We said, "O Allah's Apostle! (We know) this greeting (to you) but how shall we invoke Allah for you?" He said, "Say! Allahumma salli ala Muhammadin `Abdika wa rasulika kama- sallaita 'ala all Ibrahim wa barik ala Muhammadin wa'ala all Muhammadin kama barakta 'ala all Ibrahim.' Al-Laith said: 'Ala Muhammadin wa 'ala all Muhammadin kama barakta ala all Ibrahim.

Narrated Ibn Abi Hazim and Ad-Darawardi:

Yazid said, "Kama sallaita ala Ibrahima wa barik 'ala Muhammad in wa all Muhammadin kama barakta 'ala Abrahima wa all Ibrahim."

A man asked Al-Bara', "O Abu '`Umara! Did you all flee on the day (of the battle) of Hunain?" He replied, "No, by Allah! Allah's Apostle did not flee, but his young unarmed companions passed by the archers of the tribe of Hawazin and Bani Nasr whose arrows hardly missed a target, and they threw arrows at them hardly missing a shot. So the Muslims retreated towards the Prophet while he was riding his white mule which was being led by his cousin Abu Sufyan bin Al-Harith bin `Abdul Muttalib. The Prophet dismounted and invoked Allah for victory; then he said, 'I am the Prophet, without a lie; I am the son of `Abdul Muttalib, and then he arranged his companions in rows."

27 Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Umar ibn al-Khattab, if he was travelling in Ramadan and knew that he would reach Madina at the begining of the day ,would do so fasting.

Yahya said that Malik said, "Someone who is travelling and knows that he will be reaching his people in the first part of the day, and then dawn breaks before he gets there, should be fasting when he gets there."

Malik said, "Someone who intends to go away (on a journey) in Ramadan, and then dawn breaks while he is still on his land before he has left, should fast that day."

Malik said that a man who returns from a journey in Ramadan and is not fasting may have sexual intercourse with his wife if he wishes, if she is not fasting and she has just become pure after her menses.

Yahya related to me from Malik that Ibn Shihab used to say, "Some one who catches a raka of the jumua prayer should pray another one with it." Ibn Shihab said, "That is the sunna."

Malik said, "I saw the people of knowledge in our city doing that. That is because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'Whoever catches a raka of the prayer has caught the prayer.' "

Malik said, concerning some one who was in a crowd on the day of jumua and did the ruku but was not able to go into sajda until the imam had risen or finished his prayer, "If he is able to do the sajda and has already done the ruku then he should do the sajda when the people stand up. If he is unable to do thesajda until after the imam has finished the prayer, then I prefer that he begins the prayeragain and does the four rakas of dhuhr."

Malik said, "If someone advances for goods to be delivered after a time, and those goods are neither something to be eaten nor drunk, he can sell them to whomever he likes for cash or goods, before he takes delivery ...

Yahya related to me from Malik from Hisham ibn Urwa that his father said that a man who pronounced a dhihar from his four wives in one statement, had only to do one kaffara. Yahya related the same as that to me from Malik from Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman.

Malik said, "That is what is done among us. Allah, the Exalted said about the kaffara for pronouncing dhihar, 'It is to free a slave before they touch one another. If he does not find the means to do that, then fasting for two consecutive months before they touch one another. If he cannot do that, it is to feed sixty poor people. ' " (Sura 58 ayats 4,5).

Malik said that a man who pronounced dhihar from his wife on various occasions had only to do one kaffara. If he pronounced dhihar, and then did kaffara, and then pronounced dhihar after he had done the kaffara, he had to do kaffara again.

Malik said, "Some one who pronounces dhihar from his wife and then has intercourse with her before he has done kaffara, only has to do one kaffara. He must abstain from her until he does kaffara and ask forgiveness of Allah. That is the best of what I have heard. "

Malik said, "It is the same with dhihar using any prohibited relations of fosterage and ancestry."

Malik said, "Women have no dhihar."

Malik said that he had heard that the commentary on the word of Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, "Those of you who pronounce the dhihar about their wives, and then retract what they have said," (Sura 56 ayat 3), was that a man pronounced dhihar on his wife and then decided to keep her and have intercourse with her. If he decided on that, he must do kaffara. If he divorced her and did not decide to retract his dhihar of her and to keep her and have intercourse with her, there would be no kaffara incumbent on him.

Maliksaid, "If he marries her after that, he does not touch her until he has completed the kaffara of pronouncing dhihar."

Malik said that if a man who pronounced dhihar from his slave-girl wanted to have intercourse with her, he had to do the kaffara of the dhihar before he could sleep with her.

Malik said, "There is no ila in a man's dhihar unless it is evident that he does not intend to retract his dhihar."

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Marwan ibn al-Hakam decided about a man who had made a vow to abstain from intercourse with his wife, that when four months had passed, it was a divorce and he could return to her as long as she was in her idda.

Malik added, "That was also the opinion of Ibn Shihab."

Malik said that if a man made a vow to abstain from intercourse with his wife and at the end of four months he declared his intent to continue to abstain, he was divorced. He could go back to his wife, but if he did not have intercourse with her before the end of her idda, he had no access to her and he could not go back to her unless he had an excuse - illness, imprisonment, or a similar excuse. His return to her maintained her as his wife. If her idda passed and then he married her after that and did not have intercourse with her until four months had passed and he declared his intent to continue to abstain, divorce was applied to him by the first vow. If four months passed, and he had not returned to her, he had no idda against her nor access because he had married her and then divorced her before touching her.

Malik said that a man who made a vow to abstain from intercourse with his wife and continued to abstain after four months and so divorced her, but then returned and did not touch her and four months were completed before her idda was completed, did not have to declare his intent and divorce did not befall him. If he had intercourse with her before the end of her idda, he was entitled to her. If her idda passed before he had intercourse with her, he had no access to her. This is what Malik preferred of what he had heard on the subject.

Malik said that if a man made a vow to abstain from intercourse with his wife and then divorced her, and the four months of the vow were completed before completion of the idda of the divorce, it counted as two pronouncements of divorce. If he declared his intention to continue to abstain and the idda of the divorce finished before the four months the vow of abstention was not a divorce. That was because the four months had passed and she was not his on that day.

Malik said, "If someone makes a vow not to have intercourse with his wife for a day or a month and then waits until more than four months have passed, it is not ila. Ila only applies to someone who vows more than four months. As for the one who vows not to have intercourse with his wife for four ...

From Shakr Al-Ghamidi that the Messenger of Allah (saws) said: "O Allah bless my Ummah in what they do early (in the day)." He said: "Whenever he (saws) would dispatch a military expedition or an army, he would send them in the first part of the day."

And Sakhr, a man who was a merchant, used to send his goods for trade during the beginning of the day, so he became rich, and his wealth increased.

[He said:] There are narrations on this topic from 'Ali, Buraidah, Ibn Mas'ud, Anas, Ibn 'Umar, Ibn 'Abbas, and Jabir.

[Abu 'Eisa said:] The Hadith is Sakhr Al-Ghamidi is a Hasan Hadith. We do not know of a narration that Sakhr Al-Ghamidi reported from the Prophet (saws) other than this Hadith. Sufyan Ath-Thawri reported this Hadith from Shu'bah, from Ya'la bin 'Ata.

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Uthman ibn Affan would sometimes never get down from the animal he was riding on when he was doing umra, until he had returned .

Malik said, ''Umra is a sunna, and we do not know of any muslim who has ever said that it is permissible not to do it."

Malik said, "I do not think that anyone can do more than one umra in any one year."

Malik said that someone doing umra who had sexual intercourse with his wife had to sacrifice an animal and do a second umra, which he had to begin when he had finished the one that he had spoiled. He should go into ihram at the same place where he went into ihram for the umra which he had spoiled, except if he had entered into ihram at a place further away than his miqat. This was because he only had to go into ihram from his miqat.

Malik said, "Someone who entered Makka to do umra, and does tawaf of the House and say between Safa and Marwa while he is junub, or not in wudu, and afterwards has intercourse with his wife, and then remembers, should do ghusl, or wudu, and then go back and do tawaf around the House and say between Safa and Marwa and do another umra and sacrifice an animal. A woman should do the same if her husband has intercourse with her while she is in ihram. "

Malik said, "As for beginning umra at at-Tanim, (it is not the only alternative). It is permissible if Allah wills for some one to leave the Haram and go into ihram if he wishes, but the best way is for him to go into ihram at the miqat which the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used (i.e. at-Tanim), or one which is further away."

`Urwa said, "Aisha told me that Allah's Apostle used to examine the women emigrants. We have been told also that when Allah revealed the order that the Muslims should return to the pagans what they had spent on their wives who emigrated (after embracing Islam) and that the Muslims should not keep unbelieving women as their wives, `Umar divorced two of his wives, Qariba, the daughter of Abu Umayyah and the daughter of Jarwal Al-Khuza`i. Later on Mu`awiya married Qariba and Abu Jahm married the other." When the pagans refused to pay what the Muslims had spent on their wives, Allah revealed: "And if any of your wives have gone from you to the unbelievers and you have an accession (by the coming over of a woman from the other side) (then pay to those whose wives have gone) the equivalent of what they had spent (on their Mahr)." (60.11) So, Allah ordered that the Muslim whose wife has gone, should be given, as a compensation of the Mahr he had given to his wife, from the Mahr of the wives of the pagans who had emigrated deserting their husbands. We do not know any of the women emigrants who deserted Islam after embracing it. We have also been told that Abu Basir bin Asid Ath-Thaqafi came to the Prophet as a Muslim emigrant during the truce. Al-Akhnas bin Shariq wrote to the Prophet requesting him to return Abu Basir.

Malik related to me that he heard the like of that from Sulayman ibn Yasar.

Malik spoke about a man who bought out one of the partners in a shared property, by paying the man with an animal, a slave, a slave-girl, or the equivalent of that in goods. Then another partner decided to exercise his right of pre-emption after that, and he found that the slave or slave-girl had died, and no one knew what her value had been. The buyer claimed, "The value of the slave or slave-girl was 100 dinars." The partner with the right of pre-emption claimed, "The value was 50 dinars."

Malik said, "The buyer takes an oath that the value of what he payed was 100 dinars. Then if the one with the right of pre-emption wishes, he can compensate him, or else he can leave it, unless he can bring a clear proof that the slave or slave-girl's value is less than what the buyer said. If someone gives away his portion of a shared house or land and the recipient repays him for it by cash or goods, the partners can take it by pre-emption if they wish and pay off the recipient the value of what he gave in dinars or dirhams. If someone makes a gift of his portion of a shared house or land, and does not take any remuneration and does not seek to, and a partner wants to take it for its value, he cannot do so as long as the original partner has not been given recompense for it. If there is any recompense, the one with the right of pre-emption can have it for the price of the recompense."

Malik spoke about a man who bought into a piece of shared land for a price on credit, and one of the partners wanted to possess it by right of pre-emption . Malik said, "If it seems likely that the partner can meet the terms, he has right of pre-emption for the same credit terms. If it is feared that he will not be able to meet the terms, but he can bring a wealthy and reliable guarantor of equal standing to the one who bought into the land, he can also take possession."

Malik said, "A person's absence does not sever his right of pre-emption. Even if he is a way for a long time, there is no time limit after which the right of preemption is cut off."

Malik said that if a man left land to a number of his children, then one of them who had a child died and the child of the deceased sold his right in that land, the brother of the seller was more entitled to pre-empt him than his paternal uncles, the partners of his father.

Malik said, "This is what is done in ...

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 ...

Yahya related to me from Malik from Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman that a man came to Qasim ibn Muhammad and said, "I did the tawaf al- ifada along with my wife, and then I went off onto a mountain path and approached my wife to make love to her, and she said, 'I have not cut my hair yet.' So I bit some of her hair off with my teeth and then had intercourse with her." Qasim laughed and said, "Tell her to cut her hair with some scissors."

Malik said, "To my liking an animal should be sacrificed in an instance such as this, because Abdullah ibn Abbas said, 'Whoever forgets any of his rites on hajj should sacrifice an animal.' "

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade 'selling and lending.'

Malik said, "The explanation of what that meant is that one man says to another, 'I will take your goods for such-and-such if you lend me such-and-such.' If they agree to a transaction in this manner, it is not permitted. If the one who stipulates the loan abandons his stipulation, then the sale is permitted."

Malik said, "There is no harm in exchanging linen from Shata, for garments from Itribi, or Qass, or Ziqa. Or the cloth of Herat or Merv for Yemeni cloaks and shawls and such like as one for two or three, from hand to hand or with delayed terms. If the goods are of the same kind, and deferment enters into the transaction, there is no good in it."

Malik said, "It is not good unless they are different, and the difference between them is clear. When they resemble each other, even if the names are different, do not take two for one with delayed terms, for instance two garments of Herat for one from Merv or Quhy with delayed terms, ortwo garments of Furqub for one from Shata. All these sorts are of the same description, so do not buy two for one, on delayed terms."

Malik said, "There is no harm in selling what you buy of things of this nature, before you complete the deal, to some one other than the person from whom you purchased them if the price was paid in cash."

There was a man who fought most bravely of all the Muslims on behalf of the Muslims in a battle (Ghazwa) in the company of the Prophet. The Prophet looked at him and said. "If anyone would like to see a man from the people of the Fire, let him look at this (brave man)." On that, a man from the People (Muslims) followed him, and he was in that state i.e., fighting fiercely against the pagans till he was wounded, and then he hastened to end his life by placing his sword between his breasts (and pressed it with great force) till it came out between his shoulders. Then the man (who was watching that person) went quickly to the Prophet and said, "I testify that you are Allah's Apostle!" The Prophet asked him, "Why do you say that?" He said, "You said about so-and-so, 'If anyone would like to see a man from the people of the Fire, he should look at him.' He fought most bravely of all of us on behalf of the Muslims and I knew that he would not die as a Muslim (Martyr). So when he got wounded, he hastened to die and committed suicide." There-upon the Prophet said, "A man may do the deeds of the people of the Fire while in fact he is one of the people of Paradise, and he may do the deeds of the people of Paradise while in fact he belongs to the people of Fire, and verily, (the rewards of) the deeds are decided by the last actions (deeds)".

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar used to pay the zakat al-fitr for those slaves of his that were at Wadi'l-Qura and Khaybar.

Yahya related to me that Malik said, "The best that I have heard about the zakat al-fitr is that a man has to pay for every person that he is responsible for supporting and whom he must support. He has to pay forall his mukatabs, his mudabbars, and his ordinary slaves, whether they are present or absent, as long as they are muslim, and whether or not they are fortrade. However, he does not have to pay zakat on any of them that are not muslim."

Malik said, concerning a runaway slave, "I think that his master should pay the zakat fo rhim whether or not he knows where he is, if it has not been long since the slave ran away and his master hopes that he is still alive and will return. If it has been a long time since he ran away and his master has despaired of him returning then I do not think that he should pay zakat for him.'

Malik said, "The zakat al-fitr has to be paid by people living in the desert (i.e. nomadic people) just as it has to be paid by people living in villages (i.e. settled people), because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, made the zakat al-fitr at the end of Ramadan obligatory on every muslim, whether freeman or slave, male or female."

that he asked `Aisha about the Statement of Allah: 'If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (the captives) that your right hands possess. That will be nearer to prevent you from doing injustice.' (4.3) `Aisha said, "O my nephew! (This Verse has been revealed in connection with) an orphan girl under the guardianship of her guardian who is attracted by her wealth and beauty and intends to marry her with a Mahr less than what other women of her standard deserve. So they (such guardians) have been forbidden to marry them unless they do justice to them and give them their full Mahr, and they are ordered to marry other women instead of them."

Malik related to me that he heard Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman and others mention that al-Furafisa ibn Umar al-Hanafi had a mukatab who offered to pay him all of his kitaba that he owed. Al-Furafisa refused to accept it and the mukatab went to Marwan ibn al-Hakam who was the amir of Madina and brought up the matter. Marwan summoned al-Furafisa and told him to accept. He refused. Marwan then ordered that the payment be taken from the mukatab and placed in the treasury. He said to the mukatab "Go, you are free." When al-Furafisa saw that, he took the money.

Malik said, "What is done among us when a mukatab pays all the instalments he owes before their term, is that it is permitted to him. The master cannot refuse him that. That is because payment removes every condition from the mukatab as well as service and travel. The setting free of a man is not complete while he has any remaining slavery, and neither would his inviolability as a free man be complete and his testimony permitted and inheritance obliged and such things in that situation. His master must not make any stipulation of service on him after he has been set free."

Malik said that it was permitted for a mukatab who became extremely ill and wanted to pay his master all his instalments because his heirs who were free would then inherit from him and he had no children with him in his kitaba, to do so, because by that he completed his inviolability as a free man, his testimony was permitted, and his admission of what he owed of debts to people was permitted. His bequest was permitted as well. His master could not refuse him that by saying, "He is escaping from me with his property."

Yahya related to me from Malik that Yazid ibn Abdullah ibn Qusayt saw Said ibn al-Musayyab sell gold counterpoising for gold. He poured his gold into one pan of the scales, and the man with whom he was counterpoising put his gold in the other pan of the scale and when the tongue of the scales was balanced, they took and gave.

Malik said, "According to the way things are done among us there is no harm in selling gold for gold, and silver for silver by counterpoising weight, even if 11 dinars are taken for 10 dinars hand to hand, when the weight of gold is equal, coin for coin, even if the number is different. Dirhams in such a situation are treated the same way as dinars."

Malik said, "If, when counterpoising gold for gold or silver for silver, there is a difference of weight, one party should not give the other the value of the difference in silver or something else. Such a transaction is ugly and a means to usury because if one of the parties were permitted to take the difference for a separate price, it could be as if he had bought it separately, so he would be permitted. Then it would be possible for him to ask for many times the value of the difference in order to permit the completion of the transaction between the two parties.

Malik said, "If he had really been sold the difference without anything else with it, he would not have taken it for a tenth of the price for which he took it in order to put a 'legal front' on the transaction. This leads to allowing what is forbidden . The matter is forbidden."

Malik said that it was not good when counterpoising to give good old gold coins and put along with them unminted gold in exchange for worn kufic gold, which was unpopular and to then treat the exchange as like for like.

Malik said, "The commentary on why that is disapproved is that the owner of the good gold uses the excellence of his old gold coins as an excuse to throw in the unminted gold with it. Had it not been for the superiority of his (good) gold over the gold of the other party, the other party would not have counterpoised the unminted gold for his kufic gold, and the deal would have been refused.

"It is like a man wanting to buy three sa of ajwa dried dates for two sa and a mudd of kabis dates, and on being told that it was not good, then offering two sa of kabis and a sa of poor dates desiring to make the sale possible. That is not good because the owner of the ajwa should not give him ...

11 Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said from Urwa ibn az- Zubayr that a man of the Ansar called Uhayha ibn al-Julah had a young paternal uncle who was younger than him and who was living with his maternal uncles. Uhayha took him and killed him. His maternal uncles said, "We brought him up from a baby to a youth till he stood firm on his feet, and we have had the right of a man taken from us by his paternal uncle." Urwa said, "For that reason a killer does not inherit from the one he killed."

Malik said, "The way of doing things about which there is no dispute is that the intentional murderer does not inherit anything of the blood-money of the person he has murdered or any of his property. He does not stop anyone who has a share of inheritance from inheriting. The one who kills accidentally does not inherit anything of the blood-money and there is dispute as to whether or not he inherits from the dead person's property because there is no suspicion that he killed him for his inheritance and in order to take his property. I prefer that he inherit from the dead person's property and not inherit from the blood-money."

Yahya related to me from Malik from a reliable source from Amr ibn Shuayb from his father from his father's father that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade transactions in which nonrefundable deposits were paid.

Malik said, "That is, in our opinion, but Allah knows best, that for instance, a man buys a slave or slave-girl or rents an animal and then says to the person from whom he bought the slave or leased the animal, 'I will give you a dinar or a dirham or whatever on the condition that if I actually take the goods or ride what I have rented from you, then what I have given you already goes towards payment of the goods or hire of the animal. If I do not purchase the goods or hire the animal, then what I have given you is yours without liability on your part.' "

Malik said, "According to the way of doing things with us there is nothing wrong in bartering an arabic speaking merchant slave for abyssinian slaves or any other type that are not his equal in eloquence, trading, shrewdness, and know-how. There is nothing wrong in bartering one slave like this for two or more other slaves with a stated delay in the terms if he is clearly different. If there is no appreciable difference between the slaves, two should not be bartered for one with a stated delay in the terms even if their racial type is different."

Malik said, "There is nothing wrong in selling what has been bought in such a transaction before taking possession of all of it as long as you receive the price for it from some one other than the original owner."

Malik said, "An addition to the price must not be made for a foetus in the womb of its mother when she is sold because that is gharar (an uncertain transaction). It is not known whether the child will be male or female, good-looking or ugly, normal or handicapped, alive or dead. All these things will affect the price."

Malik said that in a transaction where a slave or slave-girl was bought for one hundred dinars with a stated credit period that if the seller regretted the sale there was nothing wrong in him asking the buyer to revoke it for ten dinars which he would pay him immediately or after a period and he would forgo his right to the hundred dinars which he was owed.

Malik said, "However, if the buyer regrets and asks the seller to revoke the sale of a slave or slave-girl in consideration of which he will pay an extra ten dinars immediately or on ...

The Prophet (saws) said: If anyone wants to put a ring of fire on one he loves, let him put a gold ring on him: if anyone wants to put a necklace of fire on one he loves, let him put a gold necklace on him, and if anyone wants to put a bracelet of fire on one he loves let him put a gold bracelet on him. Keep to silver and amuse yourselves with it.

Malik related to me from Humayd ibn Qays al-Makki that a son of al-Mutawakkil had a mukatab who died at Makka and left (enough to pay) the rest of his kitaba and he owed some debts to people. He also left a daughter. The governor of Makka was not certain about how to judge in the case, so he wrote to Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan to ask him about it. Abd al-Malik wrote to him, "Begin with the debts owed to people, and then pay what remains of his kitaba. Then divide what remains of the property between the daughter and the master."

Malik said, "What is done among us is that the master of a slave does not have to give his slave a kitaba if he asks for it. I have not heard of any of the Imams forcing a man to give a kitaba to his slave. I heard that one of the people of knowledge, when someone asked about that and mentioned that Allah the Blessed, the Exalted, said, 'Give them their kitaba, if you know some good in them' (Sura 24 ayat 33) recited these two ayats, 'When you are free of the state of ihram, then hunt for game.' (Sura 5 ayat 3) 'When the prayer is finished, scatter in the land and seek Allah's favour.' " (Sura 62 ayat 10)

Malik commented, "It is a way of doing things for which Allah, the Mighty, the Majestic, has given permission to people, and it is not obligatory for them." Malik said, "I heard one of the people of knowledge say about the word of Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, 'Give them of the wealth which Allah has given you,' that it meant that a man give his slave a kitaba and then reduce the end of his kitaba for him by some specific amount."

Malik said, "This is what I have heard from the people of knowledge and what I see people doing here."

Malik said, "I have heard that Abdullah ibn Umar gave one of his slaves his kitaba for 35,000 dirhams, and then reduced the end of his kitaba by 5,000 dirhams."

Malik said, "What is done among us is that when a master gives a mukatab his kitaba, the mukatab's property goes with him but his children do not go with him unless he stipulates that in his kitaba."

Yahya said, "I heard Malik say that if a mukatab whose master had given him a kitaba had a slave- girl who was pregnant by him, and neither he nor his master knew that on the day he was given his kitaba, the child did not follow him because he was not included in the kitaba. He belonged to the master. As for the slave-girl, she belonged to the mukatab because she was his property."

Malik ...

Malik related to me that he had heard that Abdullah ibn Masud used to say, "If someone makes a loan, they should not stipulate better than it. Even if it is a handful of grass, it is usury."

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us is that there is no harm in borrowing any animals with a set description and itemisation, and one must return the like of them. This is not done in the case of female slaves. It is feared about that that it will lead to making halal what is not halal, so it is not good. The explanation of what is disapproved of in that, is that a man borrow a slave-girl and have intercourse with her as seems proper to him. Then he returns her to her owner. That is not good and it is not halal. The people of knowledge still forbid it and do not give an indulgence to any one in it."

I asked `Aisha : "How do you interpret the statement of Allah,. : Verily! (the mountains) As-Safa and Al-Marwa are among the symbols of Allah, and whoever performs the Hajj to the Ka`ba or performs `Umra, it is not harmful for him to perform Tawaf between them (Safa and Marwa.) (2.158). By Allah! (it is evident from this revelation) there is no harm if one does not perform Tawaf between Safa and Marwa." `Aisha said, "O, my nephew! Your interpretation is not true. Had this interpretation of yours been correct, the statement of Allah should have been, 'It is not harmful for him if he does not perform Tawaf between them.' But in fact, this divine inspiration was revealed concerning the Ansar who used to assume lhram for worship ping an idol called "Manat" which they used to worship at a place called Al-Mushallal before they embraced Islam, and whoever assumed Ihram (for the idol), would consider it not right to perform Tawaf between Safa and Marwa. When they embraced Islam, they asked Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) regarding it, saying, "O Allah's Apostle! We used to refrain from Tawaf between Safa and Marwa." So Allah revealed: 'Verily; (the mountains) As-Safa and Al-Marwa are among the symbols of Allah.' " Aisha added, "Surely, Allah's Apostle set the tradition of Tawaf between Safa and Marwa, so nobody is allowed to omit the Tawaf between them." Later on I (`Urwa) told Abu Bakr bin `Abdur-Rahman (of `Aisha's narration) and he said, 'I have not heard of such information, but I heard learned men saying that all the people, except those whom `Aisha mentioned and who used to assume lhram for the sake of Manat, used to perform Tawaf between Safa and Marwa. When Allah referred to the Tawaf of the Ka`ba and did not mention Safa and Marwa in the Qur'an, the people asked, 'O Allah's Apostle! We used to perform Tawaf between Safa and Marwa and Allah has revealed (the verses concerning) Tawaf of the Ka`ba and has not mentioned Safa and Marwa. Is there any harm if we perform Tawaf between Safa and Marwa?' So Allah revealed: "Verily As-Safa and Al- Marwa are among the symbols of Allah." Abu Bakr said, "It seems that this verse was revealed concerning the two groups, those who used to refrain from Tawaf between Safa and Marwa in the Pre- Islamic Period of ignorance and those who used to perform the Tawaf then, and after embracing Islam they refrained from the Tawaf between them as Allah had enjoined Tawaf of the Ka`ba and did not ...

Hind bint `Utba bin Rabi`a came and said. "O Allah's Apostle! By Allah, there was no family on the surface of the earth, I like to see in degradation more than I did your family, but today there is no family on the surface of the earth whom I like to see honored more than yours." Hind added, "Abu Sufyan is a miser. Is it sinful of me to feed our children from his property?" The Prophet said, "There is no blame on you if you feed them (thereof) in a just and reasonable manner.

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Muhammad Sirin used to say, "Do not sell grain on the ears until it is white."

Malik said, "If someone buys food for a known price to be delivered at a stated date, and when the date comes, the one who owes the food says, 'I do not have any food, sell me the food which I owe you with delayed terms.' The owner of the food says, 'This is not good, because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade selling food until the deal was completed.' The one who owes the food says to his creditor, 'Sell me any kind of food on delayed terms until I discharge the debt to you.' This is not good because he gives him food and then he returns it to him. The gold which he gave him becomes the price of that which is his right against him and the food which he gave him becomes what clears what is between them. If they do that, it becomes the sale of food before the deal is complete."

Malik spoke about a man who was owed food which he had purchased from a man and this man was owed the like of that food by another man. The one who owed the food said to his creditor, "I will refer you to my debtor who owes me the same amount of food as I owe you, so that you may obtain the food which I owe you ."

Malik said, "If the man who had to deliver the food, had gone out, and bought the food to pay off his creditor, that is not good. That is selling food before taking possession of it. If the food is an advance which falls due at that particular time, there is no harm in paying off his creditor with it because that is nota sale. It is not halal to sell food before receiving it in full since the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade that. However, the people of knowledge agree that there is no harm in partnership, transfer of responsibility and revocation in sales of food and other goods."

Malik said, "That is because the people of knowledge consider it as a favour rendered. They do not consider it as a sale. It is like a man lending light dirhams. He is then paid back in dirhams of full weight, and so gets back more than he lent. That is halal for him and permitted. Had a man bought defective dirhams from him as being the full weight, that would not be halal. Had it been stipulated to him that he lend full weight in dirhams, and then he gave faulty ones, that would not be halal for him."

When the verse: "O ye who believe! eat not up your property among yourselves in vanities, but let there be amongst you traffic and trade by mutual good will" was revealed, a man thought it a sin to eat in the house of another man after the revelation of this verse.

Then this (injunction) was revealed by the verse in Surat an-Nur: "No blame on you whether you eat in company or separately."

When a rich man (after revelation) invited a man from his people to eat food in his house, he would say: I consider it a sin to eat from it, and he said: a poor man is more entitled to it than I. The Arabic word tajannah means sin or fault. It was then declared lawful to eat something on which the name of Allah was mentioned, and it was made lawful to eat the flesh of an animal slaughtered by the people of the Book.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Humayd ibn Qays al-Makki from Tawus al Yamani that from thirty cows, Muadh ibn Jabal took one cow in its second year, and from forty cows, one cow in its third or fourth year, and when less than that (i.e. thirty cows) was brought to him he refused to take anything from it. He said, "I have not heard anything about it from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. When I meet him, I will ask him." But the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, died before Muadh ibn Jabal returned.

Yahya said that Malik said, "The best that I have heard about some one who has sheep or goats with two or more shepherds in different places is that they are added together and the owner then pays the zakat on them. This is the same situation as a man who has gold and silver scattered in the hands of various people. He must add it all u p and pay whatever zakat there is to pay on the sum total."

Yahya said that Malik said, about a man who had both sheep and goats, that they were added up together for the zakat to be assessed, and if between them they came to a number on which zakat was due, he paid zakat on them. Malik added, "They are all considered as sheep, and in Umar ibn al-Khattab's book it says, 'On grazing sheep and goats, if they come to forty or more, one ewe.' "

Malik said, "If there are more sheep than goats and their owner only has to pay one ewe, the zakat collector takes the ewe from the sheep. If there are more goats than sheep, he takes it from the goats. If there is an equal number of sheep and goats, he takes the ewe from whichever kind he wishes."

Yahya said that Malik said, "Similarly, Arabian camels and Bactrian camels are added up together in order to assess the zakat that the owner has to pay. They are all considered as camels. If there are more Arabian camels than Bactrians and the owner only has to pay one camel, the zakat collector takes it from the Arabian ones. If, however, there are more Bactrian camels he takes it from those. If there is an equal number of both, he takes the camel from whichever kind he wishes."

Malik said, "Similarly, cows and water buffaloes are added up together and are all considered as cattle. If there are more cows than water buffalo and the owner only has to pay one cow, the zakat collector takes it from the cows. If there are more water buffalo, he takes it from them. If there is an equal number of ...

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Ali ibn Abi Talib said about the two arbiters about whom Allah, the Exalted, said,"If you fear a breach between the two, appoint an arbiter from his people, and an arbiter from her people. If they desire to set things aright, Allah will make peace between them, surely Allah is Knowing, Aware," (Sura 4 ayat 35), that the separation and the joining were overseen by the two of them.

Malik said, "That is the best of what I have heard from the people of knowledge. Whatever the two arbiters say concerning separation or joining is taken into consideration "

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had asked Ibn Shihab whether someone doing itikaf could go into a house to relieve himself, and he said, "Yes, there is no harm in that."

Malik said, "The situation that we are all agreed upon here is that there is no disapproval of anyone doing itikaf in a mosque where jumua is held. The only reason I see for disapproving of doing itikaf in a mosque where jumua is not held is that the man doing itikaf would have to leave the mosque where he was doing itikaf in order to go to jumua, or else not go there at all. If, however, he is doing itikaf in a mosque where jumua is not held, and he does not have to go to jumua in any other mosque, then I see no harm in him doing itikaf there, because Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, says, 'While you are doing itikaf in mosques,' and refers to all mosques in general, without specifying any particular kind."

Malik continued, "Accordingly, it is permissiblefor a man to do itikaf in a mosque where jumua is not held if he does not have to leave it to go to a mosque where jumua is held."

Malik said, "A person doing itikaf should spend the night only in the mosque where he is doing itikaf, except if his tent is in one of the courtyards of the mosque. I have never heard that someone doing itikaf can put up a shelter anywhere except in the mosque itself or in one of the courtyards of the mosque.

Part of what shows that he must spend the night in the mosque is the saying of A'isha, 'When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was doing itikaf, he would only go into the house to relieve himself.' Nor should he do itikaf on the roof of the mosque or in the minaret."

Malik said, "The person who is going to do itikaf should enter the place where he wishes to do itikaf before the sun sets on the night when he wishes to begin his itikaf, so that he is ready to begin the itikaf at the beginning of the night when he is going to start his itikaf. A person doing itikaf should be occupied with his itikaf, and not turn his attention to other things which might occupy him, such as trading or whatever. There is no harm, however, if some one doing itikaf tells some one to do something for him regarding his estate, or the affairs of his family, or tells someone to sell some property of his, or something else that does not occupy him directly. There is no harm in him arranging for someone else to do that for him if it is a simple matter."

Malik said, ...

I got an old she-camel as my share from the booty, and the Prophet had given me another from Al- Khumus. And when I intended to marry Fatima (daughter of the Prophet), I arranged that a goldsmith from the tribe of Bani Qainuqa' would accompany me in order to bring Idhkhir and then sell it to the goldsmiths and use its price for my marriage banquet.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Hisham ibn Urwa that his father said, "Someone who does not stand at Arafa on the night of Muzdalifa

before the dawn breaks has missed the hajj, and some one who stands at Arafa on the night of Muzdalifa before the dawn breaks has caught the hajj.

Malik said, about a slave freed during the wuquf at Arafa, "His standing does not fulfil for him the hajj of Islam, except if he was not in ihram and then he went into ihram after he was freed and he stood at Arafa that same night before the dawn broke in which case that is enough for him. If, however, he did not go into ihram until after the dawn had broken, he is in the same position as someone who misses the hajj by not catching the standing at Arafa before the breaking of the dawn on the night of Muzdalifa, and he will have to do the hajj of Islam later."

Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab from Sulayman ibn Yasar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used to send Abdullah ibn Rawaha to Khaybar, to assess the division of the fruit crop between him and the jews of Khaybar.

The jews collected for Abdullah pieces of their women's jewellery and said to him, "This is yours. Go light on us and don't be exact in the division!"

Abdullah ibn Rawaha said, "O tribe of jews! By Allah! You are among the most hateful to me of Allah's creation, but it does not prompt me to deal unjustly with you. What you have offered as a bribe is forbidden. We will not touch it." They said, "This is what supports the heavens and the earth."

Malik said, "If a share-cropper waters the palms and between them there is some uncultivated land, whatever he cultivates in the uncultivated land is his."

Malik said, "If the owner of the land makes a condition that he will cultivate the uncultivated land for himself, that is not good because the sharecropper does the watering for the owner of the land and so he increases the owner of the land in property (without any return for himself)."

Malik said, "If the owner stipulates that the fruit crop is to be shared between them, there is no harm in that if all the maintenance of the property - seeding, watering and case, etc. - are the concern of the sharecropper.

If the share-cropper stipulates that the seeds are the responsibility of the owner of the property - that is not permitted because he has stipulated an outlay against the owner of the property. Share-cropping is conducted on the basis that all the care and expense is outlayed by the share-cropper, and the owner of the property is not obliged anything. This is the accepted method of share-cropping."

Malik spoke about a spring which was shared between two men, and then the water dried up and one of them wanted to work on the spring and the other said, "I don't have the means to work on it." He said, "Tell the one who wants to work on the spring, 'Work and expend. All the water will be yours. You will have its water until your companion brings you half of what you have spent. If he brings you half of what you have spent, he can take his share of the water.' The first one is given all the water, because he has spent on it, and if he does not reach anything by his work, the other has not incurred any expense."

Malik said, "It is not good for ...

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz during his khalifate, wrote to one of his governors, "Whatever a father, or guardian, who gives someone in marriage, makes a condition in the way of unreturnable gift or of favour, belongs to the woman if she wants it."

Malik spoke about a woman whose father gave her in marriage and made an unreturnable gift a condition of the bride-price which was to be given. He said, "Whatever is given as a condition by which marriage occurs belongs to the woman if she wants it. If the husband parts from her before the marriage is consummated, the husband has half of the unreturnable gift by which the marriage occurred."

Malik said about a man who married off his young son and the son had no wealth at all, that the bride- price was obliged of the father if the young man had no property on the day of marriage. If the young man did have property the bride- price was taken from his property unless the father stipulated that he would pay the bride-price. The marriage was affirmed for the son if he was a minor only if he was under the guardianship of his father.

Malik said that if a man divorced his wife before he had consummated the marriage and she was a virgin, her father returned half of the bride-price to him. That half was permitted to the husband from the father to compensate him for his expenses.

Malik said that that was because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, "Unless they (women with whom he had not consummated marriage) make remission or he makes remission to him in whose hand is the knot of marriage." (Sura 2 ayat 237). (He being the father of a virgin daughter or the master of a female slave.)

Malik said, "That is what I have heard about the matter, and that is how things are done among us."

Malik said that a jewish or christian woman who was married to a jew or christian and then became muslim before the marriage had been consummated, did not keep anything from the bride-price.

Malik said, "I do not think that women should be married for less than a quarter of a dinar. That is the lowest amount for which cutting off the hand is obliged ."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said and 'Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr and Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman that al-Walid ibn Abd al- Malik asked Salim ibn Abdullah and Kharija ibn Zayd ibn Thabit if he could use perfume after he had stoned the jamra and shaved his head, but before he had left for the tawafal-ifada. Salim forbade him to do so, but Kharija ibn Zayd ibn Thabit said that he could.

Malik said, "There is no harm in a man oiling himself with an oil which does not have any perfume in it, either before he enters ihram, or before he leaves Mina for the tawaf al-ifada, if he has stoned the jamra."

Yahya said that Malik was asked whether someone in ihram could eat food with saffron in it, and he said, "There is no harm in some one in ihram eating it if it has been cooked. If, however, it has not been cooked he should not eat it."

That the Prophet (saws) ransomed two men for the Muslims with a man from the idolaters.

[Abu 'Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan Sahih.

The paternal uncle of Abu Al-Muhallab's name is 'Abdur Rahman bin 'Amr, and they also say it was Muhawiyah bin 'Amr. And Abu Qilabah's name is 'Abdullah bin Zaid Al-Jarmi (narrator in the chain)

This is acted upon according to most of the people of knowledge among the Companions of the Prophet(saws) and others. It is for the Imam to decide to be generous with whom he wills among the captives, or to kill whom he wills among them, or to ransom whom he wills among them. Some of the people of knowledge preferred killing over ransoming.

Al-Awzai' said: "It has been conveyed to me. that this Ayah is abrogated: Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (to free them without ranson) or ransom (47:4). It was abrogated by: Kill them wherever you find them (2:191). This was narrated to us by Hannad (who said): "Ibn Al-Mubarak narrated to us, from Al-Awza'i."

Ishaq bin Mansur said: "I said to Ahmad: 'When the captives are captured' is killing or ransoming better to you?' He said: 'If they are able to ransom' then there is no harm in it. And if they kill, then I do not know of any harm in it.'" Ishaq said: "Wiping them out is better to me, unless it is someone well-known, so that it is hoped that a large amount will be obtained for him."

Malik related to me that he had heard that Marwan ibn al-Hakam gave a decision about a slave who was injured that the person who injured him had to pay what he had diminished of the value of the slave.

Malik said, "What is done in our community is that for the head wound of a slave that bares the bone, there is a twentieth of his price. The head wound which splinters the bone is three twentieths of his price. Both the wound to the brain and the belly wound are a third of his price. Besides these four, any other types of injury that decrease the price of the slave are considered after the slave is better and well, and one sees what the value of the slave is after his injury and what his value whole was before he had the injury. Then the one who injured him pays the difference between the two values."

I heard the Messenger of Allah (saws) say: In eloquence there is magic, in knowledge ignorance, in poetry wisdom, and in speech heaviness.

Sa'sa'ah ibn Suhan said: The Prophet of Allah (saws) spoke the truth. His statement "In eloquence there is magic" means: (For example), there is a right due from a man who is more eloquent in reasoning than the man who is demanding his right. He (the defendant) charms the people by his speech and takes away his right. His statement "In knowledge there is ignorance" means: A scholar brings to his knowledge what he does not know, and thus he becomes ignorant of that. His statement "In poetry there is wisdom" means: These are the sermons and examples by which people receive admonition. His statement "In speech there is heaviness" means: That you present your speech and your talk to a man who is not capable of understanding it, and who does not want it.

Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said that he heard Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir say, "Allah loves his slave who is generous when he sells, and generous when he buys, generous when he repays, and generous when he is repaid."

Malik said about a man who bought camels or sheep or dry goods or slaves or any goods without measuring precisely, "There is no buying without measuring precisely in anything which can be counted . "

Malik said about a man who gave a man goods to sell for him and set their price saying, "If you sell them for this price as I have ordered you to do, you will have a dinar (or something which he has specified, which they are both satisfied with), if you do not sell them, you will have nothing," "There is no harm in that when he names a price to sell them at and names a known fee. If he sells the goods, he takes the fee, and if he does not sell them, he has nothing."

Malik said, "This is like saying to another man, 'If you capture my runaway slave or bring my stray camel, you will have such-and-such.' This is from the category of reward, and not from the category of giving a wage. Had it been from the category of giving a wage, it would not be good."

Malik said, "As for a man who is given goods and told that if he sells them he will have a named percentage for every dinar, that is not good because whenever he is a dinar less than the price of the goods, he decreases the due which was named for him. This is an uncertain transaction. He does not know how much he will be given."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that some men from Iraq said to him, "Abu Abd ar-Rahman, we buy the fruit of the palm and grapes and we squeeze them into wine and we sell it." Abdullah ibn Umar said, "I call on Allah and His angels and whoever hears of jinn and men to testify to you that I order you not to buy it nor sell it nor to press it nor to drink it nor to give it to people to drink. It is something impure from the work of Shaytan."

Yahya related to me from Malik that he asked Ibn Shihab about the one-eyed man who gouged out the eye of a healthy person. Ibn Shihab said, "If the healthy person wants to take retaliation from him, he can have his retaliation. If he prefers, he has blood-money of one thousand dinars, twelve thousand dirhams."

Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that full blood- money was payable for both of a pair of anything in a man that occurred in pairs, and the tongue had full blood-money. The ears, when their hearing departed, had full blood-money, whether or not they were cut off, and a man's penis had full blood-money and the testicles had full blood-money.

Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that the breasts of a woman had full blood-money.

Malik said, "The least of that are the eyebrows and a man's breasts."

Malik said, "What is done in our community when a man is injured in his extremities to an extent that obliges payment of more than the amount of his full blood-money, is that it is his right. If his hands, feet, and eyes are all injured, he has three full blood-moneys."

Malik said about the sound eye of a one-eyed man when it is accidentally gouged out, "The full blood-money is payable for it."

Yahya related to me from Malik that Yahya ibn Said heard Jamil ibn Abd ar-Rahman the Muadhdhin say to Said ibn al-Musayyab, "I am a man who buys whatever Allah wills of the receipts for the provisions which people are offered at al-Jar. I want to take payment for goods that I guarantee to deliver at a future date." Said said to him, "Do you intend to settle these things with receipts for provisions you have bought?" He said, "Yes." So he forbade that.

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us in which there is no dispute, about buying food - wheat, barley, durra-sorghum, pearl millet, or any pulse or anything resembling pulses on which zakat is obliged, or condiments of any sort - oil, ghee, honey, vinegar, cheese, sesame oil, milk and so on, is that the buyer should not re- sell any of that until he has taken possession and complete delivery of it.

Yahya related to me from Malik that Kathir ibn Farqad asked Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Hazm about a man who sold food to be delivered at a future date to a man for gold and then with the gold, he bought dates before he had taken delivery of the gold. He disapproved of that and forbade it.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab the like of that.

Malik said, ''Said ibn al-Musayyab, Sulayman ibn Yasar, Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Hazm, and Ibn Shihab forbade that a man sell wheat for gold and then buy dates with that gold before he had received the gold from the transaction in which he sold the wheat. There is no harm for someone to buy dates on delayed terms, on the strength of the gold for which he sold the wheat, from someone other than the person to whom he sold the wheat before taking possession of the gold, and to refer the one from whom he bought the dates to his debtor who bought the wheat, for the gold he is owed for the dates."

Malik said, "I asked more than one of the people of knowledge about that and they did not see any harm in it."

Yahya related to me that Malik asked Ibn Shihab about selling animals, two for one with delayed terms. He said, "There is no harm in it."

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us is that there is no harm in bartering a camel for a camel like it and adding some dirhams to the exchange, from hand to hand. There is no harm in bartering a camel for a camel like it with some dirhams on top of the exchange, the camels to be exchanged from hand to hand, and the dirhams to be paid within a period." He said, "There is no good however in bartering a camel for a camel like it with some dirhams on top of it, with the dirhams paid in cash and the camel to be delivered later. If both the camel and the dirhams are deferred there is no good in that either."

Malik said, "There is no harm in buying a riding camel with two or more pack-camels, if they are from inferior stock. There is no harm in bartering two of them for one with delayed terms, if they are different and their difference is clear. If they resemble each other whether their species are different or not, two are not to be taken for one with delayed terms."

Malik said, "The explanation of what is disapproved of in that, is that a camel should not be bought with two camels when there is no distinction between them in speed or hardiness. If this is according to what I have described to you, then one does not buy two of them for one with delayed terms. There is no harm in selling those of them you buy before you complete the deal to somebody other than the one from whom you bought them if you get the price in cash."

Malik said, "It is permitted for someone to advance something on animals for a fixed term and describe the amount and pay its price in cash. Whatever the buyer and seller have described is obliged for them. That is still permitted behaviour between people and what the people of knowledge in our land do."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar used to say, "Someone who does not stand at Arafa on the night of Muzdalifa before the dawn breaks has missed the hajj, and someone who stands at Arafa on the night of Muzdalifa before the dawn breaks has caught the hajj."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Malik said, "It is not good ...

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that al-Qasim ibn Muhammad was asked about a man who bought goods for 10 dinars cash or fifteen dinars on credit. He disapproved of that and forbade it.

Malik said that if a man bought goods from a man for either 10 dinars or 15 dinars on credit, that one of the two prices was obliged on the buyer. It was not to be done because if he postponed paying the ten, it would be 15 on credit, and if he paid the ten, he would buy with it what was worth fifteen dinars on credit.

Malik said that it was disapproved of for a man to buy goods from someone for either a dinar cash or for a described sheep on credit and that one of the two prices was obliged on him. It was not to be done because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade two sales in one sale. This was part of two sales in the one sale.

Malik spoke about a man saying to another, "'I will either buy these fifteen sa of ajwa dates from you, or these ten sa of sayhani dates or I will buy these fifteen sa of inferior wheat or these ten sa of Syrian wheat for a dinar, and one of them is obliged to me.' Malik said that it was disapproved of and was not halal. That was because he obliged him ten sa of sayhani, and left them and took fifteen sa of ajwa, or he was obliged fifteen sa of inferior wheat and left them and took ten sa of Syrian wheat. This was also disapproved of, and was not halal. It resembled what was prohibited in the way of two sales in one sale. It was also included under the prohibition against buying two for one of the same sort of food."

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 ...

Sometimes Allah's Apostle would not fast (for so many days) that we thought that he would not fast that month and he sometimes used to fast (for so many days) that we thought he would not leave fasting throughout that month and (as regards his prayer and sleep at night), if you wanted to see him praying at night, you could see him praying and if you wanted to see him sleeping, you could see him sleeping.

Yahya related to me from Malik, from Abdullah ibn Dinar, that Abdullah ibn Umar used to say, "Anyone that does umra in the months of hajj, that is, in Shawwal, Dhu'l-Qada, or in Dhu'l-Hijja before the hajj, and then stays in Makka until the time for hajj, is doing tamattu if he then does hajj. He must sacrifice whatever animal it is easy for him to obtain, and if he cannot find one then he must fast three days during hajj and seven days when he returns."

Malik said, "This is only the case if he stays until the hajj and does hajj in that same year."

Malik said that if someone who was from Makka but had stopped living there and gone to live elsewhere, came back to do umra in the months of the hajj and then stayed in Makka to begin hajj there, he was doing tamattu, and had to offer up a sacrificial animal, or fast if he could not find one. He was not the same as the people of Makka.

Malik was asked whether someone who was not from Makka and entered Makka to do umra in the months of hajj with the intention of staying on to begin his hajj there was doing tamattu or not, and he said, "Yes, he is doing tamattu, and he is not the same as the people of Makka, even if he has the intention of staying there. This is because he has entered Makka, and is not one of its people, and making a sacrifice or fasting is incumbent on anyone who is not from Makka, and, although he intends to stay, he does not know what possibilities might arise later. He is not one of the people of Makka."