[Al- Bukhari].
فأقبلوا واستأذنوا، فأذن لهم وأخذوا مجالسهم من البيت قال:" يا أبا هر" قلت: لبيك يا رسول الله قال: " خذ فأعطهم" قال: فأخذت القدح، فجعلت أعطيه الرجل فيشرب حتى يروى، ثم يرد علي القدح، فأعطيه الآخر فيشرب حتى يروى، ثم يرد علي القدح حتى انتيهت إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وقد روي القوم كلهم، فأخذ القدح فوضعه على يده، فنظر إلي فتبسم، فقال: " أبا هر" قلت: لبيك يا رسول الله، قال: " بقيت أنا وأنت" قلت: صدقت يا رسول الله، قال: " اقعد ...
| Reference | : Riyad as-Salihin 501 |
| In-book reference | : Introduction, Hadith 501 |
Malik said, "There is no harm in buying dates from specified trees or a specified orchard or buying milk from specified sheep when the buyer starts to take them as soon as he has payed the price. That is like buying oil from a container. A man buys some of it for a dinar or two and gives his gold and stipulates that it be measured out for him. There is no harm in that. If the container breaks and the oil is wasted, the buyer has his gold back and there is no transaction between them."
Malik said, "There is no harm in everything which is taken right away as it is, like fresh milk and fresh picked dates which the buyer can take on a day-to-day basis. If the supply runs out before the buyer has what he has paid for in full, the seller gives him back the portion of the gold that is owed to him, or else the buyer takes other goods from him to the value of what he is owed and which they mutually agree about. The buyer should stay with the seller until he has taken it. It is disapproved of for the seller to leave because the transaction would then come into the forbidden category of a debt for a debt. If a stated time period for payment or delivery enters into the transaction, it is also disapproved. Delay and deferment are not permitted in it, and are only acceptable when it is standard practice on definite terms by which the seller guarantees it to the buyer, but this is not to be from one specific orchard or from any specific ewes."
Malik was asked about a man who bought an orchard from another man in which there were various types of palm-trees - excellent ajwa palms, good kabis palms, adhq palms and othertypes. The seller kept aside from the sale the produce of a certain palm of his choice. Malik said, "That is not good because if he does that, and keeps aside, for instance, dates of the ajwa variety whose yield would be 15 sa, and he picks the dates of the kabis in their place, and the yield of their dates is 10 sa or he picks the ajwa which yield 15 sa and leaves the kabis which yield 10 sa, it is as if he bought the ajwa for the kabis making allowances for their difference of quality. This is the same as if a man dealing with a man who has heaps of dates before him - a heap of 15 sa of ajwa, a heap of 10 sa of kabis, and a heap of 12 sa of cadhq, gives the owner of the dates a dinar to let him choose and take whichever of the heaps he likes." Malik said, "That is not good."
Malik was asked what a man who bought fresh dates from the owner of an orchard and advanced him a dinar was entitled to if the crop was spoilt. Malik said, "The buyer makes a reckoning with the owner of the orchard and takes what is due to him of the dinar. If the buyer has taken two-thirds of a dinar's worth of dates, he gets back the third of a dinar which is owed him. If the buyer has taken three-quarters of a dinar's worth of dates, then he gets back the quarter which is owed to him, or they come to a mutual agreement, and the buyer takes what is owed him from his dinar from the owner of the orchard in something else of his choosing. If, for instance, he prefers to take dry dates or some other goods, he takes them according to what is due. If he takes dry dates or some other goods, he should stay with him until he has been paid in full."
Malik said, "This is the same situation as hiring out a specified riding-camel or hiring out a slave tailor, carpenter or some other kind of worker or letting a house and taking payment in advance for the hire of the slave or the rent of the house or camel. Then an accident happens to what has been hired resulting in death or something else. The owner of the camel, slave or house returns what remains of the rent of the camel, the hire of the slave or the rent of the house to the one who advanced him the money, and the owner reckons what will settle that up in full. If, for instance, he has provided half of what the man paid for, he returns the remaining half of what he advanced, or according to whatever amount is due." Malik said, "Paying in advance for something which is on hand is only good when the buyer takes possession of what he has paid for as soon as he hands over the gold, whether it be slave, camel, or house, or in the case of dates, he starts to pick them as soon as he has paid the money."
It is not good that there be any deferment or credit in such a transaction.
Malik said, "An example illustrating what is disapproved of in this situation is that, for instance, a man may say that he will pay someone in advance for the use of his camel to ride in the hajj, and the hajj is still some time off, or he may say something similar to that about a slave or a house. When he does that, he only pays the money in advance on the understanding that if he finds the camel to be sound at the time the hire is due to begin, he will take it by virtue of what he has already paid. If an accident, or death, or something happens to the camel, then he will get his money back and the money he paid in advance will be considered as a loan."
Malik said, "This is distinct from someone who takes immediate possession of what he rents or hires, so that it does not fall into the category of 'uncertainty,' or disapproved payment in advance. That is following a common practice. An example of that is that a man buys a slave, or slave-girl, and takes possession of them and pays their price. If something happens to them within the period of the year indemnification contract, he takes his gold back from the one from whom he bought it. There is no harm in that. This is the precedent of the sunna in the matter of selling slaves."
Malik said, "Someone who rents a specified slave, or hires a specified camel, for a future date, at which time he will take possession of the camel or slave, has not acted properly because he did not take possession of what he rented or hired, nor is he advancing a loan which the person is responsible to pay back."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 31, Hadith 26 |
[Muslim].
| Reference | : Riyad as-Salihin 1808 |
| In-book reference | : Book 18, Hadith 1 |
| Grade: | Hasan (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2953b |
| In-book reference | : Book 47, Hadith 5 |
| English translation | : Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 2953 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 30, Hadith 25 |
| English translation | : Book 26, Hadith 0 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 30, Hadith 6003 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 9, Hadith 11 |
| English translation | : Book 9, Hadith 1209 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 9, Hadith 1179 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 754 |
| In-book reference | : Book 33, Hadith 1 |
| English translation | : Book 33, Hadith 754 |
Yahya said that Malik related from Muhammad ibn Umara from Abu Bakr ibn Hazm that Uthman ibn Affan said, "When boundaries are fixed in land, there is no pre-emption in it. There is no pre-emption in a well or in male palm trees. "
Malik said, "This is what is done in our community."
Malik said, "There is no pre-emption in a road, whether or not it is practical to divide it."
Malik said, "What is done in our community is that there is no pre- emption in the courtyard of a house, whether or not it is practical to divide it."
Malik spoke about a man who bought into a shared property provided that he had the option of withdrawal and the partners of the seller wanted to take what their partner was selling by pre-emption before the buyer had exercised his option. Malik said, "They cannot do that until the buyer has taken possession and the sale is confirmed for him. When the sale is confirmed, they have the right of pre-emption."
Malik spoke about a man who bought land and it remained in his hands for some time. Then a man came and saw that he had a share of the land by inheritance. Malik said, "If the man's right of inheritance is established, he also has a right of preemption. If the land has produced a crop, the crop belongs to the buyer until the day when the right of the other is established, because he has tended what was planted against being destroyed or being carried away by a flood."
Malik continued, "If the time has been long, or the witnesses are dead or the seller has died, or the buyer has died, or they are both alive and the basis of the sale and purchase has been forgotten because of the length of time, pre- emption is discontinued. A man only takes his right by inheritance which has been established for him. If his situation differs from this, because the sale transaction is recent and he sees that the seller has concealed the price in order to sever his right of pre- emption, the value of the land is estimated, and he buys the land for that price by his right of pre-emption. Then the buildings, plants, or structures which are extra to the land are looked at, so he is in the position of some one who bought the land for a known price, and then after that built on it and planted. The owner of pre-emption takes possession after that is included."
Malik said, "Pre-emption is applied to the property of the deceased as it is applied to the property of the living. If the family of the deceased fear to break up the property of the deceased, then they share it and sell it, and they have no pre-emption in it."
Malik said, "There is no pre- emption among us in a slave or a slave-girl or a camel, a cow, sheep, or any animal, nor in clothes or a well which does not have any uncultivated land around it. Pre-emption is in what can be usefully divided, and in land in which boundaries occur. As for what cannot be usefully divided, there is no pre-emption in it."
Malik said, "Some one who buys land in which people who are present have a right of pre-emption, refers them to the Sultan and either they claim their right or the Sultan surrenders it to him. If he were to leave them, and not refer their situation to the Sultan and they knew about his purchase, and then they left it until a long time had passed and then came demanding their pre-emption, I do not think that they would have it."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 35, Hadith 4 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 35, Hadith 1401 |
| صَحِيح (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 3964 |
| In-book reference | : Book 19, Hadith 176 |
| مُتَّفق عَلَيْهِ (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 5494 |
| In-book reference | : Book 27, Hadith 115 |
| Grade: | Sahih (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2477 |
| In-book reference | : Book 37, Hadith 63 |
| English translation | : Vol. 4, Book 11, Hadith 2477 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 10, Hadith 8 |
| English translation | : Book 10, Hadith 1251 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 10, Hadith 1212 |
| صَحِيح (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 5863 |
| In-book reference | : Book 29, Hadith 121 |
| مُتَّفق عَلَيْهِ (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 5864 |
| In-book reference | : Book 29, Hadith 122 |
| Grade: | Sahih (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Sunan Ibn Majah 4075 |
| In-book reference | : Book 36, Hadith 150 |
| English translation | : Vol. 5, Book 36, Hadith 4075 |
| مُتَّفَقٌ عَلَيْهِ (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 5572 |
| In-book reference | : Book 28, Hadith 48 |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 5862 |
| In-book reference | : Book 29, Hadith 120 |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 5482 |
| In-book reference | : Book 27, Hadith 103 |
Yahya said from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Bushayr ibn Yasar informed him that Abdullah ibn Sahl al-Ansari and Muhayyisa ibn Masud went out to Khaybar, and they separated on their various businesses and Abdullah ibn Sahl was killed. Muhayyisa, and his brother Huwayyisa and Abd ar-Rahman ibn Sahl went to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and Abd ar-Rahman began to speak before his brother. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "The older first, the older first.
Therefore Huwayyisa and then Muhayyisa spoke and mentioned the affair of Abdullah ibn Sahl. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to them, "Do you swear with fifty oaths and claim the blood-money of your companion or the life of the murderer?" They said, "Messenger of Allah, we did not see it and we were not present." The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Will you acquit the jews for fifty oaths?' They said, "Messenger of Allah, how can we accept the oaths of a people who are kafirun?"
Yahya ibn Said said, "Bushayr ibn Yasar claimed that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, paid the blood-money from his own property."
Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community and that which I heard from whoever I am content with, concerning the oath of qasama, and upon which the past and present imams agree, is that those who claim revenge begin with the oaths and swear. The oath for revenge is only obligatory in two situations. Either the slain person says, 'My blood is against so-and-so,' or the relatives entitled to the blood bring a partial proof of it that is not irrefutable against the one who is the object of the blood-claim. This obliges taking an oath on the part of those who claim the blood against those who are the object of the blood-claim. With us, swearing is only obliged in these two situations."
Malik said, "That is the sunna in which there is no dispute with us and which is still the behaviour of the people. The people who claim blood begin the swearings, whether it is an intentional killing or an accident."
Malik said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, began with Banu Harith in the case of the killing of their kinsman murdered at Khaybar."
Malik said, "If those who make the claim swear, they deserve the blood of their kinsman and whoever they swear against is slain. Only one man can be killed in the qasama. Two cannot be killed in it. Fifty men from the blood-relatives must swear fifty oaths. If their number is less or some of them draw back, they can repeat their oaths, unless one of the relatives of the murdered man who deserves blood and who is permitted to pardon it, draws back. If one of these draws back, there is no way to revenge."
Yahya said that Malik said, "The oaths can be made by those of them who remain if one of them draws back who is not permitted to pardon. If one of the blood-relatives draws back who is permitted to pardon, even if he is only one, more oaths can not be made after that by the blood- relatives. If that occurs, the oaths can be on behalf of the one against whom the claim is made. So fifty of the men of his people swear fifty oaths. If there are not fifty men, more oaths can be made by those of them who already swore. If there is only the defendant, he swears fifty oaths and is acquitted."
Yahya said that Malik said, "One distinguishes between swearing for blood and oaths for one's rights. When a man has a money-claim against another man, he seeks to verify his due. When a man wants to kill another man, he does not kill him in the midst of people. He keeps to a place away from people. Had there only been swearing in cases where there is a clear proof and had one acted in it as one acts about one's rights (i.e. needing witnesses), the right of blood retribution would have been lost and people would have been swift to take advantage of it when they learned of the decision on it. However, the relatives of the murdered man were allowed to initiate swearing so that people might restrain themselves from blood and the murderer might beware lest he was put into a situation like that (i.e. qasama) by the statement of the murdered man.' "
Yahya said, "Malik said about a people of whom a certain number are suspected of murder and the relatives of the murdered man ask them to take oaths and they are numerous, so they ask that each man swears fifty oaths on his own behalf. The oaths are not divided out between them according to their number and they are not acquitted unless each man among them swears fifty oaths on his own behalf."
Malik said, "This is the best I have heard about the matter."
He said, "Swearing goes to the paternal relatives of the slain. They are the blood-relatives who swear against the killer and by whose swearing he is killed."
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 44, Hadith 2 |
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 44, Hadith 2 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 44, Hadith 1600 |
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].
Another narration is: Jabir said: When the trench was being dug, I noticed the signs of hunger on the face of the Prophet (PBUH). I returned to my wife and said to her, "Have you got anything in the house? I have seen the signs of severe hunger on the face of Messenger of Allah (PBUH)." She brought out a bag which contained a Sa' (a measure that equals approximately 3kg.) of barley. We had a lamb which was reared in the home. I slaughtered the lamb and she ground the flour for baking bread. I then cut the meat and put it in the cooking pot. When I was returning to Messenger of Allah (PBUH), my wife said to me, "Do not embarass me before Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and his Companions." (She said this because she thought that the food would not be enough for everyone, for how can very little food cater for a thousand people?) When I came to him, I said to him in a low tone, "O Messenger of Allah (PBUH), we have slaughtered a small lamb and have ground a Sa' of barley. Please accompany me with a few of your Companions." Thereupon he (PBUH) announced in a loud voice, "O people of the Trench, Jabir has arranged a feast for you, so all of you are welcome." And addressing me he said, "Do not take the pot off the fire, nor bake the kneaded flour till I arrive." So I came home and he came ahead of the people. My wife said, "It will be a matter of disgrace for you (because there is not enough food)." I said, "I did only what you told me." She brought out the kneaded flour and Messenger of Allah (PBUH) spat into it, and invoked the blessing of Allah on it, and then he spat into the cooking pot and invoked the blessing of Allah on it. Then he said, "Call another woman to help bake bread and let her take out from the cooking pot, but do not take it off the fire." There were about a thousand guests. All of them ate till they left the food and went off. Our pot still bubbled as before and the dough was being baked as before.
وفي رواية: قال جابر: لما حفر الخندق رأيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم خمصاً، فانكفأت إلى امراتى فقلت: هل عندك شيء؛ فإني رأيت برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم خمصاً شديداً فأخرجت إلي جرابا فيه صاع من شعير، ولنا بهيمة داجن ...
| Reference | : Riyad as-Salihin 519 |
| In-book reference | : Introduction, Hadith 519 |
وَفِي رِوَايَةِ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ " فَيَقُولُونَ: هَذَا مَكَانُنَا حَتَّى يَأْتِيَنَا رَبُّنَا فَإِذَا جَاءَ رَبُّنَا عَرَفْنَاهُ " وَفِي رِوَايَةِ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ: " فَيَقُولُ هَلْ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُ آيَةٌ تَعْرِفُونَهُ؟ فَيَقُولُونَ: نَعَمْ فَيُكْشَفُ عَنْ سَاقٍ فَلَا يَبْقَى مَنْ كَانَ يَسْجُدُ لِلَّهِ مِنْ تِلْقَاءِ نَفْسِهِ إِلَّا أَذِنَ اللَّهُ لَهُ بِالسُّجُودِ وَلَا يَبْقَى مَنْ كَانَ يَسْجُدُ اتِّقَاءً وَرِيَاءً إِلَّا جَعَلَ ...
| مُتَّفَقٌ عَلَيْهِ, مُتَّفَقٌ عَلَيْهِ (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 5578, 5579 |
| In-book reference | : Book 28, Hadith 54 |
| Reference | : Hisn al-Muslim 107 |
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Said ibn al- Musayyab and Abu Salama ibn Abd ar-Rahman from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "The wound of an animal is of no account and no compensation is due for it. The well is of no account and no compensation is due for it. The mine is of no account and no compensation is due for it and a fifth is due for buried treasures." (Al-kanz:
Malik said, "Everyone leading an animal by the halter, driving it, and riding it is responsible for what the animal strikes unless the animal kicks out without anything being done to it to make it kick out. Umar ibn al-Khattab imposed the blood-money on a person who was exercising his horse."
Malik said, "It is more fitting that a person leading an animal by the halter, driving it, or riding it incur a loss than a person who is exercising his horse." (See hadith 4 of this book).
Malik said, "What is done in our community about a person who digs a well on a road or ties up an animal or does the like of that on a road used by muslims, is that since what he has done is included in that which he is not permitted to do in such a place, he is liable for whatever injury or other thing arises from that action. The blood-money of that which is less than a third of the full blood- money is owed from his own personal property. Whatever reaches a third or more, is owed by his tribe. Any such things that he does which he is permitted to do on the muslims' road are something for which he has no liability or loss. Part of that is a hole which a man digs to collect rain, and the beast from which the man alights for some need and leaves standing on the road. There is no penalty against anyone for this."
Malik spoke about a man who went down a well, and another man followed behind him, and the lower one pulled the higher one and they fell into the well and both died He said, "The tribe of the one who pulled him in is responsible for the blood-money."
Malik spoke about a child whom a man ordered to go down into a well or to climb a palm tree and he died as a result. He said, "The one who ordered him is liable for whatever befalls him, be it death or something else."
Malik said, "The way of doing things in our community about which there is no dispute is that women and children are not obliged to pay blood-money together with the tribe in the blood-moneys which the tribe must pay. The blood-money is only obligatory for a man who has reached puberty."
Malik said that the tribe could bind themselves to the blood-money of mawali if they wished. If they refused, they were people of the diwan or were cut off from their people. In the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, people paid the blood-money to each other as well as in the time of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq before there was a diwan. The diwan was in the time of Umar ibn al-Khattab. No one other than one's people and the ones holding the wala' paid blood- money for one because the wala' was not transferable and because the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "The wala' belongs to the one who sets free."
Malik said, "The wala' is an established relationship."
Malik said, "What is done in our community about animals that are injured is that the person who causes the injury pays whatever of their value has been diminished."
Malik said about a man condemned to death and one of the other hudud befell him, "He is not punished for it. That is because the killing overrides all of that, except for slander. The slander remains hanging over the one to whom it was said because it will be said to him, 'Why do you not flog the one who slandered you?' I think that the condemned man is flogged with the hadd before he is killed, and then he is killed. I do not think that any retaliation is inflicted on him for any injury except killing because killing overrides all of that."
Malik said, "What is done in our community is that when a murdered person is found among the main body of a people in a village or other place, the house or place of the nearest people to him is not responsible. That is because the murdered person can be slain and then cast at the door of some people to shame them by it. No one is responsible for the like of that."
Malik said about a group of people who fight with each other and when the fight is broken up, a man is found dead or wounded, and it is not known who did it, "The best of what is heard about that is that there is blood-money for him, and the blood-money is against the people who argued with him. If the injured or slain person is not from either of the two parties, his blood-money is against both of the two parties together."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 43, Hadith 12 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 43, Hadith 1592 |
Other chains report similar narrations.
| Grade: | Sahih (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2434 |
| In-book reference | : Book 37, Hadith 20 |
| English translation | : Vol. 4, Book 11, Hadith 2434 |
| Grade: | Hasan Isnād (Zubair `Aliza'i) |
| Reference | : Ash-Shama'il Al-Muhammadiyah 21 |
| In-book reference | : Book 2, Hadith 6 |
| 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 |
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 our community."
Malik said, "Pre- emption is shared between partners according to their existing shares. Each of them takes according to his portion. If it is small, he has little. If it is great, it is according to that. That is if they are tenacious and contend with each other about it."
Malik said, "As for a man who buys out the share of one of his partners, and one of the other partners says, 'I will take a portion according to my share,' and the first partner says, 'If you wish to take all the preemption, I will give it up to you. If you wish to leave it, then leave it.' If the first partner gives him the choice and hands it over to him, the second partner can only take all the pre-emption or give it back. If he takes it, he is entitled to it. If not, he has nothing."
Malik spoke about a man who bought land, and developed it by planting trees or digging a well etc., and then someone came, and seeing that he had a right in the land, wanted to take possession of it by pre-emption. Malik said "He has no right of preemption unless he compensates the other for his expenditure. If he gives him the price of what he has developed, he is entitled to pre- emption . If not, he has no right in it."
Malik said that someone who sold off his portion of a shared house or land and then, on learning that some one with a right of pre-emption was to take possession by that right, asked the buyer to revoke the sale, and he did so, did not have the right to do that. The pre-emptor has more right to the property for the price for which he sold it.
In the case of some one who bought along with a section of a shared house or land, an animal and goods (that were not shared), so that when any one demanded his right of pre-emption in the house or land he said, "Take what I have bought altogether, for I bought it altogether," Malik said, "The pre-emptor need only take possession of the house or land. Each thing the man bought is assessed according to its share of the lump sum the man paid. Then the pre-emptor takes possession of his right for a price which is appropriate on that basis. He does not take any animals or goods unless he wants to do that."
Malik said, "If someone sells a section of shared land, and one of those who have the right of preemption surrenders it to the buyer and another refuses to do other than take his pre-emption, the one who refuses to surrender has to take all the preemption, and he cannot take according to his right and leave what remains.
In the case where one of a number of partners in one house sold his share when all his partners were away except for one man, the one present was given the choice of either taking the pre-emption or leaving it, and he said, 'I will take my portion and leave the portions of my partners until they are present. If they take it, that is that. If they leave it, I will take all the pre-emption,' Malik said, 'He can only take it all or leave it. If his partners come, they can take from him or leave it as they wish. If this is offered to him and he does not accept, I think that he has no pre-emption.' "
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 35, Hadith 3 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 35, Hadith 1400 |
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 |
| Grade: | Sahih (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3340 |
| In-book reference | : Book 47, Hadith 392 |
| English translation | : Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3340 |
| Reference | : Riyad as-Salihin 1866 |
| In-book reference | : Book 18, Hadith 59 |
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 |
* 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 |