Malik said in the case of an umm walad who injured someone, "The blood-money of that injury is the responsibility of her master from his property, unless the blood-money of the injury is greater than the value of the umm walad. Her master does not have to pay more than her value. That is because when the master of a slave or slave-girl surrenders his slave or slave-girl for an injury which one of them has done, he does not owe any more than that, even if the blood-money is greater. As the master of the umm walad cannot surrender her because of the precedent of the sunna, when he pays her price, it is as if he had surrendered her. He does not have to pay more than that. This is the best of what I have heard about the matter. The master is not obliged to assume responsibility for more than an umm walad's value because of her criminal action."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam from his father that Jundub, the mawla of Abdullah ibn Ayyash, said, "I asked Abdullah ibn Umar about prostatic fluid and he said, 'When you find it, wash your genitals and do wudu as for prayer.' "

I said to Ibn `Umar, "If a man accuses his wife of illegal sexual intercourse (what is the judgment)?" He said, "Allah's Prophet separated the couple of Bani 'Ajlan (when the husband accused his wife for an illegal sexual intercourse). The Prophet said, 'Allah knows that one of you two IS a liar; so will one of you repent?' But they refused. He then again said, 'Allah knows that one of you two is a liar; so will one of you repent?' But they refused, whereupon he separated them by divorce." Aiyub (a subnarrator) said: `Amr bin Dinar said to me, "In the narration there is something which I do not see you mentioning, i.e. the husband said, "What about my money (Mahr)?' The Prophet said, "You are not entitled to take back money, for if you told the truth you have already entered upon her (and consummated your marriage with her) and if you are a liar then you are less entitled to take it back.

Asma' bint al-Hakam said: I heard Ali say: I was a man; when I heard a tradition from the Messenger of Allah (saws), Allah benefited me with it as much as He willed. But when some one of his companions narrated a tradition to me I adjured him. When he took an oath, I testified him.

AbuBakr narrated to me a tradition, and AbuBakr narrated truthfully. He said: I heard the apostle of Allah (saws) saying: When a servant (of Allah) commits a sin, and he performs ablution well, and then stands and prays two rak'ahs, and asks pardon of Allah, Allah pardons him. He then recited this verse: "And those who, when they commit indecency or wrong their souls, remember Allah" (Al-Qur'an 3:135).

It was narrated that Masarrah bin Ma`bad said: Yazeed bin Abi Kabshah led us in praying `Asr, then he turned to us after the prayer and said: I prayed with Marwan bin al-Hakam and he did two prostrations like these, then he turned to us and told us that he prayed with ‘Uthman (رضي الله عنه), who narrated from the Prophet (ﷺ) ... and he mentioned a similar report.

It was mentioned in the presence of `Aisha that the Prophet had appointed `Ali as successor by will. Thereupon she said, "Who said so? I saw the Prophet, while I was supporting him against my chest. He asked for a tray, and then fell on one side and expired, and I did not feel it. So how (do the people say) he appointed `Ali as his successor?"

Ikrimah reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas, saying: I think the Messenger of Allah (saws) said: When one of you prays without a sutrah, a dog, an ass, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and a woman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone's throw.

Abu Dawud said: There is something about this tradition in my heart. I used to discuss it with Ibrahim and others. I did not find anyone who narrated it from Hisham and knew it. I did not know anyone who reported it from Hisham and knew it. I did not know anyone who related it from Hisham. I think the confusion is on the part of Ibn Abi Saminah that is, Muhammad b. Isma'il al-Basri, the freed slave of Banu Hisham. In this tradition the mention of words "a Magian" is rejected; the mention of the words "at a stone's throw" and "a pig" is rejected.

Abu Dawud said: I did not hear this tradition except from Muhammad b. Isma'il b. Samurrah and I think he was mistaken because he used to narrate to us from his memory.

Malik related to me from Abdullah ibn Dinar that Abdullah ibn Umar wrote to Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, making an oath of allegiance. He wrote, "In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. To the slave of Allah, Abd al-Malik, the amir al-muminin, Peace be upon you. I praise Allah to you. There is no god but Him. I acknowledge your right to my hearing and my obedience according to the sunna of Allah and the sunna of His Prophet, in what I am able."

The Prophet (saws) said: When a man goes out of his house and says: "In the name of Allah, I trust in Allah; there is no might and no power but in Allah," the following will be said to him at that time: "You are guided, defended and protected." The devils will go far from him and another devil will say: How can you deal with a man who has been guided, defended and protected?

The Messenger of Allah (saws) sent an expedition to Khath'am. Some people sought protection by having recourse to prostration, and were hastily killed. When the Prophet (saws) heard that, he ordered half the blood-wit to be paid for them, saying: I am not responsible for any Muslim who stays among polytheists. They asked: Why, Messenger of Allah? He said: Their fires should not be visible to one another.

Abu Dawud said: Hushaim, Ma'mar, Khalid b. al-Wasiti and a group of narrators have also narrated it, but did not mention Jarir.

'Abdullah b. 'Atiq narrated from the Apostle (may peace be upon him) on the authority of 'A'isha, but he made no mention of the account of Qasim.

Adi b. 'Amira al-Kindi heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying (as) was narrated in the (above-mentioned) hadith.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar urinated in the market place and then did wudu, washing his face and hands and wiping his head. Then as soon as he had come into the mosque, he was called to pray over a dead person, so he wiped over his leather socks and prayed.

Yahya related to me that Abd ar-Rahman ibn Harmala al-Aslami said, "I saw Said ibn al-Musayyab with his nose bleeding and blood poured out of it so that his fingers were all red from the blood coming out of his nose, and he prayed without doing wudu."

Nafi' reported that Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with them) did not enter Mecca without spending the night at Dhi Tawu until it was dawn, when he took a bath, and then entered Mecca in the morning, and made a mention that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) did that.

The Prophet said, "He who lets the people hear of his good deeds intentionally, to win their praise, Allah will let the people know his real intention (on the Day of Resurrection), and he who does good things in public to show off and win the praise of the people, Allah will disclose his real intention (and humiliate him).

An army unit was being recruited from the people of Medina and my name was written among them. Then I met `Ikrima, and when I informed him about it, he discouraged me very strongly and said, "Ibn `Abbas told me that there were some Muslims who were with the pagans to increase their number against Allah's Apostle (and the Muslim army) so arrows (from the Muslim army) would hit one of them and kill him or a Muslim would strike him (with his sword) and kill him. So Allah revealed:-- 'Verily! As for those whom the angels take (in death) while they are wronging themselves (by staying among the disbelievers).' (4.97)

I intended to ask `Umar about those two ladies who back each other against 'Allah's Apostle . For one year I was seeking the opportunity to ask this question, but in vain, until once when I accompanied him for Hajj. While we were in Zahran, `Umar went to answer the call of nature and told me to follow him with some water for ablution. So I followed him with a container of water and started pouring water for him. I found it a good opportunity to ask him, so I said, "O chief of the Believers! Who were those two ladies who had backed each other (against the Prophet)?" Before I could complete my question, he replied, "They were `Aisha and Hafsa."

Malik said that Ibn Shihab said, "The precedent of the sunna in the intentional murder is that when the relatives of the murdered person relinquish retaliation, the blood-money is owed by the murderer from his own property unless the tribe helps him with it willingly."

Malik said, "What is done in our community is that the blood- money is not obliged against the tribe until it has reached a third of the full amount and upwards. Whatever reaches a third is against the tribe, and whatever is below a third, is against the property of the one who did the injury."

Malik said, "The way of doing things about which there is no dispute among us, in the case of someone who has the blood-money accepted from him in intentional murder or in any injury in which there is retaliation, is that that blood-money is not due from the tribe unless they wish it. The blood-money for that is from the property of the murderer or the injurer if he has property. If he does not have any property, it is a debt against him, and none of it is owed by the tribe unless they wish."

Malik said, "The tribe does not pay blood-money to anyone who injures himself, intentionally or accidentally. This is the opinion of the people of fiqh in our community. I have not heard that anyone has made the tribe liable for any blood-money incurred by intentional acts. Part of what is well-known of that is that Allah, the Blessed, and the Exalted, said in His Book, 'Whoever has something pardoned him by his brother, should follow it with what is accepted and pay it with good will' (Sura 2 ayat 178) The commentary on that - in our view - and Allah knows best, is that whoever gives his brother something of the blood- money, should follow it with what is accepted and pay him with good will."

Malik spoke about a child who had no property and a woman who had no property. He said, "When one of them causes an injury below a third of the blood-money, it is taken on behalf of the child and woman from their personal property, if they have property from which it may be taken. If not, the injury which each of them has caused is a debt against them. The tribe does not have to pay any of it and the father of a child is not liable for the blood-money of an injury caused by the child and he is not responsible for it."

Malik said, "The way of doing things in our community about which there is no dispute, is that when a slave is killed, the value for him is that of the day on which he was killed. The tribe of the murderer is not liable for any of the value of the slave, great or small. That is the responsibility of the one who struck him from his own personal property as far as it covers. If the value of the slave is the blood- money or more, that is against him in his property. That is because the slave is a certain type of goods."

`Umar said, "I agreed with Allah in three things," or said, "My Lord agreed with me in three things. I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Would that you took the station of Abraham as a place of prayer.' I also said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Good and bad persons visit you! Would that you ordered the Mothers of the believers to cover themselves with veils.' So the Divine Verses of Al-Hijab (i.e. veiling of the women) were revealed. I came to know that the Prophet had blamed some of his wives so I entered upon them and said, 'You should either stop (troubling the Prophet ) or else Allah will give His Apostle better wives than you.' When I came to one of his wives, she said to me, 'O `Umar! Does Allah's Apostle haven't what he could advise his wives with, that you try to advise them?' " Thereupon Allah revealed:-- "It may be, if he divorced you (all) his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you Muslims (who submit to Allah).." (66.5)

Khalid ibn Dihqan said: When we were engaged in the battle of Constantinople at Dhuluqiyyah, a man of the people of Palestine, who was one of their nobility and elite and whose rank was known to them, came forward. He was called Hani ibn Kulthum ibn Sharik al-Kinani. He greeted Abdullah ibn Zakariyya who knew his rank.

Khalid said to us: Abdullah ibn AbuZakariyya told us: I heard Umm ad-Darda' say: I heard AbudDarda' say: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saws) say: It is hoped that Allah may forgive every sin, except in the case of one who dies a polytheist, or one who purposely kills a believer.

Hani ibn Kulthum ar-Rabi' then said: I heard Mahmud ibn ar-Rabi' transmitting a tradition from Ubadah ibn as-Samit who transmitted from the Messenger of Allah (saws) who said: If a man kills a believer unjustly, Allah will not accept any action or duty of his, obligatory or supererogatory.

Khalid then said to us: Ibn AbuZakariyya transmitted a tradition to us from Umm ad-Darda' on the authority of AbudDarda' from the Messenger of Allah (saws) who said: A believer will continue to go on quickly and well so long as he does not shed unlawful blood; when he sheds unlawful blood, he becomes slow and heavy-footed.

A similar tradition has been transmitted by Hani ibn Kulthum from Mahmud ibn ar-Rabi' on the authority of Ubadah ibn as-Samit from the Messenger of Allah (saws).

The Prophet (saws) said: He who does not accept an invitation which he receives has disobeyed Allah and His Apostle, and he who enters without invitation enters as a thief and goes out as a raider.

Abu Dawud said: Aban bin Tariq is unknown.

The Prophet (saws) said: It is not allowable for a believer to keep from a believer for more than three days. If three days pass, he should meet him and give him a salutation, and if he replies to it they will both have shared in the reward; but if he does not reply he will bear his sin (according to Ahmad's version) and the one who gives the salutation will have come forth from the sin of keeping apart.

Abu Dawud said: This is transmitted by Hammad b. Zaid from Ayyub. This version does not mention the words "their urine." This is not correct. The words "their urine" occur only in the version reported by Anas and transmitted only by the people of Basrah.

Umm 'Atiyya reported that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) took pledge from us (including this promise) that we would not lament. Only five amongst us fulfilled the promise, and one of them (who fulfilled the promise) was Umm Sulaim.

The Prophet, said, "There is none having a greater sense of Ghira than Allah. And for that He has forbidden the doing of evil actions (illegal sexual intercourse etc.) There is none who likes to be praised more than Allah does."

Allah's Apostle said, "Allah does not listen to a prophet as He listens to a prophet who recites the Qur'an in a pleasant tone." The companion of the sub-narrator (Abu Salama) said, "It means, reciting it aloud."

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."