| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 18 |
| In-book reference | : Book 1, Hadith 18 |
| English translation | : Book 1, Hadith 18 |
Yahya related to me from Malik that Abu'z-Zinad informed him that a governor of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz took some people in battle and had not killed any of them. He wanted to cut off their hands or kill them, so he wrote to Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz about that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz wrote to him, "Better to take less than that."
Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done among us about a person who steals the goods of people which are placed under guard in the markets, and their owners put them in their containers and store them together is that if anyone steals any of that from where it is kept, and its value reaches that for which cutting off the hand is obliged, his hand must be cut off, whether or not the owner of the goods is with his goods and whether it is night or day."
Malik said about some one who stole something for which cutting off the hand was obliged and then what he stole was found with him and he returned it to its owner, "His hand is cut off."
Malik said, "If someon says, 'How can his hand be cut off when the goods have been taken from him and returned to their owner?', it is because he is in the same position as the wine drinker when the smell of the wine is found on his breath and he is not drunk. He is flogged with the hadd.
"The hadd is imposed for drinking wine even if it does not make the man intoxicated. That is because he drank it to become intoxicated. It is the same as that with cutting off the hand of the thief for theft when it is taken from him, even if he has not profited from it and it was returned to its owner. When he stole it, he stole it to take it away."
Malik said that if some people came to a house and robbed it together, and then they left with a sack or box or a board or basket or the like of that which they carried together, and when they took it out of its guarded place, they carried it together, and the price of what they took reached that for which cutting off the hand was obliged, and that was three dirhams and upwards, each of them had his hand cut off.
"If each of them takes out something by himself, whoever of them takes out something whose value reaches three dirhams and upwards must have his hand cut off. If any of them takes out something whose value does not reach three dirhams, he does not have his hand cut off."
Yahya said that Malik said, "What is done among us is that when a man's house is locked and he is the only one living in it, cutting off the hand is not obliged against the one who steals something from it until he takes it out of the house completely. That is because all of the house is a place of custody. If someone other than him lives in the house and each of them locks his door, and it is a place of custody for each of them, whoever steals anything from the apartments of that house must have his hand cut off when he leaves the apartment and goes into the main house. He has removed it from its place of custody to another place and he must have his hand cut off."
Malik said, "What is done in our community about a slave who steals from the property of his master is that if he is not in service and among those trusted in the house and he enters secretly and steals from his master something that for which cutting off the hand is obliged, his hand is not cut off. It is like that with a slave-girl when she steals from her master's property. Her hand is not cut off."
Malik then spoke about a slave who was not in service and not one of those trusted in the house, and he entered secretly and stole from the property of his master's wife that for which cutting off the hand was obliged. He said, "His hand is cut off."
"It is like that with the wife's slave-girl when she does not serve her or her husband nor is she trusted in the house and she enters secretly and steals from her mistress's property that for which cutting off the hand is obliged. Her hand is not cut off."
"It is like that with the wife's slave-girl who is not in her service and is not trusted in the house and she enters secretly and steals from the property of her mistress's husband something for which cutting off the hand is obliged. Her hand is cut off."
It is like that with the man who steals from his wife's goods or the wife who steals from her husband's goods something for which cutting off the hand is obliged. If the thing which one of them steals from his spouse's property is in a room other than the room which they both lock for themselves, or it is in a place of custody in a room other than the room which they are in, whichever of them steals something for which cutting off the hand is obliged, their hand should be cut off."
Malik spoke about a small child and a foreigner who does not speak clearly. He said, "If they are robbed of something from its place of custody or from under a lock, the one who stole it has his hand cut off. If the property is outside of its place of custody or locked room(when it is stolen), the one who robbed them does not have his hand cut off. It is then in the position of sheep stolen from the mountain and uncut fruit hanging on the trees "
Malik said, "What is done among us about a person who robs graves is that if what he takes from the grave reaches what cutting off the hand is obliged for, his hand is cut off . That is because the grave is a place of custody for what is in it just as houses are a place of custody for what is in them. "
Malik added, "Cutting off the hand is not obliged for him until he takes it out of the grave."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 41, Hadith 31 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 41, Hadith 1535 |
| Reference | : Riyad as-Salihin 1866 |
| In-book reference | : Book 18, Hadith 59 |
| Grade: | Sahih (Darussalam) [ al-Bukhari (2462) and Muslim (1691). (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Musnad Ahmad 391 |
| In-book reference | : Book 3, Hadith 1 |
| مُتَّفق عَلَيْهِ (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 5494 |
| In-book reference | : Book 27, Hadith 115 |
| صَحِيح (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 30, Hadith 278 |
| English translation | : Book 26, Hadith 0 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 30, Hadith 6265 |
Malik related to me that he heard that Abu Salama ibn Abd ar- Rahman and Sulayman ibn Yasar were both asked, "Does one pronounce judgement on the basis of an oath with one witness?" They both said, "Yes."
Malik said, "The precedent of the sunna in judging by an oath with one witness is that if the plaintiff takes an oath with his witness, he is confirmed in his right. If he draws back and refuses to take an oath, the defendant is made to take an oath. If he takes an oath, the claim against him is dropped. If he refuses to take an oath, the claim is confirmed against him."
Malik said, "This procedure pertains to property cases in particular. It does not occur in any of the hadd-punishments, nor in marriage, divorce, freeing slaves, theft or slander. If some one says, 'Freeing slaves comes under property,' he has erred. It is not as he said. Had it been as he said, a slave could take an oath with one witness, if he could find one, that his master had freed him.
"However, when a slave lays claim to a piece of property, he can take an oath with one witness and demand his right as the freeman demands his right."
Malik said, "The sunna with us is that when a slave brings somebody who witnesses that he has been set free, his master is made to take an oath that he has not freed him, and the slave's claim is dropped."
Malik said, "The sunna about divorce is also like that with us. When a woman brings somebody who witnesses that her husband has divorced her, the husband is made to take an oath that he has not divorced her. If he takes the oath, the divorce does not proceed . "
Malik said, "There is only one sunna of bringing a witness in cases of divorce and freeing a slave. The right to make an oath only belongs to the husband of the woman, and the master of the slave. Freeing is a hadd matter, and the testimony of women is not permitted in it because when a slave is freed, his inviolability is affirmed and the hadd punishments are applied for and against him. If he commits fornication and he is a muhsan, he is stoned. If he kills a slave, he is killed for it. Inheritance is established for him, between him and whoever inherits from him. If somebody disputes this, arguing that if a man frees his slave and then a man comes to demand from the master of the slave payment of a debt, and a man and two women testify to his right, that establishes the right against the master of the slave so that his freeing him is cancelled if he only has the slave as property, inferring by this case that the testimony of women is permitted in cases of setting free. The case is not as he suggests (i.e. it is a case of property not freeing). It is like a man who frees his slave, and then the claimant of a debt comes to the master and takes an oath with one witness, demanding his right. By that, the freeing of the slave would be cancelled. Or else a man comes who has frequent dealings and transactions with the master of the slave. He claims that he is owed money by the master of the slave. Someone says to the master of the slave, 'Take an oath that you don't owe what he claims'. If he draws back and refuses to take an oath, the one making the claim takes an oath and his right against the master of the slave is confirmed. That would cancel the freeing of the slave if it is confirmed that property is owed by the master."
Malik said, "It is the same case with a man who marries a slave-girl and then the master of the slave-girl comes to the man who has married her and claims, 'You and so-and-so have bought my slave-girl from me for such an amount of dinars. The husband of the slave-girl denies that. The master of the slave-girl brings a man and two women and they testify to what he has said. The sale is confirmed and his claim is considered true. So the slave-girl is haram for her husband and they have to separate, even though the testimony of women is not accepted in divorce."
Malik said, "It is also the same case with a man who accuses a free man, so the hadd falls on him. A man and two women come and testify that the one accused is a slave. That would remove the hadd from the accused after it had befallen him, even though the testimony of women is not accepted in accusations involving hadd punishments."
Malik said, "Another similar case in which judgement appears to go against the precedent of the sunna is that two women testify that a child is born alive and so it is necessary for him to inherit if a situation arises where he is entitled to inherit, and the child's property goes to those who inherit from him, if he dies, and it is not necessary that the two women witnesses should be accompanied by a man or an oath even though it may involve vast properties of gold, silver, live-stock, gardens and slaves and other properties. However, had two women testified to one dirham or more or less than that in a property case, their testimony would not affect anything and would not be permitted unless there was a witness or an oath with them."
Malik said, "There are people who say that an oath is not acceptable with only one witness and they argue by the word of Allah the Blessed, the Exalted, and His word is the Truth, 'And call in to witness two witnesses, men; or if the two be not men, then one man and two women, such witnesses as you approve of.' (Sura 2 ayat 282). Such people argue that if he does not bring one man and two women, he has no claim and he is not allowed to take an oath with one witness."
Malik said, "Part of the proof against those who argue this, is to reply to them, 'Do you think that if a man claimed property from a man, the one claimed from would not swear that the claim was false?' If he swears, the claim against him is dropped. If he refuses to take an oath, the claimant is made to take an oath that his claim is true, and his right against his companion is established. There is no dispute about this with any of the people nor in any country. By what does he take this? In what place in the Book of Allah does he find it? So if he confirms this, let him confirm the oath with one witness, even if it is not in the Book of Allah, the Mighty, the Majestic! It is enough that this is the precedent of the sunna. However, man wants to recognise the proper course of action and the location of the proof. In this there is a clarification for what is obscure about that, if Allah ta'ala wills."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 36, Hadith 7 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 36, Hadith 1411 |
| Grade: | Hasan (Darussalam)] (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Musnad Ahmad 656 |
| In-book reference | : Book 5, Hadith 92 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 8 |
| In-book reference | : Book 1, Hadith 8 |
| English translation | : Book 1, Hadith 8 |
Another chain reports a similar hadith.
| Grade: | Sahih (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Sunan Ibn Majah 2858 |
| In-book reference | : Book 24, Hadith 106 |
| English translation | : Vol. 4, Book 24, Hadith 2858 |
| Grade: | Sahih (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Sunan Ibn Majah 3956 |
| In-book reference | : Book 36, Hadith 31 |
| English translation | : Vol. 5, Book 36, Hadith 3956 |
Malik said, The best of what I have heard about a mukatab whose master frees him at death, is that the mukatab is valued according to what he would fetch if he were sold. If that value is less than what remains against him of his kitaba, his freedom is taken from the third that the deceased can bequeath. One does not look at the number of dirhams which remain against him in his kitaba. That is because had he been killed, his killer would not be in debt for other than his value on the day he killed him. Had he been injured, the one who injured him would not be liable for other than the blood-money of the injury on the day of his injury. One does not look at how much he has paid of dinars and dirhams of the contract he has written because he is a slave as long as any of his kitaba remains. If what remains in his kitaba is less than his value, only whatever of his kitaba remains owing from him is taken into account in the third of the property of the deceased. That is because the deceased left him what remains of his kitaba and so it becomes a bequest which the deceased made."
Malik said, "The illustration of that is that if the price of the mukatab is one thousand dirhams, and only one hundred dirhams remain of his kitaba, his master leaves him the one hundred dirhams which complete it for him. It is taken into account in the third of his master and by it he becomes free."
Malik said that if a man wrote his slave a kitaba at his death, the value of the slave was estimated. If there was enough to cover the price of the slave in one third of his property, that was permitted for him.
Malik said, "The illustration of that is that the price of the slave is one thousand dinars. His master writes him a kitaba for two hundred dinars at his death. The third of the property of his master is one thousand dinars, so that is permitted for him. It is only a bequest which he makes from one third of his property. If the master has left bequests to people, and there is no surplus in the third after the value of the mukatab, one begins with the mukatab because the kitaba is setting free, and setting free has priority over bequests. When those bequests are paid from the kitaba of the mukatab, they follow it. The heirs of the testator have a choice. If they want to give the people with bequests all their bequests and the kitaba of the mukatab is theirs, they have that. If they refuse and hand over the mukatab and what he owes to the people with bequests they can do that, because the third commences with the mukatab and because all the bequests which he makes are as one."
If the heirs then say, "What our fellow bequeathed was more than one third of his property and he has taken what was not his," Malik said, "His heirs choose. It is said to them, 'Your companion has made the bequests you know about and if you would like to give them to those who are to receive them according to the deceased's bequests, then do so. If not, hand over to the people with bequests one third of the total property of the deceased.' "
Malik continued, "If the heirs surrender the mukatab to the people with bequests, the people with bequests have what he owes of his kitaba. If the mukatab pays what he owes of his kitaba, they take that in their bequests according to their shares. If the mukatab cannot pay, he is a slave of the people with bequests and does not return to the heirs because they gave him up when they made their choice, and because when he was surrendered to the people with bequests, they were liable. If he died, they would not have anything against the heirs. If the mukatab dies before he pays his kitaba and he leaves property which is more than what he owes, his property goes to the people with bequests. If the mukatab pays what he owes, he is free and his wala' returns to the paternal relations of the one who wrote the kitaba for him."
Malik spoke about a mukatab who owed his master ten thousand dirhams in his kitaba, and when he died he remitted one thousand dirhams from it. He said, "The mukatab is valued and his value is taken into consideration. If his value is one thousand dirhams and the reduction is a tenth of the kitaba, that portion of the slave's price is one hundred dirhams. It is a tenth of the price. A tenth of the kitaba is therefore reduced for him. That is converted to a tenth of the price in cash. That is as if he had had all of what he owed reduced for him. Had he done that, only the value of the slave - one thousand dirhams - would have been taken into account in the third of the property of the deceased. If that which he had remitted is half of the kitaba, half the price is taken into account in the third of the property of the deceased. If it is more or less than that, it is according to this reckoning."
Malik said, "When a man reduces the kitaba of his mukatab by one thousand dirhams at his death from a kitaba of ten thousand dirhams, and he does not stipulate whether it is from the beginning or the end of his kitaba, each instalment is reduced for him by one tenth."
Malik said, "If a man remits one thousand dirhams from his mukatab at his death from the beginning or end of his kitaba, and the original basis of the kitaba is three thousand dirhams, the mukatab's cash value is estimated. Then that value is divided. That thousand which is from the beginning of the kitaba is converted into its portion of the price according to its proximity to the term and its precedence and then the thousand which follows the first thousand is according to its precedence also until it comes to its end, and every thousand is paid according to its place in advancing and deferring the term because what is deferred of that is less in respect of its price. Then it is placed in the third of the deceased according to whatever of the price befalls that thousand according to the difference in preference of that, whether it is more or less, then it is according to this reckoning."
Malik spoke about a man who willed a man a fourth of a mukatab or freed a fourth, and then the man died and the mukatab died and left a lot of property, more than he owed. He said, "The heirs of the first master and the one who was willed a fourth of the mukatab are given what they are still owed by the mukatab. Then they divide what is left over, and the one willed a fourth has a third of what is left after the kitaba is paid. The heirs of his master gets two-thirds. That is because the mukatab is a slave as long as any of his kitaba remains to be paid. He is inherited from by the possession of his person."
Malik said about a mukatab whose master freed him at death, "If the third of the deceased will not cover him, he is freed from it according to what the third will cover and his kitaba is decreased according to that. If the mukatab owed five thousand dirhams and his value is two thousand dirhams cash, and the third of the deceased is one thousand dirhams, half of him is freed and half of the kitaba has been reduced for him." Malik said about a man who said in his will, "My slave so-and-so is free and write a kitaba for so-and- so", that the setting free had priority over the kitaba.
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 39, Hadith 15 |
| Reference | : Sunan Ibn Majah 3930 |
| In-book reference | : Book 36, Hadith 4 |
| English translation | : Vol. 5, Book 36, Hadith 3930 |
| Grade: | Sahih (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Sunan Ibn Majah 4075 |
| In-book reference | : Book 36, Hadith 150 |
| English translation | : Vol. 5, Book 36, Hadith 4075 |
| صَحِيح (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 2555 |
| In-book reference | : Book 10, Hadith 49 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 8, Hadith 173 |
| English translation | : Book 8, Hadith 1120 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 8, Hadith 1109 |
When 'Amr bin 'Abasah (May Allah be pleased with him) narrated this Hadith to Abu Umamah (May Allah be pleased with him) a Companion of the Prophet (PBUH), the latter said to him, "Watch what you are saying. O 'Amr bin 'Abasah, a man will be getting all of this in one shot?" 'Amr (May Allah be pleased with him) replied, "O Abu Umamah, I have attained old age, my bones have become dry, my death is approaching and there is no need for me to tell lies concerning Allah and His Messenger (PBUH). Had I not heard this from the Messenger of Allah only once, twice, thrice (and he counted up to seven) I would never have reported it. Indeed I have heard this frequently".
[Muslim].
| Reference | : Riyad as-Salihin 438 |
| In-book reference | : Introduction, Hadith 438 |
| Grade: | Da'if (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Sunan Ibn Majah 4077 |
| In-book reference | : Book 36, Hadith 152 |
| English translation | : Vol. 5, Book 36, Hadith 4077 |
| Grade: | Sahih (Al-Albani) | صحيح (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Sunan Abi Dawud 1905 |
| In-book reference | : Book 11, Hadith 185 |
| English translation | : Book 10, Hadith 1900 |
'Abdullah added: I prepared a statement of his debts and they amounted to two million and two hundred thousand! Hakim bin Hizam met me and asked me: "Nephew, how much is due from my brother as debt?" I kept it as secret and said: "A hundred thousand." Hakim said: "By Allah! I do not think your assets are sufficient for the payment of these debts." I said: "What would you think if the amount were two million and two hundred thousand?" He said: "I do not think that you would be able to clear off the debts. If you find it difficult let me know."
Az-Zubair (May Allah bepleased with him) had purchased the land in Al-Ghabah for a hundred and seventy thousand. 'Abdullah sold it for a million and six hundred thousand, and declared that whosoever had a claim against Az-Zubair (May Allah bepleased with him) should see him in Al-Ghabah. 'Abdullah bin Ja'far (May Allah bepleased with him) came to him and said: "Az- Zubair (May Allah bepleased with him) owed me four hundred thousand, but I would remit the debt if you wish." 'Abdullah (May Allah bepleased with him) said: "No." Ibn Ja'far said: ''If you would desire for postponement I would postpone the recovery of it." 'Abdullah said: "No." Ibn Ja'far then said: "In that case, measure out a plot for me." 'Abdullah marked out a plot. Thus he sold the land and discharged his father's debt. There remained out of the land four and a half shares. He then visited Mu'awiyah who had with him at the time 'Amr bin 'Uthman, Al-Mundhir bin Az-Zubair and Ibn Zam'ah (May Allah bepleased with them). Mu'awiyah (May Allah bepleased with him) said: "What price did you put on the land in Al-Ghabah?" He said: "One hundred thousand for a each share. Mu'awiyah inquired: "How much of it is left?" 'Abdullah said: "Four and a half shares." Al-Mundhir bin Az-Zubair said: "I will buy one share for a hundred thousand". 'Amr bin 'Uthman said: "I will buy one share for a hundred thousand". Ibn Zam'ah said: "I will buy one share for a hundred thousand." Then Mu'awiyah asked: "How much of it is now left?" 'Abdullah said: "One and a half share. Mu'awiyah said: "I will take it for one hundred and fifty thousand." Later 'Abdullah bin Ja'far sold his share to Mu'awiyah for six hundred thousand.
When 'Abdullah bin Az-Zubair (May Allah bepleased with him) finished the debts, the heirs of Az-Zubair (May Allah bepleased with him) asked him to distribute the inheritance among them. He said: "I will not do that until I announce during four successive Hajj seasons: 'Let he who has a claim against Az-Zubair come forward and we shall discharge it."' He made this declaration on four Hajj seasons and then distributed the inheritance among the heirs of Az-Zubair (May Allah bepleased with him) according to his will. Az- Zubair (May Allah bepleased with him) had four wives. Each of them received a million and two hundred thousand. Thus Az-Zubair's total property was amounted to fifty million and two hundred thousand.
[Al-Bukhari]
| Reference | : Riyad as-Salihin 202 |
| In-book reference | : Introduction, Hadith 202 |
[Muslim].
| Reference | : Riyad as-Salihin 1808 |
| In-book reference | : Book 18, Hadith 1 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 958 |
| In-book reference | : Book 41, Hadith 7 |
| English translation | : Book 41, Hadith 958 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 1135 |
| In-book reference | : Book 45, Hadith 19 |
| English translation | : Book 45, Hadith 1135 |
Qatadah (the Tabi'ee in the chain) would narrate after this hadith that Anas (ra) said "Those who said 'La illaha illa Allah' (there is no god except Allah) and had the weight of a grain of barley in good in his heart will come out of the Fire, and those who said 'La illaha illa Allah' and had a weight of a grain of wheat in good in his heart will come out of the Fire, and those who said 'La illaha illa Allah' and had a weight of a grain of dust in good in his heart will come out of the Fire."
| Grade: | Sahih (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Sunan Ibn Majah 4312 |
| In-book reference | : Book 37, Hadith 213 |
| English translation | : Vol. 5, Book 37, Hadith 4312 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 11, Hadith 11 |
| English translation | : Book 11, Hadith 1308 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 11, Hadith 1281 |
* It appears that the speaker is Ja’far bin Muhammad who is narrating from his father, from Jabir.
**And they say that the meaning if ‘your furniture’ or, ‘your special place’ in which case the objective is to say that the wife is not to admit anyone in the house whom the husband would be displeased with.
***Sakharat plural of Sakhrah rock or boulder. Nawawi said: “They are the rocks that lay at the base of the Mount of Mercy, and it is the mount in the middle of ‘Arafat.”
| Grade: | Sahih (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Sunan Ibn Majah 3074 |
| In-book reference | : Book 25, Hadith 193 |
| English translation | : Vol. 4, Book 25, Hadith 3074 |