On his father's authority, said that his grandfather reported: Rabab ibn Hudhayfah married a woman and three sons were born to him from her. Their mother then died. They inherited her houses and had the right of inheritance of her freed slaves.

Amr ibn al-'As was the agnate of her sons. He sent them to Syria where they died. Amr ibn al-'As then came. A freed slave of hers died and left some property. Her brothers disputed with him and brought the case to Umar ibn al-Khattab.

Umar reported the Messenger of Allah (saws) as saying: Whatever property a son or a father receives as an heir will go to his agnates, whoever they may be. He then wrote a document for him, witnessed by AbdurRahman ibn Awf, Zayd ibn Thabit and one other person. When AbdulMalik became caliph, they presented the case to Hisham ibn Isma'il or Isma'il ibn Hisham (the narrator is doubtful).

He sent them to 'Abd al-Malik who said: This is the decision which I have already seen.

The narrator said: So he ('Abd al-Malik) made the decision on the basis of the document of Umar ibn al-Khattab, and that is still with us till this moment.

The Prophet (saws) said: Musaddad's version has: He addressed on the day of Conquest. The agreed version then goes: Beware! Every object of pride of pre-Islamic times, whether it is blood-vengeance or property, mentioned or claimed, has been put under my feet except supply of water to the pilgrims and custody of the House (the Ka'bah). He then said: Beware! The blood-wit for unintentional murder, such as is done with a whip and stick, is one hundred camels, forty of which are pregnant.

Malik said, "The generally agreed upon way of doing things among us is that maternal half-siblings do not inherit anything when there are children or grandchildren through sons, male or female. They do not inherit anything when there is a father or the father's father. They inherit in what is outside of that. If there is only one male or female, they are given a sixth. If there are two, each of them has a sixth. If there are more than that, they share in a third which is divided among them. The male does not have portion of two females. That is because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, says in His Book, 'If a man or woman has no direct heir, and he has a brother or sister, by the mother, each of them has a sixth. If there are more than two, they share equally in a third.' " (Sura 4 ayat 12).

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."

`Abdur Rahman bin Abi Bakr said, "The Suffa Companions were poor people and the Prophet said, 'Whoever has food for two persons should take a third one from them (Suffa companions). And whosoever has food for four persons he should take one or two from them' Abu Bakr took three men and the Prophet took ten of them." `Abdur Rahman added, my father my mother and I were there (in the house). (The sub-narrator is in doubt whether `Abdur Rahman also said, 'My wife and our servant who was common for both my house and Abu Bakr's house). Abu Bakr took his supper with the Prophet and remained there till the `Isha' prayer was offered. Abu Bakr went back and stayed with the Prophet till the Prophet took his meal and then Abu Bakr returned to his house after a long portion of the night had passed. Abu Bakr's wife said, 'What detained you from your guests (or guest)?' He said, 'Have you not served them yet?' She said, 'They refused to eat until you come. The food was served for them but they refused." `Abdur Rahman added, "I went away and hid myself (being afraid of Abu Bakr) and in the meantime he (Abu Bakr) called me, 'O Ghunthar (a harsh word)!' and also called me bad names and abused me and then said (to his family), 'Eat. No welcome for you.' Then (the supper was served). Abu Bakr took an oath that he would not eat that food. The narrator added: By Allah, whenever any one of us (myself and the guests of Suffa companions) took anything from the food, it increased from underneath. We all ate to our fill and the food was more than it was before its serving. Abu Bakr looked at it (the food) and found it as it was before serving or even more than that. He addressed his wife (saying) 'O the sister of Bani Firas! What is this?' She said, 'O the pleasure of my eyes! The food is now three times more than it was before.' Abu Bakr ate from it, and said, 'That (oath) was from Satan' meaning his oath (not to eat). Then he again took a morsel (mouthful) from it and then took the rest of it to the Prophet. So that meal was with the Prophet. There was a treaty between us and some people, and when the period of that treaty had elapsed the Prophet divided us into twelve (groups) (the Prophet's companions) each being headed by a man. Allah knows how many men were under the command of each (leader). So all of them (12 groups of men) ate of that meal."

We set out along with the Prophet during the year of (the battle of) Hunain, and when we faced the enemy, the Muslims (with the exception of the Prophet and some of his companions) retreated (before the enemy). I saw one of the pagans over-powering one of the Muslims, so I struck the pagan from behind his neck causing his armor to be cut off. The pagan headed towards me and pressed me so forcibly that I felt as if I was dying. Then death took him over and he released me. Afterwards I followed `Umar and said to him, "What is wrong with the people?" He said, "It is the Order of Allah." Then the Muslims returned (to the battle after the flight) and (after overcoming the enemy) the Prophet sat and said, "Whoever had killed an Infidel and has an evidence to this issue, will have the Salb (i.e. the belonging of the deceased e.g. clothes, arms, horse, etc)." I (stood up) and said, "Who will be my witness?" and then sat down. Then the Prophet repeated his question. Then the Prophet said the same (for the third time). I got up and said, "Who will be my witness?" and then sat down. The Prophet asked his former question again. So I got up. The Prophet said, What is the matter, O Abu Qatada?" So I narrated the whole story; A man said, "Abu Qatada has spoken the truth, and the Salb of the deceased is with me, so please compensate Abu Qatada on my behalf." Abu Bakr said, "No! By Allah, it will never happen that the Prophet will leave a Lion of Allah who fights for the Sake of Allah and His Apostle and give his spoils to you." The Prophet said, "Abu Bakr has spoken the truth. Give it (the spoils) back to him (O man)!" So he gave it to me and I bought a garden in (the land of) Banu Salama with it (i.e. the spoils) and that was the first property I got after embracing Islam.

When it was the day of (the battle of) Hunain, I saw a Muslim man fighting with one of the pagans and another pagan was hiding himself behind the Muslim in order to kill him. So I hurried towards the pagan who was hiding behind the Muslim to kill him, and he raised his hand to hit me but I hit his hand and cut it off. That man got hold of me and pressed me so hard that I was afraid (that I would die), then he knelt down and his grip became loose and I pushed him and killed him. The Muslims (excepting the Prophet and some of his companions) started fleeing and I too, fled with them. Suddenly I met `Umar bin Al-Khattab amongst the people and I asked him, "What is wrong with the people?" He said, "It is the order of Allah" Then the people returned to Allah's Apostle (after defeating the enemy). Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever produces a proof that he has killed an infidel, will have the spoils of the killed man." So I got up to look for an evidence to prove that I had killed an infidel, but I could not find anyone to bear witness for me, so I sat down. Then it came to my mind (that I should speak of it) and I mentioned the case to Allah's Apostle. A man from the persons who were sitting with him (i.e. the Prophet), said, "The arms of the deceased one whom he ( i.e. Abu Qatada) has mentioned, are with me, so please compensate him for it (i.e. the spoils)," Abu Bakr said, "No, Allah's Apostle will not give it (i.e. the spoils) to a weak humble person from Quraish and leave one of Allah's Lions who fights on behalf of Allah and His Apostle." Allah's Apostle then got up and gave that (spoils) to me, and I bought with it, a garden which was the first property I got after embracing Islam.

When the Hawazin delegation came to Allah's Apostle after they had embraced Islam and requested him to return their properties and war prisoners to them, Allah's Apostle said, "To me the best talk is the truest, so you may choose either of two things; the war prisoners or the wealth, for I have delayed their distribution." Allah's Apostle had waited for them for over ten days when he returned from Ta'if. So, when those people came to know that Allah's Apostle was not going to return to them except one of the two things the said, "We choose our war Prisoners 'Allah's Apostle stood up amongst the Muslims, and after glorifying Allah as He deserved, he said, "Now then, these brothers of yours have come to us with repentance, and I see it logical that I should return their captives to them, so whoever of you likes to do that as a favor then he can do it, and whoever amongst you likes to stick to his share, let him give up his prisoners and we will compensate him from the very first Fai' (i.e. war booty received without fight) which Allah will give us." On that, all the people said. 'O Allah's Apostles We have agreed willingly to do so (return the captives)" Then Allah's Apostle said to them "I do not know who amongst you has agreed to this and who has not. You should return and let your leaders inform me of your agreement." The people returned and their leaders spoke to them, and then came to Allah's Apostle and said, "All the people have agreed willingly to do so and have given the permission to return the war prisoners (without Compensation)" (Az-Zuhri, the sub-narrator states) This is what has been related to us about the captives of Hawazin.

We set out in the company of Allah's Apostle on the day (of the battle) of Hunain. When we faced the enemy, the Muslims retreated and I saw a pagan throwing himself over a Muslim. I turned around and came upon him from behind and hit him on the shoulder with the sword He (i.e. the pagan) came towards me and seized me so violently that I felt as if it were death itself, but death overtook him and he released me. I followed `Umar bin Al Khattab and asked (him), "What is wrong with the people (fleeing)?" He replied, "This is the Will of Allah," After the people returned, the Prophet sat and said, "Anyone who has killed an enemy and has a proof of that, will posses his spoils." I got up and said, "Who will be a witness for me?" and then sat down. The Prophet again said, "Anyone who has killed an enemy and has proof of that, will possess his spoils." I (again) got up and said, "Who will be a witness for me?" and sat down. Then the Prophet said the same for the third time. I again got up, and Allah's Apostle said, "O Abu Qatada! What is your story?" Then I narrated the whole story to him. A man (got up and) said, "O Allah's Apostle! He is speaking the truth, and the spoils of the killed man are with me. So please compensate him on my behalf." On that Abu Bakr As-Siddiq said, "No, by Allah, he (i.e. Allah's Apostle ) will not agree to give you the spoils gained by one of Allah's Lions who fights on the behalf of Allah and His Apostle." The Prophet said, "Abu Bakr has spoken the truth." So, Allah's Apostle gave the spoils to me. I sold that armor (i.e. the spoils) and with its price I bought a garden at Bani Salima, and this was my first property which I gained after my conversion to Islam.

Yahya related that Malik heard al-Ala ibn Abd ar-Rahman say, "Sadaqa does not decrease property, and Allah only increases a slave in worth for his restraint, and no slave is humble but that Allah raises him."

Malik said, "I do not know whether this hadith goes back to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or not."