slave, so that now gives him three-fourths of the slave. The one who broke off has a fourth of the slave because he refused to return the equivalent of the fourth share for which he settled."

Malik spoke about a mukatab whose master made a settlement with him and set him free and what remained of his severance was written against him as debt, then the mukatab died and people had debts against him. He said, "His master does not share with the creditors because of what he is owed from the severance. The creditors begin first."

Malik said, "A mukatab cannot break with his master when he owes debts to people. He would be set free and have nothing because the people who hold the debts are more entitled to his property than his master. That is not permitted for him."

Malik said, "According to the way things are done among us, there is no harm if a man gives a kitaba to his slave and settles with him for gold and reduces what he is owed of the kitaba provided that only the gold is paid immediately. Whoever disapproves of that does so because he puts it in the category of a debt which a man has against another man for a set term. He gives him a reduction and he pays it immediately. This is not like that debt. The breaking of the mukatab with his master is dependent on his giving money to speed up the setting free. Inheritance, testimony and the hudud are obliged for him and the inviolability of being set free is established for him. He is not buying dirhams for dirhams or gold for gold. Rather it is like a man who having said to his slave, 'Bring me such-and-such an amount of dinars and you are free', then reduces that for him, saying, 'If you bring me less than that, you are free.' That is not a fixed debt. Had it been a fixed debt, the master would have shared with the creditors of the mukatab when he died or went bankrupt. His claim on the property of the mukatab would join theirs."

Allah's Apostle very often used to ask his companions, "Did anyone of you see a dream?" So dreams would be narrated to him by those whom Allah wished to tell. One morning the Prophet said, "Last night two persons came to me (in a dream) and woke me up and said to me, 'Proceed!' I set out with them and we came across a man lying down, and behold, another man was standing over his head, holding a big rock. Behold, he was throwing the rock at the man's head, injuring it. The rock rolled away and the thrower followed it and took it back. By the time he reached the man, his head returned to the normal state. The thrower then did the same as he had done before. I said to my two companions, 'Subhan Allah! Who are these two persons?' They said, 'Proceed!' So we proceeded and came to a man lying flat on his back and another man standing over his head with an iron hook, and behold, he would put the hook in one side of the man's mouth and tear off that side of his face to the back (of the neck) and similarly tear his nose from front to back and his eye from front to back. Then he turned to the other side of the man's face and did just as he had done with the other side. He hardly completed this side when the other side returned to its normal state. Then he returned to it to repeat what he had done before. I said to my two companions, 'Subhan Allah! Who are these two persons?' They said to me, 'Proceed!' So we proceeded and came across something like a Tannur (a kind of baking oven, a pit usually clay-lined for baking bread)." I think the Prophet said, "In that oven there was much noise and voices." The Prophet added, "We looked into it and found naked men and women, and behold, a flame of fire was reaching to them from underneath, and when it reached them, they cried loudly. I asked them, 'Who are these?' They said to me, 'Proceed!' And so we proceeded and came across a river." I think he said, ".... red like blood." The Prophet added, "And behold, in the river there was a man swimming, and on the bank there was a man who had collected many stones. Behold, while the other man was swimming, he went near him. The former opened his mouth and the latter (on the bank) threw a stone into his mouth whereupon he went swimming again. He returned and every time the performance was repeated. I asked my two companions, 'Who are these (two) persons?' They replied, 'Proceed! Proceed!' And we proceeded till we came to a man with a repulsive appearance, the most repulsive appearance, you ever saw a man having! Beside him there was a fire and he was kindling it and running around it. I asked my companions, 'Who is this (man)?' They said to me, 'Proceed! Proceed!' So we proceeded till we reached a garden of deep green dense vegetation, having all sorts of spring colors. In the midst of the garden there was a very tall man and I could hardly see his head because of his great height, and around him there were children in such a large number as I have never seen. I said to my companions, 'Who is this?' They replied, 'Proceed! Proceed!' So we proceeded till we came to a majestic huge garden, greater and better than I have ever seen! My two companions said to me, 'Go up' and I went up. The Prophet added, "So we ascended till we reached a city built of gold and silver bricks and we went to its gate and asked (the gatekeeper) to open the gate, and it was opened and we entered the city and found in it, men with one side of their bodies as handsome as the handsomest person you have ever seen, and the other side as ugly as the ugliest person you have ever seen. My two companions ordered those men to throw themselves into the river. Behold, there was a river flowing across (the city), and its water was like milk in whiteness. Those men went and threw themselves in it and then returned to us after the ugliness (of their bodies) had disappeared and they became in the best shape." The Prophet further added, "My two companions (angels) said to me, 'This place is the Eden Paradise, and that is your place.' I raised up my sight, and behold, there I saw a palace like a white cloud! My two companions said to me, 'That (palace) is your place.' I said to them, 'May Allah bless you both! Let me enter it.' They replied, 'As for now, you will not enter it, but you shall enter it (one day). I said to them, 'I have seen many wonders tonight. What does all that mean which I have seen?' They replied, 'We will inform you: As for the first man you came upon whose head was being injured with the rock, he is the symbol of the one who studies the Qur'an and then neither recites it nor acts on its orders, and sleeps, neglecting the enjoined prayers. As for the man you came upon whose sides of mouth, nostrils and eyes were torn off from front to back, he is the symbol of the man who goes out of his house in the morning and tells so many lies that it spreads all over the world. And those naked men and women whom you saw in a construction resembling an oven, they are the adulterers and the adulteresses. And the man whom you saw swimming in the river and given a stone to swallow, is the eater of usury (Riba). And the bad looking man whom you saw near the fire kindling it and going round it, is Malik, the gatekeeper of Hell. And the tall man whom you saw in the garden, is Abraham and the children around him are those children who die with Al-Fitra (the Islamic Faith). The narrator added: Some Muslims asked the Prophet, "O Allah's Apostle! What about the children of pagans?" The Prophet replied, "And also the children of pagans." The Prophet added, "My two companions added, 'The men you saw half handsome and half ugly were those persons who had mixed an act that was good with another that was bad, but Allah forgave them.'"