| مُتَّفق عَلَيْهِ (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 1017 |
| In-book reference | : Book 4, Hadith 436 |
Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "Someone who eats or drinks out of neglect or forgetfulness during a voluntary fast does not have to repeat his fast, but he should continue fasting for the rest of the day in which he eats or drinks while voluntarily fasting, and not stop fasting. Someone to whom something unexpected happens which causes him to break his fast while he is fasting voluntarily does not have to repeat his fast if he has broken it for a reason, and not simply because he decided to break his fast. Just as I do not think that someone has to repeat a voluntary prayer if he has had to stop it because of some discharge which he could prevent and which meant that he had to repeat his wudu."
Malik said, "Once a man has begun doing any of the right actions (al-amal as-saliha) such as the prayer, the fast and the hajj, or similar right actions of a voluntary nature, he should not stop until he has completed it according to what the sunna for that action is. If he says the takbir he should not stop until he has prayed two rakas. If he is fasting he should not break his fast until he has completed that day's fast. If he goes into ihram he should not return until he has completed his hajj, and if he begins doing tawaf he should not stop doing so until he has gone around the Kaba seven times. He should not stop doing any of these actions once he has started them until he has completed them, except if something happens such as illness or some other matter by which a man is excused. This is because Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, says in His Book, 'And eat and drink until the white thread becomes clear to you from the black thread of dawn, (and) then complete the fast until night-time,' (Sura 2 ayat 187), and so he must complete his fast as Allah has said. Allah, the Exalted, (also) says, 'And complete the hajj and the umra for Allah,' and so if a man were to go into ihram for a voluntary hajj having done his one obligatory hajj (on a previous occasion), he could not then stop doing his hajj having once begun it and leave ihram while in the middle of his hajj. Anyone that begins a voluntary act must complete it once he has begun doing it, just as an obligatory act must be completed . This is the best of what I have heard."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 18, Hadith 50 |
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."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 43, Hadith 8 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 43, Hadith 1587 |
| مُتَّفَقٌ عَلَيْهِ (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 5704 |
| In-book reference | : Book 28, Hadith 175 |
| Reference | : Hisn al-Muslim 93 |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 5475 |
| In-book reference | : Book 27, Hadith 96 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 2, Hadith 181 |
| English translation | : Book 2, Hadith 293 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 2, Hadith 295 |
Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Marwan ibn al-Hakam wrote to Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan to mention to him that a drunkard was brought to him who had killed a man. Muawiya wrote to him to kill him in retaliation for the dead man.
Yahya said that Malik said, "The best of what I have heard on the interpretation of this ayat, the word of Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, 'The free man for the free man and the slave for the slave - these are men and the woman for the woman,' (Sura 2 ayat 178) is that retaliation is between women as it is between men. The free woman is killed for the free woman as the free man is killed for the free man. The slave-girl is slain for the slave-girl as the slave is slain for the slave. Retaliation is between women as it is between men. That is because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'We have written for them in it that it is a life for a life and an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds there is retaliation.' (Sura 5 ayat 48) Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, mentioned that it is a life for a life. It is the life of a free woman for the life of a free man, and her injury for his injury."
Malik said about a man who held a man fast for another man to hit, and he died on the spot, "If he held him and he thought that he meant to kill him, the two of them are both killed for him. If he held him and he thought that he meant to beat him as people sometimes do, and he did not think that he meant to kill him, the murderer is slain and the one who held him is punished with a very severe punishment and jailed for a year. There is no killing against him."
Malik said about a man who murdered a man intentionally or gouged out his eye intentionally, and then was slain or had his eye gouged out himself before retaliation was inflicted on him, "There is no blood-money nor retaliation against him. The right of the one who was killed or had his eye gouged out goes when the thing which he is claiming as retaliation goes. It is the same with a man who murders another man intentionally and then the murderer dies. When the murderer dies, the one seeking blood-revenge has nothing of blood- money or anything else. That is by the word of Allah, the Blessed the Exalted, 'Retaliation is written for you in killing. The free man for the free man and the slave for the slave.' "
Malik said, "He only has retaliation against the one who killed him. If the man who murdered him dies, he has no retaliation or blood-money."
Malik said, "There is no retaliation held against a free man by a slave for any injury. The slave is killed for the free man when he intentionally murders him. The free man is not slain for the slave, even if he murders him intentionally. It is the best of what I have heard."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 43, Hadith 15 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 43, Hadith 1596 |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 5735 |
| In-book reference | : Book 28, Hadith 204 |
| صَحِيحٌ (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 2123 |
| In-book reference | : Book 8, Hadith 15 |
| Grade: | Sahih (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Sunan Ibn Majah 3784 |
| In-book reference | : Book 33, Hadith 128 |
| English translation | : Vol. 5, Book 33, Hadith 3784 |
| Grade: | Sahih Isnād (Zubair `Aliza'i) |
| Reference | : Ash-Shama'il Al-Muhammadiyah 23 |
| In-book reference | : Book 2, Hadith 8 |
| Grade: | Da'if (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2369 |
| In-book reference | : Book 36, Hadith 66 |
| English translation | : Vol. 4, Book 10, Hadith 2369 |
| Grade: | Da'if (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Sunan Ibn Majah 3861 |
| In-book reference | : Book 34, Hadith 35 |
| English translation | : Vol. 5, Book 34, Hadith 3861 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 397 |
| In-book reference | : Book 22, Hadith 1 |
| English translation | : Book 22, Hadith 397 |
| متفّق عَلَيْهِ (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 5581 |
| In-book reference | : Book 28, Hadith 56 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 489 |
| In-book reference | : Book 28, Hadith 7 |
| English translation | : Book 28, Hadith 489 |
Reported by Al-Khamsah: Authentic. Narrated by Abu Dawood (1425), an-Nasa'i (3/248), at-Tirmidhi (464), Ibn Majah (1178), and Ahmad (1/199-200).
at-Tabarani and al-Baihaqi added: "He whom You hold as enemy is not honoured." It is an authentic addition. Narrated by at-Tabarani in "Al-Kabeer" (3/73/2701) and al-Baihaqi in "Al-Kubra" (2/209).
an-Nasa'i reported through another chain of narrators, adding at its end: "May Allah the Most High send His Salat on the Prophet (praising him in the highest assemblies of the angels)." It is Weak. Narrated by an-Nasa'i (3/248), with the addition of "Muhammad" and its chain is disconnected, as stated by Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in "At-Talkhees".
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 2, Hadith 194 |
| English translation | : Book 2, Hadith 306 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 2, Hadith 308 |
| مُتَّفَقٌ عَلَيْهِ (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 5572 |
| In-book reference | : Book 28, Hadith 48 |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 5862 |
| In-book reference | : Book 29, Hadith 120 |
وَفِي رِوَايَةِ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ " فَيَقُولُونَ: هَذَا مَكَانُنَا حَتَّى يَأْتِيَنَا رَبُّنَا فَإِذَا جَاءَ رَبُّنَا عَرَفْنَاهُ " وَفِي رِوَايَةِ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ: " فَيَقُولُ هَلْ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُ آيَةٌ تَعْرِفُونَهُ؟ فَيَقُولُونَ: نَعَمْ فَيُكْشَفُ عَنْ سَاقٍ فَلَا يَبْقَى مَنْ كَانَ يَسْجُدُ لِلَّهِ مِنْ تِلْقَاءِ نَفْسِهِ إِلَّا أَذِنَ اللَّهُ لَهُ بِالسُّجُودِ وَلَا يَبْقَى مَنْ كَانَ يَسْجُدُ اتِّقَاءً وَرِيَاءً إِلَّا جَعَلَ ...
| مُتَّفَقٌ عَلَيْهِ, مُتَّفَقٌ عَلَيْهِ (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 5578, 5579 |
| In-book reference | : Book 28, Hadith 54 |
| صَحِيح (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 2555 |
| In-book reference | : Book 10, Hadith 49 |
| Reference | : Hisn al-Muslim 262 |
| صَحِيح (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 4042 |
| In-book reference | : Book 19, Hadith 252 |
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."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 36, Hadith 7 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 36, Hadith 1411 |
In tu-adh-dhib-hum fa-innahum 'ibaaduk. Wa in tagh-fir lahum fa-innaka antal azizul hakim.
Translation: "If Thou punish them, lo! they are Thy slaves, and if Thou forgive them, (lo! the are Thy slaves).Lo! Thou, only Thou, art Mighty, the wise".Surah Maa-idah, 118.
The Being that possesses great power, if He wills, He may forgive the criminal. The One that is all Wise, there is Wisdom and benefit in every act of His. The reason for Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam reciting this aayah while standing and also in the ruku and sajdah, and repeating it many times, is to bring to mind the two attributes of Allah, namely the attributes of justice and forgiveness. The whole scene on the day of qiyaamah will be of these two things. It is stated that Imaam Aa'zam Abu Hanifah RA. also recited the following aayah the whole night:
Wamtaazul yauma ayyuhal mujrimun.
Translation: "But avaunt ye, O ye guilty, this day!" Surah Yaseen, 58.
In this aayah too the scene of qiyaamah is portrayed. That today the sinners should separate and distinguish themselves. What a severe and nerve-chilling command this is. Today they are together with the pious and holy people and benefiting from the barakaat (blessings) they receive, but at this moment the sinners will be separated from them. May the Most Merciful Allah with His Grace keep those pious souls under His shadow, otherwise it is really a time for great trials.
| Grade: | Sahih Isnād (Zubair `Aliza'i) |
| Reference | : Ash-Shama'il Al-Muhammadiyah 275 |
| In-book reference | : Book 40, Hadith 15 |
| Grade: | Sahih (Darussalam) [ al-Bukhari (2462) and Muslim (1691). (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Musnad Ahmad 391 |
| In-book reference | : Book 3, Hadith 1 |
| Grade: | Sahih Isnād (Zubair `Aliza'i) |
| Reference | : Ash-Shama'il Al-Muhammadiyah 397 |
| In-book reference | : Book 54, Hadith 12 |