Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that Umm Hakim bint al-Harith ibn Hisham who was the wife of Ikrima ibn Abi Jahl became muslim on the day of the conquest of Makka, and her husband Ikrima fled from Islam as far as the Yemen. Umm Hakim set out after him until she came to him in the Yemen and she called him to Islam, and he became muslim. He went to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in the year of the conquest. When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saw him, he rushed to him in joy and did not bother to put on his cloak until he had made the pledge with him. They were confirmed in their marriage.

Malik said, "If a man becomes muslim before his wife, a separation occurs between them when he presents Islam to her and she does not become muslim, because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'Do not hold fast to the ties of women who are kafirun.' "

[Muslim].

My husband, Aws ibn as-Samit, pronounced the words: You are like my mother. So I came to the Messenger of Allah (saws), complaining to him about my husband.

The Messenger of Allah (saws) disputed with me and said: Remain dutiful to Allah; he is your cousin.

I continued (complaining) until the Qur'anic verse came down: "Certainly has Allah heard the speech of the one who argues with you, [O Muhammad], concerning her husband..." [58:1] till the prescription of expiation.

He then said: He should set free a slave. She said: He cannot afford it. He said: He should fast for two consecutive months. She said: Messenger of Allah, he is an old man; he cannot keep fasts. He said: He should feed sixty poor people. She said: He has nothing which he may give in alms. At that moment an araq (i.e. date-basket holding fifteen or sixteen sa's) was brought to him.

I said: I shall help him with another date-basked ('araq). He said: You have done well. Go and feed sixty poor people on his behalf, and return to your cousin. The narrator said: An araq holds sixty sa's of dates.

Abu Dawud said: She atoned on his behalf without seeking his permission.

Abu Dawud said: This man (Aws b. al-Samit) is the brother of 'Ubadah b. al-Samit.

Malik said, "The imam does not come down and prostrate when he recites a piece of Qur'an requiring a prostration while he is on the mimbar."

Malik said, "The position with us is that there are eleven prescribed prostrations in the Qur'an, none of which are in the mufassal."

Malik said, "No-one should recite any of the pieces of Qur'an that require a prostration after the prayers of subh and asr. This is because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade prayer after subh until after the sun had risen, and after asr until the sun had set, and prostration is part of the prayer. So no-one should recite any piece of Qur'an requiring a prostration during these two periods of time."

Malik was asked whether a menstruating woman could prostrate if she heard some-one reciting a passage of Qur'an requiring a prostration, and he said, "Neither a man nor a woman should prostrate unless they are ritually pure."

Malik was asked whether a man in the company of a woman who was reciting a passage of Qur'an requiring a prostration should prostrate with her, and he said, "He does not have to prostrate with her. The prostration is only obligatory for people who are with a man who is leading them. He recites the piece and they prostrate with him. Some one who hears a piece of Qur'an that requires a prostration being recited by a man who is not leading him in prayer does not have to do the prostration."

Yahya related to me from Malik that Yahya ibn Said al-Ansari said that Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn al-Harith at-Taymi told him from Isa ibn Talha ibn Ubaydullah, fromUmayr ibn Salama ad-Damri, from al-Bahzi, that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, set out once for Makka while in ihram. When they had reached ar-Rawha, they unexpectedly came upon a wounded wild ass. Someone mentioned it to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and hesaid, "Leave it. The man to whom it belongs is about to come." Then al-Bahzi, who was the man, came to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said, "Messenger of Allah, do whatever you want with this ass,' and the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, told Abu Bakr to divide it up among the company. Then they went on until they came to the well of al-Uthaba, which was between ar-Ruwaytha and al-Arj (between Makka and Madina), where they unexpectedly came upon a gazelle with an arrow in it, Iying on its side in some shade. He claimed that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, told someone to stand by it to make sure no one disturbed it until everyone had passed by.

The people complained to the Messenger of Allah (saws) of the lack of rain, so he gave an order for a pulpit. It was then set up for him in the place of prayer. He fixed a day for the people on which they should come out.

Aisha said: The Messenger of Allah (saws), when the rim of the sun appeared, sat down on the pulpit, and having pronounced the greatness of Allah and expressed His praise, he said: You have complained of drought in your homes, and of the delay in receiving rain at the beginning of its season. Allah has ordered you to supplicate Him has and promised that He will answer your prayer.

Then he said: Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Universe, the Compassionate, the Merciful, the Master of the Day of Judgment. There is no god but Allah Who does what He wishes. O Allah, Thou art Allah, there is no deity but Thou, the Rich, while we are the poor. Send down the rain upon us and make what Thou sendest down a strength and satisfaction for a time.

He then raised his hands, and kept raising them till the whiteness under his armpits was visible. He then turned his back to the people and inverted or turned round his cloak while keeping his hands aloft. He then faced the people, descended and prayed two rak'ahs.

Allah then produced a cloud, and the storm of thunder and lightning came on. Then the rain fell by Allah's permission, and before he reached his mosque streams were flowing. When he saw the speed with which the people were seeking shelter, he (saws) laughed till his back teeth were visible.

Then he said: I testify that Allah is Omnipotent and that I am Allah's servant and apostle.

Abu Dawud said: This is a ghraib (rate) tradition, but its chain is sound. The people of Medina recite "maliki" (instead of maaliki) yawm al-din" (the master of the Day of Judgement). But this tradition (in which the word maalik occurs) is an evidence for them.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar said that there was no harm in a man making an advance to another man for food, with a set description and price until a set date, as long as it was not in crops, or dates which had not begun to ripen.

Malik said, "The way of doing things among us concerning someone who makes an advance for foodstuffs at a known rate until a stated date, and the date arrives and he finds that there is not enough of what he was sold with the seller to fulfill his order, and so he revokes the sale, is that he must only take back the silver, gold, or price which he paid exactly. He does not buy anything else from the man for the same price until he has got back what he paid. That is because if he took something else besides the price which he paid him or exchanged it for goods other than the goods which he bought from him, it would be selling food before getting delivery of it."

Malik said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade selling food before getting delivery of it."

Malik said that it was not good if the buyer regretted his purchase and asked the seller to revoke the sale for him and he would not press him immediately for what he had paid. The people of knowledge forbade that. That was because when the food was made ready for the buyer by the seller, the buyer deferred his due from the seller in order that he might revoke the sale for him. That was the sale of food with delayed terms before taking delivery of the food.

Malik said, "The explanation of that is that when the date of delivery comes and the buyer dislikes the food, the seller takes by it money to be paid later and so it is not revocation. Revocation is that in which neither the buyer nor the seller is increased. When increase occurs by deferment of payment for a time period, or by anything which increases one of them over the other or anything which gives one of them profit, it is not revocation. When either of them do that, revocation becomes a sale. There is an indulgence for revocation, partnership, and transfer, as long as i ncrease, decrease, or deferment does not come into them. If increase, decrease, or deferment comes into it, it becomes a sale. Whatever makes a sale halal makes it halal and whatever makes a sale haram makes it haram."

Malik said, "If someone pays in advance for Syrian wheat, there is no harm if he takes a load after the term falls due."

Malik said, "It is the same with whoever advances for any kind of thing. There is no harm in him taking better than whatever he has made an advance for or worse than it after the agreed delivery date. The explanation of that is that if, for instance, a man advances for a certain weight of wheat. There is no harm if he decides to take some barley or Syrian wheat. If he has made an advance for good dates, there is no harm if he decides to take poor quality dates. If he paid in advance for red raisins, there is no harm if he takes black ones, when it happens after the agreed delivery date, and when the measure of what he takes is like the measure of what he paid for in advance."

Malik related to me that he heard that Urwa ibn az-Zubayr and Sulayman ibn Yasar when asked whether the sons of a man, who had a kitaba written for himself and his children and then died, worked for the kitaba of their father or were slaves, said, "They work for the kitaba of their father and they have no reduction at all for the death of their father."

Malik said, "If they are small and unable to work, one does not wait for them to grow up and they are slaves of their father's master unless the mukatab has left what will pay their instalments for them until they can work. If there is enough to pay for them in what he has left, that is paid for on their behalf and they are left in their condition until they can work, and then if they pay, they are free. If they cannot do it, they are slaves."

Malik spoke about a mukatab who died and left property which was not enough to pay his kitaba, and he also left a child with him in his kitaba and an umm walad, and the umm walad wanted to work for them. He said, "The money is paid to her if she is trustworthy with it and strong enough to work. If she is not strong enough to work and not trustworthy with property, she is not given any of it and she and the children of the mukatab revert to being slaves of the master of the mukatab."

Malik said, "If people are written together in one kitaba and there is no kinship between them, and some of them are incapable and others work until they are all set free, those who worked can claim from those who were unable, the portion of what they paid for them because some of them assumed the responsibility for others."

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that once in the time of Uthman ibn Affan the new moon had been seen in the afternoon and Uthman did not break his fast until evening had come and the sun had set.

Yahya said that he had heard Malik say that some one who sees the new moon of Ramadan when he is on his own should start the fast and not break it if he knows that that day is part of Ramadan. He added, "Some one who sees the new moon of Shawwal when he is on his own does not break the fast, because people suspect the reliability of someone among them who breaks the fast. Such people should say, when they sight the new moon, 'We have seen the new moon.' Whoever sees the new moon of Shawwal during the day should not break his fast but should continue fasting for the rest of that day. This is because it is really the new moon of the night that is coming ."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "If people are fasting on the day of Fitr thinking that it is still Ramadan and then definite evidence comes to them that the new moon of Ramadan had been seen one day before they began to fast and that they are now into the thirty- first day, then they should break the fast on that day at whatever time the news comes to them. However, they do not pray the id prayer if they hear the news after the sun has begun to decline."

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."

Malik related to me that Zayd ibn Aslam said, "Usury in the Jahiliyya was that a man would give a loan to a man for a set term. When the term was due, he would say, 'Will you pay it off or increase me?' If the man paid, he took it. If not, he increased him in his debt and lengthened the term for him ."

Malik said, "The disapproved of way of doing things about which there is no dispute among us, is that a man should give a loan to a man for a term, and then the demander reduce it and the one from whom it is demanded pay it in advance. To us that is like someone who delays repaying his debt after it is due to his creditor and his creditor increases his debt." Malik said, "This is nothing else but usury. No doubt about it."

Malik spoke about a man who loaned one hundred dinars to a man for two terms. When it was due, the person who owed the debt said to him, "Sell me some goods, whose price is one hundred dinars in cash for one hundred and fifty on credit." Malik said, "This transaction is not good, and the people of knowledge still forbid it."

Malik said, "This is disapproved of because the creditor himself gives the debtor the price of what the man sells him, and he defers repayment of the hundred of the first transaction for the debtor for the term which is mentioned to him in the second transaction, and the debtor increases him with fifty dinars for his deferring him. That is disapproved of and it is not good. It also resembles the hadith of Zayd ibn Aslam about the transactions of the people of the Jahiliyya. When their debts were due, they said to the person with the debt, 'Either you pay in full or you increase it.' If they paid, they took it, and if not they increased debtors in their debts, and extended the term for them."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Said ibn Abi Said al-Maqburi that Ubayd ibn Jurayj once said to Abdullah ibn Umar, "Abu Abd ar- Rahman, I have seen you doing four things which I have never seen any of your companions doing." He said, "What are they, Ibn Jurayj?" and he replied, "I have seen you touching only the twoYamani corners, I have seen you wearing hairless sandals, I have seen you using yellow dye, and, when you were at Makka and everybody had started doing talbiya after seeing the new moon, I saw that you did not do so until the eighth of Dhu'l-Hijja."

Abdullah ibn Umar replied, "As for the corners, I only ever saw the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, touching the two Yamani corners. As for the sandals, I saw the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, wearing hairless sandals and doing wudu in them, and I like wearing them. As for using yellow dye, I saw the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, using it, and I also like to use it for dyeing things with. As for doing talbiya, I never saw the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, begin doing so until he had set out on the animal he was riding on (i.e. for Mina and Arafa)."

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."

Yahya related to me from Abd ar-Rahman ibn al-Qasim, from his father that A'isha, umm al-muminin, said, "We set out with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in the year of the farewell hajj and we went into ihram for umra. Afterwards, the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'Whoever has a sacrificial animal with him should go into ihram for hajj and umra together, and he should not leave ihram without leaving ihram for both of them at the same time.' "

She continued "I was menstruating when I got to Makka, so I did not do tawaf of the House or say between Safa and Marwa. I complained to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and he said, 'Undo your hair and comb it and leave the umra and go back into ihram for the hajj.' "

She said, "I did so, and when we had completed the hajj, the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, sent me with Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr as-Siddiq to at-Tanim and I performed an umra and he said, 'This is in place of your umra.' "

"Those who had entered ihram for the umra did tawaf of the House and say between Safa and Marwa, then left ihram. Then they did another tawaf after returning from Mina for their hajj, whereas those who entered ihram for the hajj or combined the hajj and the umra, only did one tawaf."

Yahya related the same as that to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az-Zubayr from A'isha.

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."

Malik said, "The best of what is said about a man who buys the mukatab of a man is that if the man wrote the slave's kitaba for dinars or dirhams, he does not sell him unless it is for merchandise which is paid immediately and not deferred, because if it is deferred, it would be a debt for a debt. A debt for a debt is forbidden."

He said, "If the master gives a mukatab his kitaba for certain merchandise of camels, cattle, sheep, or slaves, it is more correct that the buyer buy him for gold, silver, or different goods than the ones his master wrote the kitaba for, and that must be paid immediately, not deferred."

Malik said, "The best of what I have heard about a mukatab when he is sold is that he is more entitled to buy his kitaba than the one who buys him if he can pay his master the price for which he was sold in cash. That is because his buying himself is his freedom, and freedom has priority over what bequests accompany it. If one of those who have written the kitaba for the mukatab sells his portion of him, so that a half, a third, a fourth, or whatever share of the mukatab is sold, the mukatab does not have the right of pre-emption in what is sold of him. That is because it is like the severance of a partner, and a partner can only make a settlement for a partner of the one who is mukatab with the permission of his partners because what is sold of him does not give him complete rights as a free man and his property is barred from him, and by buying part of himself, it is feared that he will become incapable of completing payment because of what he had to spend. That is not like the mukatab buying himself completely unless whoever has some of the kitaba remaining due to him gives him permission. If they give him permission, he is more entitled to what is sold of him."

Malik said, "Selling one of the instalments of a mukatab is not halal. That is because it Is an uncertain transaction. If the mukatab cannot pay it, what he owes is nullified. If he dies or goes bankrupt and he owes debts to people, then the person who bought his instalment does not take any of his portion with the creditors. The person who buys one of the instalments of the mukatab is in the position of the master of the mukatab. The master of the mukatab does not have a share with the creditors of the mukatab for what he is owed of the kitaba of his slave. It is also like that with the kharaj, (a set amount deducted daily from the slave against his earnings), which accumulates for a master from the earnings of his slave. The creditors of his slave do not allow him a share for what has accumulated for him from those deductions."

Malik said, "There is no harm in a mukatab paying off his kitaba with coin or merchandise other than the merchandise for which he wrote his kitaba if it is identical with it, on time (for the instalment) or delayed. "

Malik said that if a mukatab died and left an umm walad and small children by her or by someone else and they could not work and it was feared that they would be unable to fulfil their kitaba, the umm walad of the father was sold if her price would pay all the kitaba for them, whether or not she was their mother. They were paid for and set free because their father did not forbid her sale if he feared that he would be unable to complete his kitaba. If her price would not pay for them and neither she nor they could work, they all reverted to being slaves of the master.

Malik said, "What is done among us in the case of a person who buys the kitaba of a mukatab, and then the mukatab dies before he has paid his kitaba, is that the person who bought the kitaba inherits from him. If, rather than dying, the mukatab cannot pay, the buyer has his person. If the mukatab pays his kitaba to the person who bought him and he is freed, his wala' goes to the person who wrote the kitaba and the person who bought his kitaba does not have any of it."

Yahya said that Malik said, concerning two associates, "If they share one herdsman, one male animal, one pasture and one watering place then the two men are associates, as long as each one of them knows his own property from that of his companion If someone cannot tell his property apart from that of his fellow, he is not an associate, but rather, a co-owner "

Malik said, "It is not obligatory for both associates to pay zakat unless both of them have a zakatable amount (of livestock). If, for instance, one of the associates has forty or more sheep and goats and the other has less than forty sheep and goats, then the one who has forty has to pay zakat and the one who has less does not. If both of them have a zakatable amount (of livestock) then both of them are assessed together (i.e the flock is assessed as one) and both of them have to pay zakat. If one of them has a thousand sheep, or less, that he has to pay zakat on, and the other has forty, or more, then they are associates, and each one pays his contribution according to the number of animals he has - so much from the one with a thousand, and so much from the one with forty.

Malik said, "Two associates in camels are the same as two associates in sheep and goats, and, for the purposes of zakat, are assessed together if each one of them has a zakatable amount (of camels). That is because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'There is no zakat on less than five head of camels,' and Umar ibn al-Khattab said, 'On grazing sheep and goats, if they come to forty or more - one ewe.' "

Yahya said that Malik said, "This is what I like most out of what I have heard about the matter."

Malik said that when Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "Those separated should not be gathered together nor should those gathered together be separated in order to avoid paying zakat," what he meant was the owners of livestock.

Malik said, "What he meant when he said, 'Those separated should not be gathered together' is, for instance, that there is a group of three men, each of whom has forty sheep and goats, and each of whom thus has to pay zakat. Then, when the zakat collector is on his way ,they gather their flocks together so that they only owe one ewe between them. This they are forbidden to do. What he meant when he said, 'nor should those gathered together be separated,' is, for instance, that there are two associates, each one of whom has a hundred and one sheep and goats, and each of whom must therefore pay three ewes. Then, when the zakat collector is on his way, they split up their flocks so that they only have to pay one ewe each. This they are forbidden to do. And so it is said, 'Those separated should not be gathered together nor should those gathered together be separated in order to avoid paying zakat.' "

Malik said, "This is what I have heard about the matter."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu Layla ibn Abdullah ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Sahl from Sahl ibn Abi Hathma that some of the great men of his people informed him that Abdullah ibn Sahl and Muhayyisa went out to Khaybar because extreme poverty had overtaken them. Muhayyisa returned and said that Abdullah ibn Sahl had been killed and thrown in a shallow well or spring. The jews came and he said, "By Allah! You have killed him." They said, "By Allah! We have not killed him!" Then he made for his people and mentioned that to them. Then he, his brother Huwayyisa, who was older than him, and Abd ar-Rahman, set out. Muhayyisa began to speak, as he had been at Khaybar. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to him, "The greater first, the greater first," meaning in age. So Huwayyisa spoke and then Muhayyisa spoke. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Either they pay your companion's blood-money or we will declare war against them." The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, wrote that to them and they wrote, "By Allah, we did not kill him!" The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to Huwayyisa, Muhayyisa, and Abd ar-Rahman, "Do you swear and claim the blood of your companion?" They said, "No." He said, "Shall the jews swear to you?" They said, "But they are not muslims." The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave blood-money from his own property, and sent them one hundred camels to their house.

Sahl added, "A red camel among them kicked me."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Hisham ibn Urwa from his father fromYahyaibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Ha ib that he had set off for Mumra with Umar ibn al-Khattab in a party of riders, among whom was Amr ibn al-As. Umar ibn al-Khattab dismounted for a rest late at night on a certain road near a certain oasis. Umar had a wet dream when it was almost dawn and there was no water among the riding party. He rode until he came to some water and then he began to wash off what he saw of the semen until it had gone. Amr ibn al-As said to him, "It is morning and there are clothes with us, so allow your garment to be washed. ''Umar ibn al-Khattab said to him, "I am surprised at you, Amr ibn al-As! Even if you could find clothes, would everybody be able to find them? By Allah, if I were to do it, it would become a sunna. No, I wash what I see, and I sprinkle with water what I do not see."

Malik spoke about a man who found traces of a wet dream on his clothes and did not know when it had occurred and did not remember anything he had seen in his sleep. He said, "Let the intention of his ghusl be from the time when he last slept, and if he has prayed since that last sleep he should repeat it. This is because often a man has a wet dream and sees nothing, and often he sees something but does not have an emission. But, if he finds liquid on his garment he must do ghusl. This is because Umar repeated what he had prayed after the time he had last slept and not what was before it."