Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us, in which there is no dispute, and which I saw the people of knowledge in our city doing, about paternal relations is that full brothers are more entitled to inherit than half-brothers by the father and half-brothers by the father are more entitled to inherit than the children of the full brothers. The sons of the full brothers are more entitled to inherit than the sons of the half-brothers by the father. The sons of the half-brothers by the father are more entitled to inherit than the sons of the sons of the full brothers. The sons of the sons of the half-brothers by the father's side are more entitled to inherit than the paternal uncle, the full brother of the father. The paternal uncle, the full brother of the father, is more entitled to inherit than the paternal uncle, the half-brotherof the father on the father's side. The paternal uncle, the half-brother of the father on the father's side is more entitled to inherit than the sons of the paternal uncle, the full brother of the father. The son of the paternal uncle on the father's side is more entitled to inherit than the paternal great uncle, the full brother of the paternal grandfather."

Malik said, "Everything about which you are questioned concerning the inheritance of the paternal relations is like this. Trace the genealogy of the deceased and whoever among the paternal relations contends for inheritance. If you find that one of them reaches the deceased by a father and none of them except him reaches him by a father, then make his inheritance to the one who reaches him by the nearest father, rather than the one who reaches him by what is above that. If you find that they all reach him by the same father who joins them, then see who is the nearest of kin. If there is only one half-brother by the father, give him the inheritance rather than more distant paternal relations. If there is a full brother and you find them equally related from a number of fathers or to one particular father so that they all reach the genealogy of the deceased and they are all half-brothers by the father or full brothers, then divide the inheritance equally among them. If the parent of one of them is an uncle (the full-brother of the father of the deceased) and whoever is with him is an uncle (the paternal half brother of the father of the deceased), the inheritance goes to the sons of the full brother of the father rather than the sons of the paternal half- brother of the father. That is because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said, 'Those related by blood are nearer to one another in the Book of Allah, surely Allah has knowledge of everything.' "

Malik said, "The paternal grandfather, is more entitled to inherit than sons of the full-brother, and more entitled than the uncle, the full brother of the father. The son of the father's brother is more entitled to inherit from mawali retainers (freed slaves) than the grandfathers."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "This ayat is abrogated. It is the word of Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, 'If he leaves goods, the testament is for parents and kinsmen.' What came down about the division of the fixed shares of inheritance in the Book of Allah, the Mighty, the Exalted, abrogated it."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "The established sunna with us, in which there is no dispute, is that it is not permitted for a testator to make a bequest (in addition to the fixed share) in favour of an heir, unless the other heirs permit him. If some of them permit him and others refuse, he is allowed to diminish the share of those who have given their permission. Those who refuse take their full share from the inheritance.

Yahya said that he heard Malik speak about an invalid who made a bequest and asked his heirs to give him permission to make a bequest when he was so ill that he only had command of a third of his property, and they gave him permission to leave some of his heirs more than his third. Malik said, "They cannot revoke that. Had they been permitted to do so, every heir would have done that, and then, when the testator died, they would take that for themselves and prevent him from bequeathing his third and what was permitted to him with respect to his property."

Malik said, "If he asks permission of his heirs to grant a bequest to an heir while he is well and they give him permission, that is not binding on them. The heirs can rescind that if they wish. That is because when a man is well, he is entitled to all his property and can do what he wishes with it. If he wishes, he can spend all of it. He can spend it and give sadaqa with it or give it to whomever he likes. His asking permission of his heirs is permitted for the heirs, when they give him permission when authority over all his property is closed off from him and nothing outside of the third is permitted to him, and when they are more entitled to the two-thirds of his property than he is himself. That is when their permission becomes relevant. If he asks one of the heirs to give his inheritance to him when he is dying, and the heir agrees and then the dying man does not dispose of it at all, it is returned to the one who gave it unless the deceased said to him, 'So-and-so - (one of his heirs) - is weak, and I would like you to give him your inheritance.' So he gives it to him. That is permitted when the deceased specified it for him."

Malik said, "When a man gives the dying man free use of his share of the inheritance, and the dying man distributes some of it and some remains, it is returned to the giver, after the man has died."

Yahya said that he heard Malik speak about someone who made a bequest and mentioned that he had given one of his heirs something which he had not taken possession of, so the heirs refused to permit that. Malik said, "That gift returns to the heirs as inheritance according to the Book of Allah because the deceased did not mean that to be taken out of the third and the heirs do not have a portion in the third (which the dying man is allowed to bequeath)."

Who, from among Ka`b's sons, was the guide of Ka`b when he became blind: I heard Ka`b bin Malik narrating the story of (the Ghazwa of) Tabuk in which he failed to take part. Ka`b said, "I did not remain behind Allah's Apostle in any Ghazwa that he fought except the Ghazwa of Tabuk, and I failed to take part in the Ghazwa of Badr, but Allah did not admonish anyone who had not participated in it, for in fact, Allah's Apostle had gone out in search of the caravan of Quraish till Allah made them (i.e. the Muslims) and their enemy meet without any appointment. I witnessed the night of Al-`Aqaba (pledge) with Allah's Apostle when we pledged for Islam, and I would not exchange it for the Badr battle although the Badr battle is more popular amongst the people than it (i.e. Al-`Aqaba pledge). As for my news (in this battle of Tabuk), I had never been stronger or wealthier than I was when I remained behind the Prophet in that Ghazwa. By Allah, never had I two she-camels before, but I had then at the time of this Ghazwa. Whenever Allah's Apostle wanted to make a Ghazwa, he used to hide his intention by apparently referring to different Ghazwa till it was the time of that Ghazwa (of Tabuk) which Allah's Apostle fought in severe heat, facing, a long journey, desert, and the great number of enemy. So the Prophet announced to the Muslims clearly (their destination) so that they might get prepared for their Ghazwa. So he informed them clearly of the destination he was going to. Allah's Apostle was accompanied by a large number of Muslims who could not be listed in a book namely, a register." Ka`b added, "Any man who intended to be absent would think that the matter would remain hidden unless Allah revealed it through Divine Revelation. So Allah's Apostle fought that Ghazwa at the time when the fruits had ripened and the shade looked pleasant. Allah's Apostle and his companions prepared for the battle and I started to go out in order to get myself ready along with them, but I returned without doing anything. I would say to myself, 'I can do that.' So I kept on delaying it every now and then till the people got ready and Allah's Apostle and the Muslims along with him departed, and I had not prepared anything for my departure, and I said, I will prepare myself (for departure) one or two days after him, and then join them.' In the morning following their departure, I went out to get myself ready but returned having done nothing. Then again in the next morning, I went out to get ready but returned without doing anything. Such was the case with me till they hurried away and the battle was missed (by me). Even then I intended to depart to take them over. I wish I had done so! But it was not in my luck. So, after the departure of Allah's Apostle, whenever I went out and walked amongst the people (i.e, the remaining persons), it grieved me that I could see none around me, but one accused of hypocrisy or one of those weak men whom Allah had excused. Allah's Apostle did not remember me till he reached Tabuk. So while he was sitting amongst the people in Tabuk, he said, 'What did Ka`b do?' A man from Banu Salama said, 'O Allah's Apostle! He has been stopped by his two Burdas (i.e. garments) and his looking at his own flanks with pride.' Then Mu`adh bin Jabal said, 'What a bad thing you have said! By Allah! O Allahs Apostle! We know nothing about him but good.' Allah's Apostle kept silent." Ka`b bin Malik added, "When I heard that he (i.e. the Prophet ) was on his way back to Medina. I got dipped in my concern, and began to think of false excuses, saying to myself, 'How can I avoid his anger tomorrow?' And I took the advice of wise member of my family in this matter. When it was said that Allah's Apostle, had come near all the evil false excuses abandoned from my mind and I knew well that I could never come out of this problem by forging a false statement. Then I decided firmly to speak the truth. So Allah's Apostle arrived in the morning, and whenever he returned from a journey., he used to visit the Mosque first of all and offer a two-rak`at prayer therein and then sit for the people. So when he had done all that (this time), those who had failed to join the battle (of Tabuk) came and started offering (false) excuses and taking oaths before him. They were something over eighty men; Allah's Apostle accepted the excuses they had expressed, took their pledge of allegiance asked for Allah's Forgiveness for them, and left the secrets of their hearts for Allah to judge. Then I came to him, and when I greeted him, he smiled a smile of an angry person and then said, 'Come on.' So I came walking till I sat before him. He said to me, 'What stopped you from joining us. Had you not purchased an animal For carrying you?' I answered, "Yes, O Allah's Apostle! But by Allah, if I were sitting before any person from among the people of the world other than you, I would have avoided his anger with an excuse. By Allah, I have been bestowed with the power of speaking fluently and eloquently, but by Allah, I knew well that if today I tell you a lie to seek your favor, Allah would surely make you angry with me in the near future, but if I tell you the truth, though you will get angry because of it, I hope for Allah's Forgiveness. Really, by Allah, there was no excuse for me. By Allah, I had never been stronger or wealthier than I was when I remained behind you.' Then Allah's Apostle said, 'As regards this man, he has surely told the truth. So get up till Allah decides your case.' I got up, and many men of Banu Salama followed me and said to me. 'By Allah, we never witnessed you doing any sin before this. Surely, you failed to offer excuse to Allah's Apostle as the others who did not join him, have offered. The prayer of Allah's Apostle to Allah to forgive you would have been sufficient for you.' By Allah, they continued blaming me so much that I intended to return (to the Prophet) and accuse myself of having told a lie, but I said to them, 'Is there anybody else who has met the same fate as I have?' They replied, 'Yes, there are two men who have said the same thing as you have, and to both of them was given the same order as given to you.' I said, 'Who are they?' They replied, Murara bin Ar-Rabi Al- Amri and Hilal bin Umaiya Al-Waqifi.' By that they mentioned to me two pious men who had attended the Ghazwa (Battle) of Badr, and in whom there was an example for me. So I did not change my mind when they mentioned them to me. Allah's Apostle forbade all the Muslims to talk to us, the three aforesaid persons out of all those who had remained behind in that Ghazwa. So we kept away from the people and they changed their attitude towards us till the very land (where I lived) appeared strange to me as if I did not know it. We remained in that condition for fifty nights. As regards my two fellows, they remained in their houses and kept on weeping, but I was the youngest of them and the firmest of them, so I used to go out and witness the prayers along with the Muslims and roam about in the markets, but none would talk to me, and I would come to Allah's Apostle and greet him while he was sitting In his gathering after the prayer, and I would wonder whether the Prophet did move his lips in return to my greetings or not. Then I would offer my prayer near to him and look at him stealthily. When I was busy with my prayer, he would turn his face towards me, but when I turned my face to him, he would turn his face away from me. When this harsh attitude of the people lasted long, I walked till I scaled the wall of the garden of Abu Qatada who was my cousin and dearest person to me, and I offered my greetings to him. By Allah, he did not return my greetings. I said, 'O Abu Qatada! I beseech you by Allah! Do you know that I love Allah and His Apostle?' He kept quiet. I asked him again, beseeching him by Allah, but he remained silent. Then I asked him again in the Name of Allah. He said, "Allah and His Apostle know it better.' Thereupon my eyes flowed with tears and I returned and jumped over the wall." Ka`b added, "While I was walking in the market of Medina, suddenly I saw a Nabati (i.e. a Christian farmer) from the Nabatis of Sham who came to sell his grains in Medina, saying, 'Who will lead me to Ka`b bin Malik?' The people began to point (me) out for him till he came to me and handed me a letter from the king of Ghassan in which the following was written: "To proceed, I have been informed that your friend (i.e. the Prophet ) has treated you harshly. Anyhow, Allah does not let you live at a place where you feel inferior and your right is lost. So join us, and we will console you." When I read it, I said to myself, 'This is also a sort of a test.' Then I took the letter to the oven and made a fire therein by burning it. When forty out of the fifty nights elapsed, behold ! There came to me the messenger of Allah's Apostle and said, 'Allah's Apostle orders you to keep away from your wife,' I said, 'Should I divorce her; or else! what should I do?' He said, 'No, only keep aloof from her and do not cohabit her.' The Prophet sent the same message to my two fellows. Then I said to my wife. 'Go to your parents and remain with them till Allah gives His Verdict in this matter." Ka`b added, "The wife of Hilal bin Umaiya came to Apostle and said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Hilal bin Umaiya is a helpless old man who has no servant to attend on him. Do you dislike that I should serve him? ' He said, 'No (you can serve him) but he should not come near you.' She said, 'By Allah, he has no desire for anything. By, Allah, he has never ceased weeping till his case began till this day of his.' (continued...) (continuing... 1): -5.702:... ... On that, some of my family members said to me, 'Will you also ask Allah's Apostle to permit your wife (to serve you) as he has permitted the wife of Hilal bin Umaiya to serve him?' I said, 'By Allah, I will not ask the permission of Allah's Apostle regarding her, for I do not know What Allah's Apostle would say if I asked him to permit her (to serve me) while I am a young man.' Then I remained in that state for ten more nights after that till the period of fifty nights was completed starting from the time when Allah's Apostle prohibited the people from talking to us. When I had offered the Fajr prayer on the 50th morning on the roof of one of our houses and while I was sitting in the condition which Allah described (in the Qur'an) i.e. my very soul seemed straitened to me and even the earth seemed narrow to me for all its spaciousness, there I heard the voice of one who had ascended the mountain of Sala' calling with his loudest voice, 'O Ka`b bin Malik! Be happy (by receiving good tidings).' I fell down in prostration before Allah, realizing that relief has come. Allah's Apostle had announced the acceptance of our repentance by Allah when he had offered the Fajr prayer. The people then went out to congratulate us. Some bringers of good tidings went out to my two fellows, and a horseman came to me in haste, and a man of Banu Aslam came running and ascended the mountain and his voice was swifter than the horse. When he (i.e. the man) whose voice I had heard, came to me conveying the good tidings, I took off my garments and dressed him with them; and by Allah, I owned no other garments than them on that day. Then I borrowed two garments and wore them and went to Allah's Apostle. The people started receiving me in batches, congratulating me on Allah's Acceptance of my repentance, saying, 'We congratulate you on Allah's Acceptance of your repentance." Ka`b further said, "When I entered the Mosque. I saw Allah's Apostle sitting with the people around him. Talha bin Ubaidullah swiftly came to me, shook hands with me and congratulated me. By Allah, none of the Muhajirin (i.e. Emigrants) got up for me except him (i.e. Talha), and I will never forget this for Talha." Ka`b added, "When I greeted Allah's Apostle he, his face being bright with joy, said "Be happy with the best day that you have got ever since your mother delivered you." Ka`b added, "I said to the Prophet 'Is this forgiveness from you or from Allah?' He said, 'No, it is from Allah.' Whenever Allah's Apostle became happy, his face would shine as if it were a piece of moon, and we all knew that characteristic of him. When I sat before him, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Because of the acceptance of my repentance I will give up all my wealth as alms for the Sake of Allah and His Apostle. Allah's Apostle said, 'Keep some of your wealth, as it will be better for you.' I said, 'So I will keep my share from Khaibar with me,' and added, 'O Allah's Apostle! Allah has saved me for telling the truth; so it is a part of my repentance not to tell but the truth as long as I am alive. By Allah, I do not know anyone of the Muslims whom Allah has helped fortelling the truth more than me. Since I have mentioned that truth to Allah's Apostle till today, I have never intended to tell a lie. I hope that Allah will also save me (from telling lies) the rest of my life. So Allah revealed to His Apostle the Verse:-- "Verily, Allah has forgiven the Prophet, the Muhajirin (i.e. Emigrants (up to His Saying) And be with those who are true (in word and deed)." (9.117-119) By Allah, Allah has never bestowed upon me, apart from His guiding me to Islam, a Greater blessing than the fact that I did not tell a lie to Allah's Apostle which would have caused me to perish as those who have told a lie perished, for Allah described those who told lies with the worst description He ever attributed to anybody else. Allah said:-- "They (i.e. the hypocrites) will swear by Allah to you when you return to them (up to His Saying) Certainly Allah is not pleased with the rebellious people-- " (9.95-96) Ka`b added, "We, the three persons, differed altogether from those whose excuses Allah's Apostle accepted when they swore to him. He took their pledge of allegiance and asked Allah to forgive them, but Allah's Apostle left our case pending till Allah gave His Judgment about it. As for that Allah said):-- And to the three (He did for give also) who remained behind." (9.118) What Allah said (in this Verse) does not indicate our failure to take part in the Ghazwa, but it refers to the deferment of making a decision by the Prophet about our case in contrast to the case of those who had taken an oath before him and he excused them by accepting their excuses.

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."

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."