When Uthman ibn Maz'un died, he was brought out on his bier and buried. The Prophet (saws) ordered a man to bring him a stone, but he was unable to carry it. The Messenger of Allah (saws) got up and going over to it rolled up his sleeves.

The narrator Kathir told that al-Muttalib remarked: The one who told me about the Messenger of Allah (saws) said: I still seem to see the whiteness of the forearms of the Messenger of Allah (saws) when he rolled up his sleeves. He then carried it and placed it at his head saying: I am marking my brother's grave with it, and I shall bury beside him those of my family who die.

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

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said from Said ibn al-Musayyab that Abu Musa al-Ashari came to A'isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said to her, "The disagreement of the companions in a matter which I hate to bring before you has distressed me." She said, "What is that? You did not ask your mother about it, so ask me." He said, "A man penetrates his wife, but becomes listless and does not ejaculate. "She said, "When the circumcised part passes the circumcised part ghusl is obligatory." Abu Musa added, "I shall never ask anyone about this after you."

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

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

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

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

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

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."

Abu dawud said: Ibn Wahb transmitted this tradition from Yunus on the authority of al-Zuhri, and in this version he said al-Laith has said: A woman committed theft during the lifetime of the Prophet (saws) on the occasion of the Conquest (of Mecca). It has been transmitted by al-Laith from Yunus on the authority of Ibn Shihab through his chain of narrators. He said in this version: A woman borrowed goods. Mas'ud bin al-Aswad also transmitted a similar tradition from the Prophet (saws) and said: A velvet was stolen from the house of the Messenger of Allah (saws).

Abu Dawud said: Abu al-Zubair reported on the authority of Jabir: A woman committed theft and took refuge with Zainab daughter of Prophet (saws).

Ibn Mansur said: "I said to Ahmad: 'The Prophet (saws) gave the Nafl when he divided the fourth, after the Khumus, and when he was returning (he gave) the third from the Khumus.' So he said: 'The Khumus is taken, and then the Nafl is given from what remains, nothing beyond this.''"

[Abu 'Eisa said:] This Hadith is (understood) as Ibn Musayyab said: "The Nafl is from te Khumus." Ishaq said as he said.

Abu Dawud said: Besides Ibn Nafi' this is transmitted by al-Laith from 'Umairah b. Abi Najiyyah from Bakr b. Sawadah on the authority of 'Ata b. Yasar from the Prophet (saws).

Abu Dawud said: The mention of (the name of the Companion) Abu Sa'id in this tradition is not guarded. This is a mural tradition (i.e. the Successor 'Ata b. Yasar directly narrates it from the Prophet, leaving the name of the Companion in the chain.)

Al-Abbas asked the Prophet (saws) about paying the sadaqah (his zakat) in advance before it became due, and he gave permission to do that.

Abu Dawud said: This tradition has also been transmitted by Hushaim through a different chain of narrators. The version of Hushaim is more sound.

The Prophet (saws) said: It is enough falsehood for a man to relate everything he hears.

Abu Dawud said: Hafs did not mention Abu Hurairah (in his version).

Abu Dawud said: No other transmitter except this old man, that is, 'Ali b. Hafs al-Mada'ini related the perfect chain of this tradition.

Another chain reports a similar hadith.

The Prophet (sal Allaahu alayhi wa sallam) as saying : When a dog licks a (thing contained in a) utensil you must wash it seven times, using earth (sand) for the seventh time.

Abu Dawud said : This tradition has been transmitted by another chain of narrators in which there is no mention of earth.

Abu Dawud said: Sufyan heard eighteen traditions from 'Amr b. Murrah.

This hadith has been narrated by Amr al-Naqid, Yazid b. Harun, 'Abd b. Humaid, Abd al-Razzaq, Thauri, Ayyub b. Musa, with the same chain of transmitters. In hadith narrated by Abd al-Razzaq there is a mention of the menstruation and of the sexual intercourse. The rest of the hadith has been transmitted like that of Ibn 'Uyaina.

Abu Dawud said ‘Abd Al Razzaq narrated this tradition from Ma’mar attributing it to the Prophet(saws).

The Prophet (saws) said: If anyone omits the Friday prayer without excuse, he must give a dinar in alms, or if he does not have as much, then half a dinar.

Abu Dawud said: Khalid b. Qais reported this tradition in this manner, but he disagreed in respect of chain (of transmitters) and agreed in respect of the text.

That the Messenger of Allah (saws) said: "Whoever spends a sum in the cause of Allah, it is recorded for him seven-hundred fold."

[Abu 'Eisa said:] There are something on this topic from Abu Hurairah.

This Hadith is Hasan, we only know of it from the narration of Ar-Rukain bin Ar-Rabi' (a narrator in the chain of this Hadith)

This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Hisham with the same chain of transmitters and he made this addition of Jarir that (Hisham b. Hakim) went to Umair b. Sa'd who was then ruler in Palestine and he narrated to him this hadith and he (submitting before the words of the Prophet) commanded that they should be let off and so they were let off.

Abu Dawud said: Similarly, it has been transmitted by Safwan b. ‘Isa, from Ibn ‘Affan, as Sufyan said.

Abu Dawud said; this tradition has been reported with another chain of narrators. This version does not mention the word “testicles”.

Abu Dawud said: This tradition has been narrated though a different chain of transmitters by 'Umar. And this is more correct.

Abu Dawud said: The word "and that" (wa an) remained hidden to me.

The Messenger of Allah (saws) had himself cupped when he was fasting.

Abu Dawud said: Wuhaib b. Khalid narrated a similar tradition from Ayyub through a different chain of narrators. Ja'far b. Rabi'ah and Hisham, that is, Ibn Hassan, narrated a similar tradition from 'Ikrimah on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas.

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."

Some people said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" He said, "Do you crowd and squeeze each other on looking at the sun when it is not hidden by clouds?" They replied, "No, Allah's Apostle." He said, "Do you crowd and squeeze each other on looking at the moon when it is full and not hidden by clouds?" They replied, No, O Allah's Apostle!" He said, "So you will see Him (your Lord) on the Day of Resurrection similarly Allah will gather all the people and say, 'Whoever used to worship anything should follow that thing. 'So, he who used to worship the sun, will follow it, and he who used to worship the moon will follow it, and he who used to worship false deities will follow them; and then only this nation (i.e., Muslims) will remain, including their hypocrites. Allah will come to them in a shape other than they know and will say, 'I am your Lord.' They will say, 'We seek refuge with Allah from you. This is our place; (we will not follow you) till our Lord comes to us, and when our Lord comes to us, we will recognize Him. Then Allah will come to then in a shape they know and will say, "I am your Lord.' They will say, '(No doubt) You are our Lord,' and they will follow Him. Then a bridge will be laid over the (Hell) Fire." Allah's Apostle added, "I will be the first to cross it. And the invocation of the Apostles on that Day, will be 'Allahumma Sallim, Sallim (O Allah, save us, save us!),' and over that bridge there will be hooks Similar to the thorns of As Sa'dan (a thorny tree). Didn't you see the thorns of As-Sa'dan?" The companions said, "Yes, O Allah's Apostle." He added, "So the hooks over that bridge will be like the thorns of As-Sa-dan except that their greatness in size is only known to Allah. These hooks will snatch the people according to their deeds. Some people will be ruined because of their evil deeds, and some will be cut into pieces and fall down in Hell, but will be saved afterwards, when Allah has finished the judgments among His slaves, and intends to take out of the Fire whoever He wishes to take out from among those who used to testify that none had the right to be worshipped but Allah. We will order the angels to take them out and the angels will know them by the mark of the traces of prostration (on their foreheads) for Allah banned the f ire to consume the traces of prostration on the body of Adam's son. So they will take them out, and by then they would have burnt (as coal), and then water, called Ma'ul Hayat (water of life) will be poured on them, and they will spring out like a seed springs out on the bank of a rainwater stream, and there will remain one man who will be facing the (Hell) Fire and will say, 'O Lord! It's (Hell's) vapor has Poisoned and smoked me and its flame has burnt me; please turn my face away from the Fire.' He will keep on invoking Allah till Allah says, 'Perhaps, if I give you what you want), you will ask for another thing?' The man will say, 'No, by Your Power, I will not ask You for anything else.' Then Allah will turn his face away from the Fire. The man will say after that, 'O Lord, bring me near the gate of Paradise.' Allah will say (to him), 'Didn't you promise not to ask for anything else? Woe to you, O son of Adam ! How treacherous you are!' The man will keep on invoking Allah till Allah will say, 'But if I give you that, you may ask me for something else.' The man will say, 'No, by Your Power. I will not ask for anything else.' He will give Allah his covenant and promise not to ask for anything else after that. So Allah will bring him near to the gate of Paradise, and when he sees what is in it, he will remain silent as long as Allah will, and then he will say, 'O Lord! Let me enter Paradise.' Allah will say, 'Didn't you promise that you would not ask Me for anything other than that? Woe to you, O son of Adam ! How treacherous you are!' On that, the man will say, 'O Lord! Do not make me the most wretched of Your creation,' and will keep on invoking Allah till Allah will smile and when Allah will smile because of him, then He will allow him to enter Paradise, and when he will enter Paradise, he will be addressed, 'Wish from so-and-so.' He will wish till all his wishes will be fulfilled, then Allah will say, All this (i.e. what you have wished for) and as much again therewith are for you.' " Abu Huraira added: That man will be the last of the people of Paradise to enter (Paradise).