| Reference | : Hisn al-Muslim 93 |
| Reference | : Hisn al-Muslim 250 |
Yahya related to me from Malik from Yazid ibn Khusayfa that he had asked Sulayman ibn Yasar whether zakat was due from a man who had wealth in hand but also owed a debt for the same amount, and he replied, "No."
Malik said, "The position that we are agreed upon concerning a debt is that the lender of it does not pay zakat on it until he gets it back. Even if it stays with the borrower for a number of years before the lender collects it, the lender only has to pay zakat on it once. If he collects an amount of the debt which is not zakatable, and has other wealth which is zakatable, then what he has collected of the debt is added to the rest of his wealth and he pays zakat on the total sum."
Malik continued, "If he has no ready money other than that which he has collected from his debt, and that does not reach a zakatable amount, then he does not have to pay any zakat. He must, however, keep a record of the amount that he has collected and if, later, he collects another amount which, when added to what he has already collected, brings zakat into effect, then he has to pay zakat on it."
Malik continued, "Zakat is due on this first amount, together with what he has further collected of the debt owed to him, regardless of whether or not he has used up what he first collected. If what he takes back reaches twenty dinars of gold, or two hundred dirhams of silver he pays zakat on it. He pays zakat on anything else he takes back afte rthat, whether it be a large or small amount, according to the amount."
Malik said, "What shows that zakat is only taken once from a debt which is out of hand for some years before it is recovered is that if goods remain with a man for trading purposes for some years before he sells them, he only has to pay zakat on their prices once. This is because the one who is owed the debt, or owns the goods, should not have to take the zakat on the debt, or the goods, from anything else, since the zakat on anything is only taken from the thing itself, and not from anything else."
Malik said, "Our position regarding some onewho owes a debt, and has goods which are worth enough to pay off the debt, and also has an amount of ready money which is zakatable, is that he pays the zakat on the ready money which he has to hand. If, however, he only has enough goods and ready money to pay off the debt, then he does not have to pay any zakat. But if the ready money that he has reaches a zakatable amount over and above the amount of the debt that he owes, then he must pay zakat on it."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 17, Hadith 19 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 17, Hadith 598 |
Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Zurayq ibn Hayyan, who was in charge of Egypt in the time of al-Walid, Sulayman, and Umar ibn Abd al-'Aziz, mentioned that Umar ibn Abd al- Aziz had written to him saying, "Assess the muslims that you come across and take from what is apparent of their wealth and whatever merchandise is in their charge, one dinar for every forty dinars, and the same proportion from what is less than that down to twenty dinars, and if the amount falls short of that by one third of a dinar then leave it and do not take anything from it. As for the people of the Book that you come across, take from the merchandise in their charge one dinar for every twenty dinars, and the same proportion from what is less than that down to ten dinars, and if the amount falls short by one third of a dinar leave it and do not take anything from it. Give them a receipt for what you have taken f rom them until the same time next year."
Malik said, "The position among us (in Madina) concerning goods which are being managed for trading purposes is that if a man pays zakat on his wealth, and then buys goods with it, whether cloth, slaves or something similar, and then sells them before a year has elapsed over them, he does not pay zakat on that wealth until a year elapses over it from the day he paid zakat on it. He does not have to pay zakat on any of the goods if he does not sell them for some years, and even if he keeps them for a very long time he still only has to pay zakat on them once when he sells them."
Malik said, "The position among us concerning a man who uses gold or silver to buy wheat, dates, or whatever, for trading purposes and keeps it until a year has elapsed over it and then sells it, is that he only has to pay zakat on it if and when he sells it, if the price reaches a zakatable amount. This is therefore not the same as the harvest crops that a man reaps from his land, or the dates that he harvests from his palms."
Malik said, "A man who has wealth which he invests in trade, but which does not realise a zakatable profit for him, fixes a month in the year when he takes stock of what goods he has for trading, and counts the gold and silver that he has in ready money, and if all of it comes to a zakatable amount he pays zakat on it."
Malik said, "The position is the same for muslims who trade and muslims who do not. They only have to pay zakat once in any one year, whether they trade in that year or not."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 17, Hadith 20 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 17, Hadith 599 |
Yahya related to me from Malik from Thawr ibn Zayd ad-Dili from a son of Abdullah ibn Sufyan ath-Thaqafi from his grandfather Sufyan ibn Abdullah that Umar ibn al-Khattab once sent him to collect zakat. He used to include sakhlas (when assessing zakat), and they said, "Do you include sakhlas even though you do not take them (as payment)?" He returned to Umar ibn al-Khattab and mentioned that to him and Umar said, "Yes, you include a sakhla which the shepherd is carrying, but you do not take it. Neither do you take an akula, or a rubba, or a makhid, or male sheep and goats in their second and third years, and this is a just compromise between the young of sheep and goats and the best of them."
Malik said, "A sakhla is a newborn lamb or kid. A rubba is a mother that is looking after her offspring, a makhid is a pregnant ewe or goat, and an akula is a sheep or goat that is being fattened for meat."
Malik said, about a man who had sheep and goats on which he did not have to pay any zakat, but which increased by birth to a zakatable amount on the day before the zakat collector came to them, "If the number of sheep and goats along with their (newborn) offspring reaches a zakatable amount then the man has to pay zakat on them. That is because the offspring of the sheep are part of the flock itself. It is not the same situation as when some one acquires sheep by buying them, or is given them, or inherits them. Rather, it is like when merchandise whose value does not come to a zakatable amount is sold, and with the profit that accrues it then comes to a zakatable amount. The owner must then pay zakat on both his profit and his original capital, taken together. If his profit had been a chance acquisition or an inheritance he would not have had to pay zakat on it until one year had elapsed over it from the day he had acquired it or inherited it."
Malik said, "The young of sheep and goats are part of the flock, in the same way that profit from wealth is part of that wealth. There is, however, one difference, in that when a man has a zakatable amount of gold and silver, and then acquires an additional amount of wealth, he leaves aside the wealth he has acquired and does not pay zakat on it when he pays the zakat on his original wealth but waits until a year has elapsed over what he has acquired from the day he acquired it. Whereas a man who has a zakatable amount of sheep and goats, or cattle, or camels, and then acquires another camel, cow, sheep or goat, pays zakat on it at the same time that he pays the zakat on the others of its kind, if he already has a zakatable amount of livestock of that particular kind."
Malik said, "This is the best of what I have heard about this. "
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 17, Hadith 26 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 17, Hadith 604 |
86 Malik related to me from Musa ibn Maysara that he heard a man ask Said ibn al-Musayyab, "I am a man who sells for a debt." Said said, "Do not sell except for what you take to your camel."
Malik spoke about a person who bought goods from a man provided that he provide him with those goods by a specific date, either in time for a market in which he hoped for their saleability, or to fulfil a need at the time he stipulated. Then the seller failed him about the date, and the buyer wanted to return those goods to the seller. Malik said, "The buyer cannot do that, and the sale is binding on him. If the seller does bring the goods before the completion of the term, the buyer cannot be forced to take them."
Malik spoke about a person who bought food and measured it. Then some one came to him to buy it and he told him that he had measured it for himself and taken it in full. The new buyer wanted to trust him and accept his measure. Malik said, "Whatever is sold in this way for cash has no harm in it but whatever is sold in this way on delayed terms is disapproved of until the new buyer measures it out for himself. The sale with delayed terms is disapproved of because it leads to usury and it is feared that it will be circulated in this way without weight or measure. If the terms are delayed it is disapproved of and there is no disagreement about that with us."
Malik said, "One should not buy a debt owed by a man whether present or absent, without the confirmation of the one who owes the debt, nor should one buy a debt owed to a man by a dead person even if one knows what the deceased man has left. That is because to buy that is an uncertain transaction and one does not know whether the transaction will be completed or not completed."
He said, "The explanation of what is disapproved of in buying a debt owed by someone absent or dead, is that it is not known what unknown debtor may be connected to the dead person. If the dead person is liable for another debt, the price which the buyer gave on strength of the debt may become worthless."
Malik said, "There is another fault in that as well. He is buying something which is not guaranteed for him, and so if the deal is not completed, what he paid becomes worthless. This is an uncertain transaction and it is not good."
Malik said, "One distinguishes between a man who is only selling what he actually has and a man who is being paid in advance for something which is not yet in his possession. The man advancing the money brings his gold which he intends to buy with. The seller says, 'This is 10 dinars. What do you want me to buy for you with it?' It is as if he sold 10 dinars cash for 15 dinars to be paid later. Because of this, it is disapproved of. It is something leading to usury and fraud."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 31, Hadith 86 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 31, Hadith 1373 |
Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Marwan ibn al-Hakam wrote to Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan to mention to him that a drunkard was brought to him who had killed a man. Muawiya wrote to him to kill him in retaliation for the dead man.
Yahya said that Malik said, "The best of what I have heard on the interpretation of this ayat, the word of Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, 'The free man for the free man and the slave for the slave - these are men and the woman for the woman,' (Sura 2 ayat 178) is that retaliation is between women as it is between men. The free woman is killed for the free woman as the free man is killed for the free man. The slave-girl is slain for the slave-girl as the slave is slain for the slave. Retaliation is between women as it is between men. That is because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'We have written for them in it that it is a life for a life and an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds there is retaliation.' (Sura 5 ayat 48) Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, mentioned that it is a life for a life. It is the life of a free woman for the life of a free man, and her injury for his injury."
Malik said about a man who held a man fast for another man to hit, and he died on the spot, "If he held him and he thought that he meant to kill him, the two of them are both killed for him. If he held him and he thought that he meant to beat him as people sometimes do, and he did not think that he meant to kill him, the murderer is slain and the one who held him is punished with a very severe punishment and jailed for a year. There is no killing against him."
Malik said about a man who murdered a man intentionally or gouged out his eye intentionally, and then was slain or had his eye gouged out himself before retaliation was inflicted on him, "There is no blood-money nor retaliation against him. The right of the one who was killed or had his eye gouged out goes when the thing which he is claiming as retaliation goes. It is the same with a man who murders another man intentionally and then the murderer dies. When the murderer dies, the one seeking blood-revenge has nothing of blood- money or anything else. That is by the word of Allah, the Blessed the Exalted, 'Retaliation is written for you in killing. The free man for the free man and the slave for the slave.' "
Malik said, "He only has retaliation against the one who killed him. If the man who murdered him dies, he has no retaliation or blood-money."
Malik said, "There is no retaliation held against a free man by a slave for any injury. The slave is killed for the free man when he intentionally murders him. The free man is not slain for the slave, even if he murders him intentionally. It is the best of what I have heard."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 43, Hadith 15 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 43, Hadith 1596 |
Malik related to me that he had heard that Said ibn al-Musayyab was asked who had the wala' of the children whom a slave had by a free woman. Said said, "If their father dies and he is a slave who was not set free, their wala' belongs to the mawali of their mother."
Malik said, "That is like the child of a woman who is a mawla who has been divorced by lian; the child is attached to the mawali of his mother and they are his mawali. If he dies, they inherit from him. If he commits a crime, they pay the blood-money for him. If his father acknowledges him, he is given a kinship to him and his wala' goes to the mawali of his father. They are his heirs, they pay his blood-money and his father is punished with the hadd-punishment."
Malik said, "It is like that with a free-born woman divorced by lian. If her husband who curses her by lian does not acknowledge her child, the child is dealt with in the same way except that the rest of his inheritance after the inheritance of his mother and his brothers from his mother goes to all the muslims as long as he was not given kinship to his father. The child of the lian is attached to the patronage of the mawali of his mother until his father acknowledges him because he does not have a lineage or paternal relations. If his lineage is confirmed, it goes to his paternal relations."
Malik said, "The generally agreed-on way of doing things among us about a child of a slave by a free woman, while the father of the slave is free, is that the grandfather (the father of the slave), attracts the wala' of his son's free children by a free woman. They leave their inheritance to him as long as their father is a slave. If the father becomes free, the wala' returns to his mawali. If he dies and he is still a slave, the inheritance and the wala' go to the grandfather. If the slave has two free sons, and one of them dies while the father is still a slave, the grandfather, the father of the father, attracts the wala' and the inheritance."
Malik spoke about a slave-girl who was set free while she was pregnant and her husband was a slave and then her husband became free before she gave birth, or after she gave birth. He said, "The wala' of what is in her womb goes to the person who set the mother free because slavery touched the child before the mother was set free. It is not treated in the same way as a child conceived by its mother after she has been set free because the wala' of such a child, is attracted by the father when he is set free."
Malik said that if a slave asked his master's permission to free a slave of his and his master gave permission, the wala' of the freed slave went to the master of his master, and his wala' did not return to the master who had set him free, even if he were to become free himself."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 38, Hadith 21 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 38, Hadith 1487 |
| Grade: | Sahih (Darussalam) Muslim (8) (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Musnad Ahmad 184 |
| In-book reference | : Book 2, Hadith 101 |
`Abdullah bin Abi Mulaikah narrated… and he mentioned a hadeeth similar to that of Ayyoob, except that he said: ibn `Umar said to `Amr bin `Uthman, when he was facing him: Why don`t you tell them not to weep? For the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: `The deceased is tormented because of his family`s weeping for him.`
| Grade: | Sahih (Darussalam) [ al-Bukhari (1287) and Muslim (927,928) Sahih (Darussalam) [ (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Musnad Ahmad 288, 289 |
| In-book reference | : Book 2, Hadith 197 |
Yahya related to me from Malik from Humayd ibn Qays al-Makki from Tawus al Yamani that from thirty cows, Muadh ibn Jabal took one cow in its second year, and from forty cows, one cow in its third or fourth year, and when less than that (i.e. thirty cows) was brought to him he refused to take anything from it. He said, "I have not heard anything about it from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. When I meet him, I will ask him." But the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, died before Muadh ibn Jabal returned.
Yahya said that Malik said, "The best that I have heard about some one who has sheep or goats with two or more shepherds in different places is that they are added together and the owner then pays the zakat on them. This is the same situation as a man who has gold and silver scattered in the hands of various people. He must add it all u p and pay whatever zakat there is to pay on the sum total."
Yahya said that Malik said, about a man who had both sheep and goats, that they were added up together for the zakat to be assessed, and if between them they came to a number on which zakat was due, he paid zakat on them. Malik added, "They are all considered as sheep, and in Umar ibn al-Khattab's book it says, 'On grazing sheep and goats, if they come to forty or more, one ewe.' "
Malik said, "If there are more sheep than goats and their owner only has to pay one ewe, the zakat collector takes the ewe from the sheep. If there are more goats than sheep, he takes it from the goats. If there is an equal number of sheep and goats, he takes the ewe from whichever kind he wishes."
Yahya said that Malik said, "Similarly, Arabian camels and Bactrian camels are added up together in order to assess the zakat that the owner has to pay. They are all considered as camels. If there are more Arabian camels than Bactrians and the owner only has to pay one camel, the zakat collector takes it from the Arabian ones. If, however, there are more Bactrian camels he takes it from those. If there is an equal number of both, he takes the camel from whichever kind he wishes."
Malik said, "Similarly, cows and water buffaloes are added up together and are all considered as cattle. If there are more cows than water buffalo and the owner only has to pay one cow, the zakat collector takes it from the cows. If there are more water buffalo, he takes it from them. If there is an equal number of both, he takes the cow from whichever kind he wishes. So if zakat is necessary, it is assessed taking both kinds as one group."
Yahya said that Malik said, "No zakat is due from anyone who comes into possession of livestock, whether camels or cattle or sheep and goats, until a year has elapsed over them from the day he acquired them, unless he already had in his possession a nisab of livestock. (The nisab is the minimum amount on which zakat has to be paid, either five head of camels, or thirty cattle, or forty sheep and goats). If he already had five head of camels, or thirty cattle, or forty sheep and goats, and he then acquired additional camels, or cattle, or sheep and goats, either by trade, or gift, or inheritance, he must pay zakat on them when he pays the zakat on the livestock he already has, even if a year has not elapsed over the acquisition. And even if the additional livestock that he acquired has had zakat taken from it the day before he bought it, or the day before he inherited it, he must still pay the zakat on it when he pays the zakat on the livestock he already has "
Yahya said that Malik said, "This is the same situation as some one who has some silver on which he pays the zakat and then uses to buy some goods with from somebody else. He then has to pay zakat on those goods when he sells them. It could be that one man will have to pay zakat on them one day, and by the following day the other man will also have to pay."
Malik said, in the case of a man who had sheep and goats which did not reach the zakatable amount, and who then bought or inherited an additional number of sheep and goats well above the zakatable amount, that he did not have to pay zakat on all his sheep and goats until a year had elapsed over them from the day he acquired the new animals, whether he bought them or inherited them.This was because none of the livestock that a man had, whether it be camels, or cattle, or sheep and goats, was counted as a nisab until there was enough of any one kind for him to have to pay zakat on it. This was the nisab which is used for assessing the zakat on what the owner had additionally acquired, whether it were a large or small amount of livestock.
Malik said, "If a man has enough camels, or cattle, or sheep and goats, for him to have to pay zakat on each kind, and then he acquires another camel, or cow, or sheep, or goat, it must be included with the rest of his animals when he pays zakat on them "
Yahya said that Malik said, "This is what I like most out of what I heard about the matter."
Malik said, in the case of a man who does not have the animal required of him for the zakat, "If it is a two-year-old she-camel that he does not have, a three-year-old male camel is taken instead. If it is a three- or four- or five-year-old she-camel that he does not have, then he must buy the required animal so that he gives the collector what is due. I do not like it if the owner gives the collector the equivalent value."
Malik said, about camels used for carrying water, and cattle used for working water-wheels or ploughing, "In my opinion such animals are included when assessing zakat."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 17, Hadith 24 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 17, Hadith 603 |
Yahya related to me from Malik that Abu'z-Zinad informed him that a governor of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz took some people in battle and had not killed any of them. He wanted to cut off their hands or kill them, so he wrote to Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz about that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz wrote to him, "Better to take less than that."
Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done among us about a person who steals the goods of people which are placed under guard in the markets, and their owners put them in their containers and store them together is that if anyone steals any of that from where it is kept, and its value reaches that for which cutting off the hand is obliged, his hand must be cut off, whether or not the owner of the goods is with his goods and whether it is night or day."
Malik said about some one who stole something for which cutting off the hand was obliged and then what he stole was found with him and he returned it to its owner, "His hand is cut off."
Malik said, "If someon says, 'How can his hand be cut off when the goods have been taken from him and returned to their owner?', it is because he is in the same position as the wine drinker when the smell of the wine is found on his breath and he is not drunk. He is flogged with the hadd.
"The hadd is imposed for drinking wine even if it does not make the man intoxicated. That is because he drank it to become intoxicated. It is the same as that with cutting off the hand of the thief for theft when it is taken from him, even if he has not profited from it and it was returned to its owner. When he stole it, he stole it to take it away."
Malik said that if some people came to a house and robbed it together, and then they left with a sack or box or a board or basket or the like of that which they carried together, and when they took it out of its guarded place, they carried it together, and the price of what they took reached that for which cutting off the hand was obliged, and that was three dirhams and upwards, each of them had his hand cut off.
"If each of them takes out something by himself, whoever of them takes out something whose value reaches three dirhams and upwards must have his hand cut off. If any of them takes out something whose value does not reach three dirhams, he does not have his hand cut off."
Yahya said that Malik said, "What is done among us is that when a man's house is locked and he is the only one living in it, cutting off the hand is not obliged against the one who steals something from it until he takes it out of the house completely. That is because all of the house is a place of custody. If someone other than him lives in the house and each of them locks his door, and it is a place of custody for each of them, whoever steals anything from the apartments of that house must have his hand cut off when he leaves the apartment and goes into the main house. He has removed it from its place of custody to another place and he must have his hand cut off."
Malik said, "What is done in our community about a slave who steals from the property of his master is that if he is not in service and among those trusted in the house and he enters secretly and steals from his master something that for which cutting off the hand is obliged, his hand is not cut off. It is like that with a slave-girl when she steals from her master's property. Her hand is not cut off."
Malik then spoke about a slave who was not in service and not one of those trusted in the house, and he entered secretly and stole from the property of his master's wife that for which cutting off the hand was obliged. He said, "His hand is cut off."
"It is like that with the wife's slave-girl when she does not serve her or her husband nor is she trusted in the house and she enters secretly and steals from her mistress's property that for which cutting off the hand is obliged. Her hand is not cut off."
"It is like that with the wife's slave-girl who is not in her service and is not trusted in the house and she enters secretly and steals from the property of her mistress's husband something for which cutting off the hand is obliged. Her hand is cut off."
It is like that with the man who steals from his wife's goods or the wife who steals from her husband's goods something for which cutting off the hand is obliged. If the thing which one of them steals from his spouse's property is in a room other than the room which they both lock for themselves, or it is in a place of custody in a room other than the room which they are in, whichever of them steals something for which cutting off the hand is obliged, their hand should be cut off."
Malik spoke about a small child and a foreigner who does not speak clearly. He said, "If they are robbed of something from its place of custody or from under a lock, the one who stole it has his hand cut off. If the property is outside of its place of custody or locked room(when it is stolen), the one who robbed them does not have his hand cut off. It is then in the position of sheep stolen from the mountain and uncut fruit hanging on the trees "
Malik said, "What is done among us about a person who robs graves is that if what he takes from the grave reaches what cutting off the hand is obliged for, his hand is cut off . That is because the grave is a place of custody for what is in it just as houses are a place of custody for what is in them. "
Malik added, "Cutting off the hand is not obliged for him until he takes it out of the grave."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 41, Hadith 31 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 41, Hadith 1535 |
| Reference | : Hisn al-Muslim 77 |
| Grade: | Da'if Isnād (Zubair `Aliza'i) |
| Reference | : Ash-Shama'il Al-Muhammadiyah 378 |
| In-book reference | : Book 52, Hadith 9 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 1182 |
| In-book reference | : Book 48, Hadith 8 |
| English translation | : Book 48, Hadith 1182 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 1204 |
| In-book reference | : Book 49, Hadith 6 |
| English translation | : Book 49, Hadith 1204 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 5, Hadith 13 |
| English translation | : Book 5, Hadith 683 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 5, Hadith 662 |
| Reference | : Hisn al-Muslim 90 |
| Reference | : Hisn al-Muslim 143 |
Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab from Amir ibn Sad ibn Abi Waqqas that his father said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, came to me to treat me for a pain which became hard to bear in the year of the farewell hajj. I said, 'Messenger of Allah, you can see how far the pain has reached me. I have property and only my daughter inherits from me. Shall I give two thirds of my property as sadaqa?' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'No.' I said, 'Half?' He said, 'No.' Then the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'A third, and a third is a lot. Leaving your heirs rich is better than leaving them poor to beg from people. You never spend anything on maintenance desiring the Face of Allah by it, but that you are rewarded for it, even what you appoint for your wife.' Sad said, 'Messenger of Allah, will I be left here in Makka after my companions have departed for Madina?' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'If you are left behind, and do sound deeds you will increase your degree and elevation by them. Perhaps you will be left behind so that some people may benefit by you and others may be harmed by you. O Allah! complete their hijra for my companions, and do not turn them back on their heels. The unfortunate one is Said ibn Khawla.' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was distressed on his account for he had died at Makka."
Yahya said that he heard Malik speak about a man who willed a third of his property to a man and said as well, "My slave will serve so-and-so (another man) for as long as he lives, then he is free," then that was looked into, and the slave was found to be a third of the property of the deceased. Malik said, "The service of the slave is evaluated. Then the two of them divide it between them. The one who was willed a third takes his third, as a share, and the one who was willed the service of the slave takes what was evaluated for him of the slave's service. Each of them takes, from the service of the slave or from his wage if he has a wage, according to his share. If the one who was given the service of the slave for as long as he lived dies, then the slave is freed."
Yahya said that he heard Malik speak about someone who willed his third and said "So-and-so has such- and-such, and so-and-so has such-and-such," naming some of his property, and his heirs protested that it was more than a third." Malik said, "The heirs then have an option between giving the beneficiaries their full bequests and taking the rest of the property of the deceased, or between dividing among the beneficiaries the third of the property of the deceased and surrendering to them their third. If they wish, their rights in it reach as far as they reach."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 37, Hadith 4 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 37, Hadith 1461 |
| Reference | : Bulugh al-Maram 722 |
| In-book reference | : Book 6, Hadith 15 |
| English translation | : Book 6, Hadith 741 |
| Grade: | Sahih (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Sunan Ibn Majah 63 |
| In-book reference | : Introduction, Hadith 63 |
| English translation | : Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 63 |
Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafic from Abdullah ibn Umar that a man cursed his wife in the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and disowned her child. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, separated them and gave the child to the woman.
Malik said, "Allah the Blessed, the Exalted, said, 'The testimony of men who accuse their wives but do not have any witnesses except themselves is to testify by Allah four times that he is being truthful, and a fifth time, that the curse of Allah will be upon him, if he should be a liar. She will avoid punishment if she testifies by Allah four times that he is a liar, and a fifth time, that the wrath of Allah shall be upon her, if he should be telling the truth. ' "(Sura 24 ayat 6).
Malik said, "The sunna with us is that those who curse each other are never to be remarried. If the man calls himself a liar, (i.e. takes back his accusation), he is flogged with the hadd-punishment, and the child is given to him, and his wife can never return to him. There is no doubt or dispute about this sunna among us. "
Malik said, "If a man separates from his wife by an irrevocable divorce by which he cannot return to her, and then he denies the paternity of the child she is carrying, whilst she claims that he is the father, and it is possible by the timing, that he be so, he must curse her, and the child is not recognised as his."
Malik said, "That is what is done among us, and it is what I have heard from the people of knowledge."
Malik said that a man who accused his wife after he had divorced her trebly while she was pregnant, and he had at first accepted being the father but then claimed that he had seen her committing adultery before he separated from her, was flogged with the hadd-punishment, and did not curse her.
If he denied the paternity of her child after he had divorced her trebly, and he had not previously accepted it, then he cursed her.
Malik said, "This is what I have heard."
Malik said, "The slave is in the same position as the free man as regards making accusations and invoking mutual curses (lian). He acts in the lian as the free man acts although there is no hadd applied for slandering a female-slave."
Malik said, "The muslim slave-girl and the christian and jewish free woman also do lian when a free muslim marries one of them and has intercourse with her. That is because Allah - may He be blessed and Exalted, said in His Book, 'As for those who accuse their wives,' and they are their wives. This is what is done among us.
Malik said that a man who did the lian with his wife, and then stopped and called himself a liar after one or two oaths and he had not cursed himself in the fifth one, had to be flogged with the hadd-punishment, but they did not have to be separated.
Malik said that if a man divorced his wife and then after three months the woman said, "I am pregnant," and he denied paternity, then he had to do lian.
Malik said that the husband of a female slave who pronounced the lian on her and then bought her, was not to have intercourse with her, even if he owned her. The sunna which had been handed down about a couple who mutually cursed each other in the lian was that they were never to return to each other.
Malik said that when a man pronounced the lian against his wife before he had consummated the marriage, she only had half of the bride price.
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 29, Hadith 35 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 29, Hadith 1192 |
Yahya related to me from Malik from a reliable source from Amr ibn Shuayb from his father from his father's father that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade transactions in which nonrefundable deposits were paid.
Malik said, "That is, in our opinion, but Allah knows best, that for instance, a man buys a slave or slave-girl or rents an animal and then says to the person from whom he bought the slave or leased the animal, 'I will give you a dinar or a dirham or whatever on the condition that if I actually take the goods or ride what I have rented from you, then what I have given you already goes towards payment of the goods or hire of the animal. If I do not purchase the goods or hire the animal, then what I have given you is yours without liability on your part.' "
Malik said, "According to the way of doing things with us there is nothing wrong in bartering an arabic speaking merchant slave for abyssinian slaves or any other type that are not his equal in eloquence, trading, shrewdness, and know-how. There is nothing wrong in bartering one slave like this for two or more other slaves with a stated delay in the terms if he is clearly different. If there is no appreciable difference between the slaves, two should not be bartered for one with a stated delay in the terms even if their racial type is different."
Malik said, "There is nothing wrong in selling what has been bought in such a transaction before taking possession of all of it as long as you receive the price for it from some one other than the original owner."
Malik said, "An addition to the price must not be made for a foetus in the womb of its mother when she is sold because that is gharar (an uncertain transaction). It is not known whether the child will be male or female, good-looking or ugly, normal or handicapped, alive or dead. All these things will affect the price."
Malik said that in a transaction where a slave or slave-girl was bought for one hundred dinars with a stated credit period that if the seller regretted the sale there was nothing wrong in him asking the buyer to revoke it for ten dinars which he would pay him immediately or after a period and he would forgo his right to the hundred dinars which he was owed.
Malik said, "However, if the buyer regrets and asks the seller to revoke the sale of a slave or slave-girl in consideration of which he will pay an extra ten dinars immediately or on credit terms, extended beyond the original term, that should not be done. It is disapproved of because it is as if, for instance, the seller is buying the one hundred dinars which is not yet due on a year's credit term before the year expires for a slave-girl and ten dinars to be paid immediately or on credit term longer than the year. This falls into the category of selling gold for gold when delayed terms enter into it."
Malik said that it was not proper for a man to sell a slave-girl to another man for one hundred dinars on credit and then to buy her back for more than the original price or on a credit term longer than the original term for which he sold her. To understand why that was disapproved of in that case, the example of a man who sold a slave-girl on credit and then bought her back on a credit term longer than the original term was looked at. He might have sold her for thirty dinars with a month to pay and then buy her back for sixty dinars with a year or half a year to pay. The outcome would only be that his goods would have returned to him just like they were and the other party would have given him thirty dinars on a month's credit against sixty dinars on a year or half a year's credit. That was not to be done.
قَالَ مَالِكٌ: وَذلِكَ فِيمَا نُرَى - وَاللهُ أَعْلَمُ - أَنْ يَشْتَرِيَ الرَّجُلُ الْعَبْدَ، أَوِ الْوَلِيدَةَ. أَوْ يَتَكَارَى الدَّابَّةَ. ثُمَّ يَقُولُ لِلَّذِي اشْتَرَى مِنْهُ، أَوْ تَكَارَى مِنْهُ: أُعْطِيكَ دِينَاراً، أَوْ دِرْهَماً، أَوْ أَكْثَرَ مِنْ ذلِكَ، أَوْ أَقَلَّ. عَلَى أَنِّي إِنْ أَخَذْتُ السِّلْعَةَ، أَوْ رَكِبْتُ مَا تَكَارَيْتُ مِنْكَ، فَالَّذِي أَعْطَيْتُكَ هُوَ مِنْ ثَمَنِ السِّلْعَةِ. أَوْ مِنْ كِرَاءِ الدَّابَّةِ، وَإِنْ تَرَكْتُ ابْتِيَاعَ السِّلْعَةِ، أَوْ كِرَاءَ الدَّابَّةِ، فَمَا أَعْطَيْتُكَ لَكَ بَاطِلٌ بِغَيْرِ شَيْءٍ.
قَالَ مَالِكٌ: وَالْأَمْرُ عِنْدَنَا، أَنَّهُ لاَ بَأْسَ بِأَنْ يَبْتَاعَ الْعَبْدَ التَّاجِرَ الْفَصِيحَ، بِالْأَعْبُدِ مِنَ الْحَبَشَةِ، أَوْ مِنْ جِنْسٍ مِنَ الْأَجْنَاسِ، لَيْسُوا مِثْلَهُ فِي الْفَصَاحَةِ، وَلاَ فِي التِّجَارَةِ، وَالنَّفَاذِ، وَالْمَعْرِفَةِ. لاَ بَأْسَ بِهذَا، أَنْ يَشْتَرِيَ مِنْهُ الْعَبْدَ بِالْعَبْدَيْنِ، أَوْ بِالْأَعْبُدِ إِلَى أَجَلٍ مَعْلُومٍ. إِذَا اخْتَلَفَ، فَبَانَ اخْتِلاَفُهُ .فَإِنْ أَشْبَهَ بَعْضُ ذلِكَ بَعْضاً، حَتَّى يَتَقَارَبَ، فَلاَ تَأْخُذَنْ مِنْهُ اثْنَيْنِ بِوَاحِدٍ، إِلَى أَجَلٍ. وَإِنِ اخْتَلَفَتْ أَجْنَاسُهُمْ.
قَالَ مَالِكٌ: ...
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 31, Hadith 1 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 31, Hadith 1293 |
It was narrated that Ibn Ya’mar said: I asked Ibn `Umar-or a man asked him: We travel in this land and we meet people who say, There is no qadar (divine decree), Ibn `Umar said: If you meet those people, tell them that ‘Abdullah bin `Umar has nothing to do with them and they have nothing to do with him - he said it three times. Then he told us. Whilst we were with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), a man came and said: O Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), may I draw closer? He said: `Come closer.` So he came a little closer, then he said: O Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), may I come closer? He said: `Come closer.” So he came a little closer, then he said: O Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), may I come closer? He said: `Come closer.” So he came a little closer until his knees were almost touching the knees of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) . Then he said: O Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), what is faith? - and he mentioned a similar report.
| Grade: | Sahih (Darussalam), Muslim (8)] Sahih (Darussalam) [ like the previous report] (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Musnad Ahmad 374, 375 |
| In-book reference | : Book 2, Hadith 276 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 1024 |
| In-book reference | : Book 42, Hadith 61 |
| English translation | : Book 42, Hadith 1024 |
He then placed his hand on my forehead and passed it over my face and stomach and made this supplication. "O Allah, cure sad and completed his emigration." Ever since I have not ceased to sense the pleasant cool of his hand on my liver."
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 499 |
| In-book reference | : Book 29, Hadith 9 |
| English translation | : Book 29, Hadith 499 |
| Reference | : Hisn al-Muslim 68 |
وإذا أمسى قال: أَمْسَيْـنا وَأَمْسـى المُـلكُ للهِ رَبِّ العـالَمـين ، اللّهُـمَّ إِنِّـي أسْـأَلُـكَ خَـيْرَ هـذهِ اللَّـيْلَة ، فَتْحَهـا ، وَنَصْـرَهـا ، وَنـورَهـا وَبَـرَكَتَـهـا ، وَهُـداهـا ، وَأَعـوذُ بِـكَ مِـنْ شَـرِّ ما فـيهـاِ وَشَـرِّ ما بَعْـدَهـا
| Reference | : Hisn al-Muslim 89 |
On the authority of an-Nawas bin Sam’an (may Allah be pleased with him), that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
And on the authority of Wabisah bin Ma’bad (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: I came to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “You have come to ask about righteousness.” I said, “Yes.” He (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Consult your heart. Righteousness is that about which the soul feels at ease and the heart feels tranquil. And wrongdoing is that which wavers in the soul and causes uneasiness in the breast, even though people have repeatedly given their legal opinion [in its favour].”
A good hadeeth transmitted from the musnads of the two imams, Ahmed bin Hambal and Al- Darimi, with a good chain of authorities.
| Reference | : Hadith 27, 40 Hadith an-Nawawi |
Yahya related to me from Malik that Ibn Shihab said, "The first person to deduct zakat from allowances was Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan." (i.e. the deduction being made automatically) .
Malik said, "The agreed sunna with us is that zakat has to be paid on twenty dinars (of gold coin), in the same way as it has to be paid on two hundred dirhams (of silver)."
Malik said, "There is no zakat to pay on (gold) that is clearly less than twenty dinars (in weight) but if it increases so that by the increase the amount reaches a full twenty dinars in weight then zakat has to be paid. Similarly, there is no zakat to pay on (silver) that is clearly less than two hundred dirhams (in weight), but if it increases so that by the increase the amount reaches a full two hundred dirhams in weight then zakat has to be paid. If it passes the full weight then I think there is zakat to pay, whether it be dinars or dirhams." (i.e. the zakat is assessed by the weight and not the number of the coins.)
Malik said, about a man who had one hundred and sixty dirhams by weight, and the exchange rate in his town was eight dirhams to a dinar, that he did not have to pay any zakat. Zakat had only to be paid on twenty dinars of gold or two hundred dirhams.
Malik said, in the case of a man who acquired five dinars from a transaction or in some other way which he then invested in trade, that, as soon as it increased to a zakatable amount and then a year elapsed, he had to pay zakat on it, even if the zakatable amount was reached one day before or one day after the passing of a year. There was then no zakat to pay on it from the day the zakat was taken until a year had elapsed over it.
Malik said, in the similar case of a man who had in his possession ten dinars which he invested in trade and which reached twenty dinars by the time one year had elapsed over them, that he paid zakat on them right then and did not wait until a year had elapsed over them, (counting) from the day when they actually reached the zakatable amount. This was because a year had elapsed over the original dinars and there were now twenty of them in his possession. After that there was no zakat to pay on them from the day the zakat was paid until another year had elapsed over them.
Malik said, "What we are agreed upon (here in Madina) regarding income from hiring out slaves, rent from property, and the sums received when a slave buys his freedom, is that no zakat is due on any of it, whether great or small, from the day the owner takes possession of it until a year has elapsed over it from the day when the owner takes possession of it."
Malik said, in the case of gold and silver which was shared between two co-owners, that zakat was due from any one whose share reached twenty dinars of gold, or two hundred dirhams of silver, and that no zakat was due from anyone whose share fell short of this zakatable amount. If all the shares reached the zakatable amount and the shares were not equally divided, zakat was taken from each man according to the measure of his share. This applied only when the share of each man among them reached the zakatable amount, because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, "There is no zakat to pay on less than five awaq of silver."
Malik commented, "This is what I prefer most out of what I have heard about the matter."
Malik said, "When a man has gold and silver dispersed among various people he must add it all up together and then take out the zakat due on the total sum ."
Malik said, "No zakat is due from some one who acquires gold or silver until a year has elapsed over his acquisition from the day it became his."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 17, Hadith 7 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 17, Hadith 587 |
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].
The narration in Bukhari adds: Ibn 'Uyainah relates that a man from the Ansar told him that he had seen nine sons of this 'Abdullah, every one of whom had committed the Noble Qur'an to memory.
The narration of Muslim says: The son of Abu Talhah (May Allah be pleased with him) who was born of Umm Sulaim died. She (Umm Sulaim) said to the members of the family: "Do not tell Abu Talhah about his son until I mention it to him myself." Abu Talhah came (home) and she gave him supper. He ate and drank. She then beautified herself the best way she ever did and he slept with her. When she saw that he was satisfied after sexual intercourse with her, she said, "O Abu Talhah! If some people borrow something from another family and then (the members of the family) ask for its return, would they refuse to give it back to them." He said, "No". She said, "Then hope reward for your son". Abu Talhah got angry, and said; "You left me uninformed until I stained myself (with sexual intercourse) and then you told me about my son. "He went to Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and informed him about the matter. Thereupon Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "May Allah bless the night you spent together!" He (the narrator) said: She conceived. (One day) Messenger of Allah (PBUH) was in the course of a journey and she was along with him. When Messenger of Allah (PBUH) used to come back to Al-Madinah from a journey, he would not enter it (during the night). When the people came near Al- Madinah, she felt labour pains. He (Abu Talhah) remained with her and Messenger of Allah (PBUH) proceeded on. Abu Talhah said: "O Rubb, You know that I love to go along with Messenger of Allah (PBUH) when he goes out and enter along with him when he enters, and I have been detained as You see." Umm Sulaim then said: "O Abu Talhah, I do not feel (so much pain) as I was feeling earlier, so we better proceed on. So we proceeded on and she felt the labour of delivery as they reached (Al-Madinah). She gave birth to a male child. My mother said to me: "O Anas, none should suckle him until you go to Messenger of Allah (PBUH) tomorrow morning." The next morning I carried the baby with me to Messenger of Allah (PBUH), and narrated the rest of the story.
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].
وفى رواية لمسلم: مات ابن لأبي طلحة بن أم سليم ، فقالت لأهلها لا تحدثوا أبا طلحة بابنه حتى أكون أنا أحدثه، فجاء فقربت إليه عشاءً فأكل وشرب، ثم تصنعت له أحسن ما كانت تصنع قبل ذلك، فوقع بها، فلما أن رأت أنه قد شبع وأصاب منها قالت: يا أبا طلحة، أرأيت لو أن قوماً أعاروا عاريتهم أهل بيت فطلبوا عاريتهم، ألهم أن يمنعوهم؟ قال: لا، فقالت : فاحتسب ابنك. قال: فغضب، ثم قال: تركتني حتى إذا تلطخت أخبرتني بابني؟! فانطلق حتى أتى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فأخبره بما كان ، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم. "بارك الله في ليلتكما" قال: فحملت، قال وكان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في سفر وهي معه، وكان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا أتى المدينة من سفر لا يطرقها طروقاً فدنوا من المدينة، ...
| Reference | : Riyad as-Salihin 44 |
| In-book reference | : Introduction, Hadith 44 |
[Al- Bukhari and Muslim].
| Reference | : Riyad as-Salihin 1214 |
| In-book reference | : Book 8, Hadith 224 |
فَقَالَ : يَا رَسُولَ اَللَّهِ ! إِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَكَ بِهَا حَاجَةٌ فَزَوِّجْنِيهَا .
قَالَ : " فَهَلْ عِنْدكَ مِنْ شَيْءٍ ? " .
فَقَالَ : لَا , وَاَللَّهِ يَا رَسُولَ اَللَّهِ .
فَقَالَ : " اِذْهَبْ إِلَى أَهْلِكَ , فَانْظُرْ هَلْ تَجِدُ شَيْئًا ? " فَذَهَبَ , ثُمَّ رَجَعَ ?
فَقَالَ : لَا , وَاَللَّهِ يَا رَسُولَ اَللَّهِ، مَا وَجَدْتُ شَيْئًا.
فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اَللَّهِ - صلى الله عليه وسلم -" انْظُرْ وَلَوْ خَاتَمًا مِنْ حَدِيدٍ "، فَذَهَبَ، ثُمَّ رَجَعَ.
فَقَالَ : لَا وَاَللَّهِ , يَا رَسُولَ اَللَّهِ , وَلَا خَاتَمًا مِنْ حَدِيدٍ , وَلَكِنْ هَذَا إِزَارِي - قَالَ سَهْلٌ : مَالُهُ رِدَاءٌ - فَلَهَا نِصْفُهُ .
فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اَللَّهِ - صلى الله عليه وسلم -" مَا تَصْنَعُ بِإِزَارِكَ ? إِنْ لَبِسْتَهُ لَمْ يَكُنْ عَلَيْهَا مِنْهُ شَيْءٌ، وَإِنْ لَبِسَتْهُ لَمْ يَكُنْ عَلَيْكَ شَيْءٌ " فَجَلَسَ اَلرَّجُلُ , وَحَتَّى إِذَا طَالَ مَجْلِسُهُ ...
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 8, Hadith 13 |
| English translation | : Book 8, Hadith 986 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 8, Hadith 979 |
On the authority of Abu Najeeh al-’Irbaad ibn Saariyah (may Allah be pleased with him) who said:
It was related by at-Tirmidhi, who said that it was a good and sound hadeeth.
| Reference | : Hadith 28, 40 Hadith an-Nawawi |
Malik related to me that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a judgement about the mudabbar who did an injury. He said, "The master must surrender what he owns of him to the injured person. He is made to serve the injured person and recompense (in the form of service) is taken from him as the blood-money of the injury. If he completes that before his master dies, he reverts to his master."
Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community about a mudabbar who does an injury and then his master dies and the master has no property except him is that the third (allowed to be bequeathed) is freed, and then the blood-money for the in jury is divided into thirds. A third of the blood-money is against the third of him which was set free, and two-thirds are against the two-thirds which the heirs have. If they wish, they surrender what they have of him to the party with the injury, and if they wish, they give the injured person two-thirds of the blood-money and keep their portion of the slave. That is because that injury is a criminal action by the slave and it is not a debt against the master by which whatever setting free and tadbir the master had done would be abrogated. If there were a debt to people held against the master of the slave, as well as the criminal action of the slave, part of the mudabbar would be sold in proportion to the blood-money of the injury and according to the debt. Then one would begin with the blood-money which was for the criminal action of the slave and it would be paid from the price of the slave. Then the debt of his master would be paid, and then one would look at what remained after that of the slave. His third would b be set free, and two-thirds of him would belong to the heirs. That is because the criminal action of the slave is more important than the debt of his master. That is because, if the man dies and leaves a mudabbar slave whose value is one hundred and fifty dinars, and the slave strikes a free man on the head with a blow that lays open the skull, and the blood-money is fifty dinars, and the master of the slave has a debt of fifty dinars, one begins with the fifty dinars which are the blood-money of the head wound, and it is paid from the price of the slave. Then the debt of the master is paid. Then one looks at what remains of the slave, and a third of him is set free and two-thirds of him remain for the heirs. The blood-money is more pressing against his person than the debt of his master. The debt of his master is more pressing than the tadbir which is a bequest from the third of the property of the deceased. None of the tadbir is permitted while the master of the mudabbar has a debt which is not paid. It is a bequest. That is because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said, 'After any bequest that is made or any debt.' " (Sura 4 ayat 10)
Malik said, "If there is enough in the third property that the deceased can bequeath to free all the mudabbar, he is freed and the blood-money due from his criminal action is held as a debt against him which follows him after he is set free even if that blood-money is the full blood-money. It is not a debt on the master."
Malik spoke about a mudabbar who injured a man and his master surrendered him to the injured party, and then the master died and had a debt and did not leave any property other than the mudabbar, and the heirs said, "We surrender the mudabbar to the party," whilst the creditor said, "My debt exceeds that." Malik said that if the creditor's debt did exceed that at all , he was more entitled to it and it was taken from the one who owed the debt, according to what the creditor was owed in excess of the blood-money of the injury. If his debt did not exceed it at all, he did not take the slave.
Malik spoke about a mudabbar who did an injury and had property, and his master refused to ransom him. He said, "The injured party takes the property of the mudabbar for the blood-money of his injury. If there is enough to pay it, the injured party is paid in full for the blood-money of his injury and the mudabbar is returned to his master. If there is not enough to pay it, he takes it from the blood-money and uses the mudabbar for what remains of the blood-money."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 40, Hadith 7 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 40, Hadith 1502 |
[Muslim].
فبينما هو على ذلك إذ أتى على دابةٍ عظيمةٍ قد حبست الناس فقال: اليوم أعلم آلساحر أفضل أم الراهب أفضل؟ فآخذ حجراً فقال: اللهم إن كان أمر الراهب أحب إليك من أمر الساحر فاقتل هذه الدابة حتى يمضي الناس، فرماها فقتلها ومضى الناس، فأتى الراهب فأخبره. فقال له الراهب: أي بني أنت اليوم أفضل مني، قد بلغ أمرك ما أرى، وإنك ستبتلى، فإن ابتليت فلا تدل علي؛ وكان الغلام يبرئ الأكمه والأبرص، ويداوي الناس من سائر الأدواء. فسمع جليس للملك كان قد عمي، فأتاه بهدايا كثيرةٍ فقال: ما هاهُنا لك أجمع إن أنت شفيتنى، فقال: إني لا أشفي أحداً إنما يشفى الله تعالى، فإن آمنت بالله دعوت الله فشفاك، فآمن بالله تعالى فشفاه الله تعالى، فأتى الملك فجلس إليه كما كان يجلس فقال له الملك: من ردّ عليك بصرك؟ فقال: ربي قال: ولك رب غيري ؟( قال: ربي وربك الله، فأخذه فلم يزل يعذبه حتى دل على الغلام، فجئ بالغلام فقال له الملك: أى بني قد بلغ من سحرك ما تبرئ الأكمه والأبرص وتفعل وتفعل فقال: إني لا أشفي أحداً، إنما يشفي الله تعالى، فأخذه فلم يزل يعذبه ...
| Reference | : Riyad as-Salihin 30 |
| In-book reference | : Introduction, Hadith 30 |
| صَحِيح (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 2555 |
| In-book reference | : Book 10, Hadith 49 |
| Grade: | Da'if Isnād (Zubair `Aliza'i) |
| Reference | : Ash-Shama'il Al-Muhammadiyah 204 |
| In-book reference | : Book 30, Hadith 2 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 922 |
| In-book reference | : Book 40, Hadith 4 |
| English translation | : Book 40, Hadith 922 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 10, Hadith 8 |
| English translation | : Book 10, Hadith 1251 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 10, Hadith 1212 |
| Reference | : Hisn al-Muslim 79 |
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 |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 5475 |
| In-book reference | : Book 27, Hadith 96 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 740 |
| In-book reference | : Book 32, Hadith 137 |
| English translation | : Book 31, Hadith 740 |
رواه البخاري
| Reference | : Hadith 13, 40 Hadith Qudsi |
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 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 222 |
| In-book reference | : Book 11, Hadith 2 |
| English translation | : Book 11, Hadith 222 |
| Grade: | Sahih (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3318 |
| In-book reference | : Book 47, Hadith 370 |
| English translation | : Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3318 |