| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 1143 |
| In-book reference | : Book 46, Hadith 8 |
| English translation | : Book 46, Hadith 1143 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 7, Hadith 12 |
| English translation | : Book 7, Hadith 793 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 7, Hadith 790 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 679 |
| In-book reference | : Book 31, Hadith 76 |
| English translation | : Book 31, Hadith 679 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 688 |
| In-book reference | : Book 31, Hadith 85 |
| English translation | : Book 31, Hadith 688 |
| Reference | : Bulugh al-Maram 565 |
| In-book reference | : Book 3, Hadith 33 |
| English translation | : Book 3, Hadith 589 |
فِيهِ اَلَّذِي قَبْلَهُ وَمَا أَشْبَهَهُ
قَالَ : "هِيَ لَكَ , أَوْ لِأَخِيكَ , أَوْ لِلذِّئْبِ " .
قَالَ : فَضَالَّةُ اَلْإِبِلِ ?
قَالَ : " مَا لَكَ وَلَهَا ? مَعَهَا سِقَاؤُهَا وَحِذَاؤُهَا , تَرِدُ اَلْمَاءَ , وَتَأْكُلُ اَلشَّجَرَ , حَتَّى يَلْقَاهَا رَبُّهَا } مُتَّفَقٌ عَلَيْه ِ 1 .
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 7, Hadith 201 |
| English translation | : Book 7, Hadith 947 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 7, Hadith 940 |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 5862 |
| In-book reference | : Book 29, Hadith 120 |
Malik said, concerning someone who wishes to wear clothes that a person in ihram must not wear, or cut his hair, or touch perfume without necessity, because he finds it easy to pay the compensation, "No-one must do such things. They are only allowed in cases of necessity, and compensation is owed by whoever does them."
Malik was asked whether the culprit could choose for himself the method of compensation he makes, and he was asked what kind of animal was to be sacrificed, and how much food was to be given, and how many days were to be fasted, and whether the person could delay any of these, or if they had to be done immediately. He answered, 'Whenever there are alternatives in the Book of Allah for the kaffara, the culprit can choose to do whichever of the alternatives he prefers. As for the sacrifice - a sheep, and as for the fasting - three days. As for the food - feeding six poor men, for every poor man two mudds, by the first mudd, the mudd of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace."
Malik said, "I have heard one of the people of knowledge saying, 'When a person in ihram throws something and hits game unintentionally and kills it, he must pay compensation. In the same way, someone outside the Haram who throws anything into the Haram and hits game he did not intend to, killing it, has to pay compensation, because the intentional and the mistaken are in the same position in this matter.' "
Malik said, concerning people who kill game together while they are muhrim or in the Haram, "I think that each one of them owes a full share. If a sacrificial animal is decided for them, each one of them owes one, and if fasting is decided for them, the full fasting is owed by each one of them. The analogy of that is a group of people who kill a man by mistake and the kaffara for that is that each person among them must free a slave or fast two consecutive months."
Malik said, "Anyone who stones or hunts game after stoning the jamra and shaving his head but before he has performed the tawaf al-ifada, owes compensation for that game, because Allah the Blessed, the Exalted said, 'And when you leave ihram, then hunt,' and restrictions still remain for someone who has not done the tawaf al-ifada about touching perfume and women."
Malik said, "The person in ihram does not owe anything for plants he cuts down in the Haram and it has not reached us that anyone has given a decision of anything for it, but O how wrong is what he has done! "
Malik said, concerning some one who was ignorant of, or who forgot the fast of three days in the hajj, or who was ill during them and so did not fast them until he had returned to his community, "He must offer a sacrificial animal (hady) if he can find one and if not he must fast the three days among his people and the remaining seven after that."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 20, Hadith 250 |
Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam that Umar ibn al-Khattab asked the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, about someone who died without parents or offspring, and the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to him, "The ayat which was sent down in the summer at the end of the Surat an-Nisa (Sura 4) is enoughfor you."
Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us, in which there is no dispute, and which I saw the people of knowledge in our city doing, is that the person who leaves neither parent or offspring can be of two types. As for the kind described in the ayat which was sent down at the beginning of the Surat an-Nisa in which Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted! said, 'If a man or a woman has no direct heir, but has a brother or a sister by the mother, each of the two has a sixth. If there are more than that, they share equally in a third.' (Sura 4 ayat 12) This heirless one does not have heirs among his mother's siblings since there are no children or parents. As for the other kind described in the ayat which comes at the end of the Surat an-Nisa, Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in it, 'They will ask you for a decision. Say, "Allah gives you a decision about the indirect heirs. If a man perishes having no children, but he has a sister, she shall receive a half of what he leaves, and he is her heir if she has no children. If there are two sisters, they shall receive two-thirds of what he leaves. If there are brothers and sisters, the male shall receive the portion of two females. Allah makes clear to you that you might not go astray. Allah has knowledge of everything" ' " (Sura 4 ayat 176).
Malik said, "If this person without direct heirs (parents) or children has siblings by the father, they inherit with the grandfather from the person without direct heirs. The grandfather inherits with the siblings because he is more entitled to the inheritance than them. That is because he inherits a sixth with the male children of the deceased when the siblings do not inherit anything with the male children of the deceased. How can he not be like one of them when he takes a sixth with the children of the deceased? How can he not take a third with the siblings while the brother's sons take a third with them? The grandfather is the one who overshadows the half-siblings by the mother and keeps them from inheriting. He is more entitled to what they have because they are omitted for his sake. If the grandfather did not take that third, the half-siblings by the mother would take it and would take what does not return to the half-siblings by the father. The half-siblings by the mother are more entitled to that third than the half-siblings by the father while the grandfather is more entitled to that than the half- siblings by the mother."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 27, Hadith 7 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 27, Hadith 1083 |
Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us, in which there is no dispute, and which I saw the people of knowledge in our city doing, about paternal relations is that full brothers are more entitled to inherit than half-brothers by the father and half-brothers by the father are more entitled to inherit than the children of the full brothers. The sons of the full brothers are more entitled to inherit than the sons of the half-brothers by the father. The sons of the half-brothers by the father are more entitled to inherit than the sons of the sons of the full brothers. The sons of the sons of the half-brothers by the father's side are more entitled to inherit than the paternal uncle, the full brother of the father. The paternal uncle, the full brother of the father, is more entitled to inherit than the paternal uncle, the half-brotherof the father on the father's side. The paternal uncle, the half-brother of the father on the father's side is more entitled to inherit than the sons of the paternal uncle, the full brother of the father. The son of the paternal uncle on the father's side is more entitled to inherit than the paternal great uncle, the full brother of the paternal grandfather."
Malik said, "Everything about which you are questioned concerning the inheritance of the paternal relations is like this. Trace the genealogy of the deceased and whoever among the paternal relations contends for inheritance. If you find that one of them reaches the deceased by a father and none of them except him reaches him by a father, then make his inheritance to the one who reaches him by the nearest father, rather than the one who reaches him by what is above that. If you find that they all reach him by the same father who joins them, then see who is the nearest of kin. If there is only one half-brother by the father, give him the inheritance rather than more distant paternal relations. If there is a full brother and you find them equally related from a number of fathers or to one particular father so that they all reach the genealogy of the deceased and they are all half-brothers by the father or full brothers, then divide the inheritance equally among them. If the parent of one of them is an uncle (the full-brother of the father of the deceased) and whoever is with him is an uncle (the paternal half brother of the father of the deceased), the inheritance goes to the sons of the full brother of the father rather than the sons of the paternal half- brother of the father. That is because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said, 'Those related by blood are nearer to one another in the Book of Allah, surely Allah has knowledge of everything.' "
Malik said, "The paternal grandfather, is more entitled to inherit than sons of the full-brother, and more entitled than the uncle, the full brother of the father. The son of the father's brother is more entitled to inherit from mawali retainers (freed slaves) than the grandfathers."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 27, Hadith 9 |
Malik said, "There is no harm in buying dates from specified trees or a specified orchard or buying milk from specified sheep when the buyer starts to take them as soon as he has payed the price. That is like buying oil from a container. A man buys some of it for a dinar or two and gives his gold and stipulates that it be measured out for him. There is no harm in that. If the container breaks and the oil is wasted, the buyer has his gold back and there is no transaction between them."
Malik said, "There is no harm in everything which is taken right away as it is, like fresh milk and fresh picked dates which the buyer can take on a day-to-day basis. If the supply runs out before the buyer has what he has paid for in full, the seller gives him back the portion of the gold that is owed to him, or else the buyer takes other goods from him to the value of what he is owed and which they mutually agree about. The buyer should stay with the seller until he has taken it. It is disapproved of for the seller to leave because the transaction would then come into the forbidden category of a debt for a debt. If a stated time period for payment or delivery enters into the transaction, it is also disapproved. Delay and deferment are not permitted in it, and are only acceptable when it is standard practice on definite terms by which the seller guarantees it to the buyer, but this is not to be from one specific orchard or from any specific ewes."
Malik was asked about a man who bought an orchard from another man in which there were various types of palm-trees - excellent ajwa palms, good kabis palms, adhq palms and othertypes. The seller kept aside from the sale the produce of a certain palm of his choice. Malik said, "That is not good because if he does that, and keeps aside, for instance, dates of the ajwa variety whose yield would be 15 sa, and he picks the dates of the kabis in their place, and the yield of their dates is 10 sa or he picks the ajwa which yield 15 sa and leaves the kabis which yield 10 sa, it is as if he bought the ajwa for the kabis making allowances for their difference of quality. This is the same as if a man dealing with a man who has heaps of dates before him - a heap of 15 sa of ajwa, a heap of 10 sa of kabis, and a heap of 12 sa of cadhq, gives the owner of the dates a dinar to let him choose and take whichever of the heaps he likes." Malik said, "That is not good."
Malik was asked what a man who bought fresh dates from the owner of an orchard and advanced him a dinar was entitled to if the crop was spoilt. Malik said, "The buyer makes a reckoning with the owner of the orchard and takes what is due to him of the dinar. If the buyer has taken two-thirds of a dinar's worth of dates, he gets back the third of a dinar which is owed him. If the buyer has taken three-quarters of a dinar's worth of dates, then he gets back the quarter which is owed to him, or they come to a mutual agreement, and the buyer takes what is owed him from his dinar from the owner of the orchard in something else of his choosing. If, for instance, he prefers to take dry dates or some other goods, he takes them according to what is due. If he takes dry dates or some other goods, he should stay with him until he has been paid in full."
Malik said, "This is the same situation as hiring out a specified riding-camel or hiring out a slave tailor, carpenter or some other kind of worker or letting a house and taking payment in advance for the hire of the slave or the rent of the house or camel. Then an accident happens to what has been hired resulting in death or something else. The owner of the camel, slave or house returns what remains of the rent of the camel, the hire of the slave or the rent of the house to the one who advanced him the money, and the owner reckons what will settle that up in full. If, for instance, he has provided half of what the man paid for, he returns the remaining half of what he advanced, or according to whatever amount is due." Malik said, "Paying in advance for something which is on hand is only good when the buyer takes possession of what he has paid for as soon as he hands over the gold, whether it be slave, camel, or house, or in the case of dates, he starts to pick them as soon as he has paid the money."
It is not good that there be any deferment or credit in such a transaction.
Malik said, "An example illustrating what is disapproved of in this situation is that, for instance, a man may say that he will pay someone in advance for the use of his camel to ride in the hajj, and the hajj is still some time off, or he may say something similar to that about a slave or a house. When he does that, he only pays the money in advance on the understanding that if he finds the camel to be sound at the time the hire is due to begin, he will take it by virtue of what he has already paid. If an accident, or death, or something happens to the camel, then he will get his money back and the money he paid in advance will be considered as a loan."
Malik said, "This is distinct from someone who takes immediate possession of what he rents or hires, so that it does not fall into the category of 'uncertainty,' or disapproved payment in advance. That is following a common practice. An example of that is that a man buys a slave, or slave-girl, and takes possession of them and pays their price. If something happens to them within the period of the year indemnification contract, he takes his gold back from the one from whom he bought it. There is no harm in that. This is the precedent of the sunna in the matter of selling slaves."
Malik said, "Someone who rents a specified slave, or hires a specified camel, for a future date, at which time he will take possession of the camel or slave, has not acted properly because he did not take possession of what he rented or hired, nor is he advancing a loan which the person is responsible to pay back."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 31, Hadith 26 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 12 |
| In-book reference | : Book 1, Hadith 12 |
| English translation | : Book 1, Hadith 12 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 781 |
| In-book reference | : Book 33, Hadith 28 |
| English translation | : Book 33, Hadith 781 |
| Grade: | Da’if (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Sunan Ibn Majah 1235 |
| In-book reference | : Book 5, Hadith 433 |
| English translation | : Vol. 1, Book 5, Hadith 1235 |
Yahya related to me from Malik from Yazid ibn Abdullah ibn al-Had from Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn al-Harith at-Taymi from Abu Salama ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf that Abu Hurayra said, "I went out to at-Tur (Mount Sinai) and met Kab al Ahbar and sat with him. He related to me things from the Tawrah and I related to him things from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Among the things I related to him was that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'The best of days on which the sun rises is the day of jumua. In it Adam was created, and in it he fell from the Garden. In it he was forgiven, and in it he died. In it the Hour occurs, and every moving thing listens from morning till sunset in apprehension of the Hour except jinn and men. In it is a time when Allah gives toa muslim slave standing in prayer whatever he asks for.' Kab said, 'That is one day in every year.' I said, 'No, in every jumua.' Then Kab recited the Tawrah and said, 'The Messenger of Allah has spoken the truth.' "
Abu Hurayra continued, "I met Basra ibn Abi Basra al-Ghiffari and he said, 'Where have you come from?' I said, 'From at-Tur.' He said, 'If I had seen you before you left, you would not have gone. I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, "Only make a special journey to three mosques:
Abu Hurayra continued, "Then I met Abdullah ibn Salam and I told him that I had sat with Kabal-Ahbar, and I mentioned what I had related to him about the day of jumua, and told him that Kab had said, 'That is one day in every year.' Abdullah ibn Salam said, 'Kab lied,' and I added, 'Kab then recited the Tawrah and said, "No, it is in every jumua.'' ' Abdullah ibn Salam said, 'Kab spoke the truth. 'Then Abdullah ibn Salam said, 'I know what time that is.' "
Abu Hurayra continued, "I said to him, 'Let me know it - don't keep it from me.' Abdullah ibn Salam said, 'It is the last period of time in the dayof jumua.' "
Abu Hurayra continued, "I said, 'How can it be the last period of time in the day of jumua, when the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "a muslim slave standing in prayer", and that is a time when there is no prayer?' Abdullah ibn Salam replied, 'Didn't the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, "Whoever sits waiting for the prayer is in prayer until he prays?" "'
Abu Hurayra added, "I said, 'Of course.' He said, 'Then it is that.' "
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 5, Hadith 17 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 5, Hadith 240 |
Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Marwan ibn al-Hakam decided about a man who had made a vow to abstain from intercourse with his wife, that when four months had passed, it was a divorce and he could return to her as long as she was in her idda.
Malik added, "That was also the opinion of Ibn Shihab."
Malik said that if a man made a vow to abstain from intercourse with his wife and at the end of four months he declared his intent to continue to abstain, he was divorced. He could go back to his wife, but if he did not have intercourse with her before the end of her idda, he had no access to her and he could not go back to her unless he had an excuse - illness, imprisonment, or a similar excuse. His return to her maintained her as his wife. If her idda passed and then he married her after that and did not have intercourse with her until four months had passed and he declared his intent to continue to abstain, divorce was applied to him by the first vow. If four months passed, and he had not returned to her, he had no idda against her nor access because he had married her and then divorced her before touching her.
Malik said that a man who made a vow to abstain from intercourse with his wife and continued to abstain after four months and so divorced her, but then returned and did not touch her and four months were completed before her idda was completed, did not have to declare his intent and divorce did not befall him. If he had intercourse with her before the end of her idda, he was entitled to her. If her idda passed before he had intercourse with her, he had no access to her. This is what Malik preferred of what he had heard on the subject.
Malik said that if a man made a vow to abstain from intercourse with his wife and then divorced her, and the four months of the vow were completed before completion of the idda of the divorce, it counted as two pronouncements of divorce. If he declared his intention to continue to abstain and the idda of the divorce finished before the four months the vow of abstention was not a divorce. That was because the four months had passed and she was not his on that day.
Malik said, "If someone makes a vow not to have intercourse with his wife for a day or a month and then waits until more than four months have passed, it is not ila. Ila only applies to someone who vows more than four months. As for the one who vows not to have intercourse with his wife for four months or less than that, I do not think that it is ila because when the term enters into it at which it stops, he comes out of his oath and he does not have to declare his intention."
Malik said, "If someone vows to his wife not to have intercourse with her until her child has been weaned, that is not ila. I have heard that Ali ibn Abi Talib was asked about that and he did not think that it was ila."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 29, Hadith 19 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 29, Hadith 1173 |
Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu Hazim ibn Dinar from Said ibn al-Musayyab that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade the sale with uncertainty in it.
Malik said, "An example of one type of uncertain transaction and risk is that a man intends the price of a stray animal or escaped slave to be fifty dinars. A man says, 'I will take him from you for twenty dinars.' If the buyer finds him, thirty dinars goes from the seller, and if he does not find him, the seller takes twenty dinars from the buyer."
Malik said, "There is another fault in that. If that stray is found, it is not known whether it will have increased or decreased in value or what defects may have befallen it. This transaction is greatly uncertain and risky."
Malik said, "According to our way of doing things, one kind of uncertain transaction and risk is selling what is in the wombs of females - women and animals - because it is not known whether or not it will come out, and if it does come out, it is not known whether it will be beautiful or ugly, normal or disabled, male or female. All that is disparate. If it has that, its price is such-and-such, and if it has this, its price is such-and-such."
Malik said, "Females must not be sold with what is in their wombs excluded. That is that, for instance, a man says to another, 'The price of my sheep which has much milk is three dinars. She is yours for two dinars while I will have her future offspring.' This is disapproved because it is an uncertain transaction and a risk."
Malik said, "It is not halal to sell olives for olive oil or sesame for sesame oil, or butter for ghee because muzabana comes into that, because the person who buys the raw product for something specified which comes from it, does not know whether more or less will come out of that, so it is an uncertain transaction and a risk."
Malik said, "A similar case is the selling of ben-nuts for ben-nut oil. This is an uncertain transaction because what comes from the ben-nut is ben-oil. There is no harm in selling ben-nuts for perfumed ben because perfumed ben has been perfumed, mixed and changed from the state of raw ben-nut oil."
Malik, speaking about a man who sold goods to a man on the provision that there was to be no loss for the buyer, (i.e. if the buyer could not re-sell the goods they could go back to the seller), said, "This transaction is not permitted and it is part of risk. The explanation of why it is so, is that it is as if the seller hired the buyer for the profit if the goods make a profit. If he sells the stock at a loss, he has nothing, and his efforts are not compensated. This is not good. In such a transaction, the buyer should have a wage according to the work that he has contributed. Whatever there is of loss or profit in those goods is for and against the seller. This is only when the goods are gone and sold. If they do not go, the transaction between them is null and void."
Malik said, "As for a man who buys goods from a man and he concludes the sale and then the buyer regrets and asks to have the price reduced and the seller refuses and says, 'Sell it and I will compensate you for any loss.' There is no harm in this because there is no risk. It is something he proposes to him, and their transaction was not based on that. That is what is done among us."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 31, Hadith 75 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 31, Hadith 1365 |
Malik related to me that he heard that Abu Salama ibn Abd ar- Rahman and Sulayman ibn Yasar were both asked, "Does one pronounce judgement on the basis of an oath with one witness?" They both said, "Yes."
Malik said, "The precedent of the sunna in judging by an oath with one witness is that if the plaintiff takes an oath with his witness, he is confirmed in his right. If he draws back and refuses to take an oath, the defendant is made to take an oath. If he takes an oath, the claim against him is dropped. If he refuses to take an oath, the claim is confirmed against him."
Malik said, "This procedure pertains to property cases in particular. It does not occur in any of the hadd-punishments, nor in marriage, divorce, freeing slaves, theft or slander. If some one says, 'Freeing slaves comes under property,' he has erred. It is not as he said. Had it been as he said, a slave could take an oath with one witness, if he could find one, that his master had freed him.
"However, when a slave lays claim to a piece of property, he can take an oath with one witness and demand his right as the freeman demands his right."
Malik said, "The sunna with us is that when a slave brings somebody who witnesses that he has been set free, his master is made to take an oath that he has not freed him, and the slave's claim is dropped."
Malik said, "The sunna about divorce is also like that with us. When a woman brings somebody who witnesses that her husband has divorced her, the husband is made to take an oath that he has not divorced her. If he takes the oath, the divorce does not proceed . "
Malik said, "There is only one sunna of bringing a witness in cases of divorce and freeing a slave. The right to make an oath only belongs to the husband of the woman, and the master of the slave. Freeing is a hadd matter, and the testimony of women is not permitted in it because when a slave is freed, his inviolability is affirmed and the hadd punishments are applied for and against him. If he commits fornication and he is a muhsan, he is stoned. If he kills a slave, he is killed for it. Inheritance is established for him, between him and whoever inherits from him. If somebody disputes this, arguing that if a man frees his slave and then a man comes to demand from the master of the slave payment of a debt, and a man and two women testify to his right, that establishes the right against the master of the slave so that his freeing him is cancelled if he only has the slave as property, inferring by this case that the testimony of women is permitted in cases of setting free. The case is not as he suggests (i.e. it is a case of property not freeing). It is like a man who frees his slave, and then the claimant of a debt comes to the master and takes an oath with one witness, demanding his right. By that, the freeing of the slave would be cancelled. Or else a man comes who has frequent dealings and transactions with the master of the slave. He claims that he is owed money by the master of the slave. Someone says to the master of the slave, 'Take an oath that you don't owe what he claims'. If he draws back and refuses to take an oath, the one making the claim takes an oath and his right against the master of the slave is confirmed. That would cancel the freeing of the slave if it is confirmed that property is owed by the master."
Malik said, "It is the same case with a man who marries a slave-girl and then the master of the slave-girl comes to the man who has married her and claims, 'You and so-and-so have bought my slave-girl from me for such an amount of dinars. The husband of the slave-girl denies that. The master of the slave-girl brings a man and two women and they testify to what he has said. The sale is confirmed and his claim is considered true. So the slave-girl is haram for her husband and they have to separate, even though the testimony of women is not accepted in divorce."
Malik said, "It is also the same case with a man who accuses a free man, so the hadd falls on him. A man and two women come and testify that the one accused is a slave. That would remove the hadd from the accused after it had befallen him, even though the testimony of women is not accepted in accusations involving hadd punishments."
Malik said, "Another similar case in which judgement appears to go against the precedent of the sunna is that two women testify that a child is born alive and so it is necessary for him to inherit if a situation arises where he is entitled to inherit, and the child's property goes to those who inherit from him, if he dies, and it is not necessary that the two women witnesses should be accompanied by a man or an oath even though it may involve vast properties of gold, silver, live-stock, gardens and slaves and other properties. However, had two women testified to one dirham or more or less than that in a property case, their testimony would not affect anything and would not be permitted unless there was a witness or an oath with them."
Malik said, "There are people who say that an oath is not acceptable with only one witness and they argue by the word of Allah the Blessed, the Exalted, and His word is the Truth, 'And call in to witness two witnesses, men; or if the two be not men, then one man and two women, such witnesses as you approve of.' (Sura 2 ayat 282). Such people argue that if he does not bring one man and two women, he has no claim and he is not allowed to take an oath with one witness."
Malik said, "Part of the proof against those who argue this, is to reply to them, 'Do you think that if a man claimed property from a man, the one claimed from would not swear that the claim was false?' If he swears, the claim against him is dropped. If he refuses to take an oath, the claimant is made to take an oath that his claim is true, and his right against his companion is established. There is no dispute about this with any of the people nor in any country. By what does he take this? In what place in the Book of Allah does he find it? So if he confirms this, let him confirm the oath with one witness, even if it is not in the Book of Allah, the Mighty, the Majestic! It is enough that this is the precedent of the sunna. However, man wants to recognise the proper course of action and the location of the proof. In this there is a clarification for what is obscure about that, if Allah ta'ala wills."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 36, Hadith 7 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 36, Hadith 1411 |
Malik related to me that he heard that Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, made a settlement with her mukatab for an agreed amount of gold and silver.
Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us in the case of a mukatab who is shared by two partners, is that one of them cannot make a settlement with him for an agreed price according to his portion without the consent of his partner. That is because the slave and his property are owned by both of them, and so one of them is not permitted to take any of the property except with the consent of his partner. If one of them settled with the mukatab and his partner did not, and he took the agreed price, and then the mukatab died while he had property or was unable to pay, the one who settled would not have anything of the mukatab's property and he could not return that for which he made settlement so that his right to the slave's person would return to him. However, when someone settles with a mukatab with the permission of his partner and then the mukatab is unable to pay, it is preferable that the one who broke with him return what he has taken from the mukatab for the severance and he can have back his portion of the mukatab. He can do that. If the mukatab dies and leaves property, the partner who has kept hold of the kitaba is paid in full the amount of the kitaba which remains to him against the mukatab from the mukatab's property. Then what remains of property of the mukatab is between the partner who broke with him and his partner, according to their shares in the mukatab. If one of the partners breaks off with him and the other keeps the kitaba, and the mukatab is unable to pay, it is said to the partner who settled with him, 'If you wish to give your partner half of what you took so the slave is divided between you, then do so. If you refuse, then all of the slave belongs to the one who held on to possession of the slave.' "
Malik spoke about a mukatab who was shared between two men and one of them made a settlement with him with the permission of his partner. Then the one who retained possession of the slave demanded the like of that for which his partner had settled or more than that and the mukatab could not pay it. He said, "The mukatab is shared between them because the man has only demanded what is owed to him. If he demands less than what the one who settled with him took and the mukatab can not manage that, and the one who settled with him prefers to return to his partner half of what he took so the slave is divided in halves between them, he can do that. If he refuses then all of the slave belongs to the one who did not settle with him. If the mukatab dies and leaves property, and the one who settled with him prefers to return to his companion half of what he has taken so the inheritance is divided between them, he can do that. If the one who has kept the kitaba takes the like of what the one who has settled with him took, or more, the inheritance is between them according to their shares in the slave because he is only taking his right."
Malik spoke about a mukatab who was shared between two men and one of them made a settlement with him for half of what was due to him with the permission of his partner, and then the one who retained possession of the slave took less than what his partner settled with him for and the mukatab was unable to pay. He said, "If the one who made a settlement with the slave prefers to return half of what he was awarded to his partner, the slave is divided between them. If he refuses to return it, the one who retained possession has the portion of the share for which his partner made a settlement with the mukatab."
Malik said, "The explanation of that is that the slave is divided in two halves between them. They write him a kitaba together and then one of them makes a settlement with the mukatab for half his due with the permission of his partner. That is a fourth of all the slave. Then the mukatab is unable to continue, so it is said to the one who settled with him, 'If you wish, return to your partner half of what you were awarded and the slave is divided equally between you.' If he refuses, the one who held to the kitaba takes in full the fourth of his partner for which he made settlement with the mukatab. He had half the slave, so that now gives him three-fourths of the slave. The one who broke off has a fourth of the slave because he refused to return the equivalent of the fourth share for which he settled."
Malik spoke about a mukatab whose master made a settlement with him and set him free and what remained of his severance was written against him as debt, then the mukatab died and people had debts against him. He said, "His master does not share with the creditors because of what he is owed from the severance. The creditors begin first."
Malik said, "A mukatab cannot break with his master when he owes debts to people. He would be set free and have nothing because the people who hold the debts are more entitled to his property than his master. That is not permitted for him."
Malik said, "According to the way things are done among us, there is no harm if a man gives a kitaba to his slave and settles with him for gold and reduces what he is owed of the kitaba provided that only the gold is paid immediately. Whoever disapproves of that does so because he puts it in the category of a debt which a man has against another man for a set term. He gives him a reduction and he pays it immediately. This is not like that debt. The breaking of the mukatab with his master is dependent on his giving money to speed up the setting free. Inheritance, testimony and the hudud are obliged for him and the inviolability of being set free is established for him. He is not buying dirhams for dirhams or gold for gold. Rather it is like a man who having said to his slave, 'Bring me such-and-such an amount of dinars and you are free', then reduces that for him, saying, 'If you bring me less than that, you are free.' That is not a fixed debt. Had it been a fixed debt, the master would have shared with the creditors of the mukatab when he died or went bankrupt. His claim on the property of the mukatab would join theirs."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 39, Hadith 5 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 39, Hadith 1496 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 434 |
| In-book reference | : Book 24, Hadith 16 |
| English translation | : Book 24, Hadith 434 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 562 |
| In-book reference | : Book 30, Hadith 25 |
| English translation | : Book 30, Hadith 562 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 625 |
| In-book reference | : Book 31, Hadith 22 |
| English translation | : Book 31, Hadith 625 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 725 |
| In-book reference | : Book 31, Hadith 122 |
| English translation | : Book 31, Hadith 725 |
And Muhammad said, when bread was baked (the one with the guest would take all of it). Their homes were separated by walls made of canes".
A narration of the Hadith, Baqiyyah, said," I too found (my teacher) Muhammad bin Ziyad and his colleagues observe this practice.
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 739 |
| In-book reference | : Book 32, Hadith 136 |
| English translation | : Book 31, Hadith 739 |
| Grade: | Da'if (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2369 |
| In-book reference | : Book 36, Hadith 66 |
| English translation | : Vol. 4, Book 10, Hadith 2369 |
Malik said, The best of what I have heard about a mukatab whose master frees him at death, is that the mukatab is valued according to what he would fetch if he were sold. If that value is less than what remains against him of his kitaba, his freedom is taken from the third that the deceased can bequeath. One does not look at the number of dirhams which remain against him in his kitaba. That is because had he been killed, his killer would not be in debt for other than his value on the day he killed him. Had he been injured, the one who injured him would not be liable for other than the blood-money of the injury on the day of his injury. One does not look at how much he has paid of dinars and dirhams of the contract he has written because he is a slave as long as any of his kitaba remains. If what remains in his kitaba is less than his value, only whatever of his kitaba remains owing from him is taken into account in the third of the property of the deceased. That is because the deceased left him what remains of his kitaba and so it becomes a bequest which the deceased made."
Malik said, "The illustration of that is that if the price of the mukatab is one thousand dirhams, and only one hundred dirhams remain of his kitaba, his master leaves him the one hundred dirhams which complete it for him. It is taken into account in the third of his master and by it he becomes free."
Malik said that if a man wrote his slave a kitaba at his death, the value of the slave was estimated. If there was enough to cover the price of the slave in one third of his property, that was permitted for him.
Malik said, "The illustration of that is that the price of the slave is one thousand dinars. His master writes him a kitaba for two hundred dinars at his death. The third of the property of his master is one thousand dinars, so that is permitted for him. It is only a bequest which he makes from one third of his property. If the master has left bequests to people, and there is no surplus in the third after the value of the mukatab, one begins with the mukatab because the kitaba is setting free, and setting free has priority over bequests. When those bequests are paid from the kitaba of the mukatab, they follow it. The heirs of the testator have a choice. If they want to give the people with bequests all their bequests and the kitaba of the mukatab is theirs, they have that. If they refuse and hand over the mukatab and what he owes to the people with bequests they can do that, because the third commences with the mukatab and because all the bequests which he makes are as one."
If the heirs then say, "What our fellow bequeathed was more than one third of his property and he has taken what was not his," Malik said, "His heirs choose. It is said to them, 'Your companion has made the bequests you know about and if you would like to give them to those who are to receive them according to the deceased's bequests, then do so. If not, hand over to the people with bequests one third of the total property of the deceased.' "
Malik continued, "If the heirs surrender the mukatab to the people with bequests, the people with bequests have what he owes of his kitaba. If the mukatab pays what he owes of his kitaba, they take that in their bequests according to their shares. If the mukatab cannot pay, he is a slave of the people with bequests and does not return to the heirs because they gave him up when they made their choice, and because when he was surrendered to the people with bequests, they were liable. If he died, they would not have anything against the heirs. If the mukatab dies before he pays his kitaba and he leaves property which is more than what he owes, his property goes to the people with bequests. If the mukatab pays what he owes, he is free and his wala' returns to the paternal relations of the one who wrote the kitaba for him."
Malik spoke about a mukatab who owed his master ten thousand dirhams in his kitaba, and when he died he remitted one thousand dirhams from it. He said, "The mukatab is valued and his value is taken into consideration. If his value is one thousand dirhams and the reduction is a tenth of the kitaba, that portion of the slave's price is one hundred dirhams. It is a tenth of the price. A tenth of the kitaba is therefore reduced for him. That is converted to a tenth of the price in cash. That is as if he had had all of what he owed reduced for him. Had he done that, only the value of the slave - one thousand dirhams - would have been taken into account in the third of the property of the deceased. If that which he had remitted is half of the kitaba, half the price is taken into account in the third of the property of the deceased. If it is more or less than that, it is according to this reckoning."
Malik said, "When a man reduces the kitaba of his mukatab by one thousand dirhams at his death from a kitaba of ten thousand dirhams, and he does not stipulate whether it is from the beginning or the end of his kitaba, each instalment is reduced for him by one tenth."
Malik said, "If a man remits one thousand dirhams from his mukatab at his death from the beginning or end of his kitaba, and the original basis of the kitaba is three thousand dirhams, the mukatab's cash value is estimated. Then that value is divided. That thousand which is from the beginning of the kitaba is converted into its portion of the price according to its proximity to the term and its precedence and then the thousand which follows the first thousand is according to its precedence also until it comes to its end, and every thousand is paid according to its place in advancing and deferring the term because what is deferred of that is less in respect of its price. Then it is placed in the third of the deceased according to whatever of the price befalls that thousand according to the difference in preference of that, whether it is more or less, then it is according to this reckoning."
Malik spoke about a man who willed a man a fourth of a mukatab or freed a fourth, and then the man died and the mukatab died and left a lot of property, more than he owed. He said, "The heirs of the first master and the one who was willed a fourth of the mukatab are given what they are still owed by the mukatab. Then they divide what is left over, and the one willed a fourth has a third of what is left after the kitaba is paid. The heirs of his master gets two-thirds. That is because the mukatab is a slave as long as any of his kitaba remains to be paid. He is inherited from by the possession of his person."
Malik said about a mukatab whose master freed him at death, "If the third of the deceased will not cover him, he is freed from it according to what the third will cover and his kitaba is decreased according to that. If the mukatab owed five thousand dirhams and his value is two thousand dirhams cash, and the third of the deceased is one thousand dirhams, half of him is freed and half of the kitaba has been reduced for him." Malik said about a man who said in his will, "My slave so-and-so is free and write a kitaba for so-and- so", that the setting free had priority over the kitaba.
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 39, Hadith 15 |
| Grade: | Da'if Isnād (Zubair `Aliza'i) |
| Reference | : Ash-Shama'il Al-Muhammadiyah 378 |
| In-book reference | : Book 52, Hadith 9 |
| Arabic/English book reference | : Book 14, Hadith 290 |
وَفِي رِوَايَةٍ: { ابْدَأْنَ بِمَيَامِنِهَا وَمَوَاضِعِ اَلْوُضُوءِ مِنْهَا } 2 .
وَفِي لَفْظٍ ِللْبُخَارِيِّ: { فَضَفَّرْنَا شَعْرَهَا ثَلَاثَةَ قُرُونٍ, فَأَلْقَيْنَاهُ خَلْفَهَا } 3 .
| Reference | : Bulugh al-Maram 544 |
| In-book reference | : Book 3, Hadith 12 |
| English translation | : Book 3, Hadith 568 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 7, Hadith 179 |
| English translation | : Book 7, Hadith 932 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 7, Hadith 926 |
| Grade: | Da’if (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Sunan Ibn Majah 1628 |
| In-book reference | : Book 6, Hadith 196 |
| English translation | : Vol. 1, Book 6, Hadith 1628 |
| Grade: | Sahih (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Sunan Ibn Majah 3956 |
| In-book reference | : Book 36, Hadith 31 |
| English translation | : Vol. 5, Book 36, Hadith 3956 |
| Grade: | Da’if (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Sunan Ibn Majah 4030 |
| In-book reference | : Book 36, Hadith 105 |
| English translation | : Vol. 5, Book 36, Hadith 4030 |
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 |
| صَحِيح (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 3562 |
| In-book reference | : Book 17, Hadith 8 |
| مُتَّفَقٌ عَلَيْهِ (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 2267 |
| In-book reference | : Book 9, Hadith 42 |
Yahya said that Malik spoke about an investor who put qirad money with an agent who bought goods with it, and the investor told him to sell them. The agent said that he did not see any way to sell at that time and they quarrelled about it. He said, "One does not look at the statement of either of them. The people of experience and insight concerning such goods are asked about these goods. If they can see anyway of selling them they are sold for them. If they think it is time to wait, they should wait."
Malik spoke about a man who took qirad money from an investor and used it and when the investor asked him for his money, he said that he had it in full. When he held him to his settlement he admitted that "Such-and-such of it was lost with me," and he named an amount of money. "I told you that so that you would leave it with me." Malik said, "He does not benefit by denying it after he had confirmed that he had it all . He is answerable by his confession against himself unless he produces evidence about the loss of that property which confirms his statement. If he does not produce an acceptable reason he is answerable by his confession, and his denial does not avail him."
Malik said, "Similarly, had he said, 'I have had such-and-such a profit from the capital,' and then the owner of the capital asked him to pay him the principal and his profit, and he said that he had not had any profit in it and had said that only so it might be left in his possession, it does not benefit him. He is taken to account for what he affirmed unless he brings acceptable proof of his word, so that the first statement is not binding on him."
Malik spoke about an investor who put qirad money with an agent who made a profit with it. The agent said, "I took the qirad from you provided that I would have two-thirds." The owner of the capital says, "I gave you a qirad provided that you had a third." Malik said, "The word is the word of the agent, and he must take an oath on that if what he says resembles the known practice of qirad or is close to it. If he brings a matter which is unacceptable and people do not make qirads like that, he is not believed, and it is judged to be according to how a qirad like it would normally be."
Malik spoke about a man who gave a man one hundred dinars as a qirad. He bought goods with it and then went to pay the one hundred dinars to the owner of the goods and found that they had been stolen. The investor says, "Sell the goods. If there is anything over, it is mine. If there is a loss, it is against you because you lost it." The agent says, "Rather you must fulfil what the seller is owed. I bought them with your capital which you gave me." Malik said, "The agent is obliged to pay the price to the seller and the investor is told, 'If you wish, pay the hundred dinars to the agent and the goods are between you. The qirad is according to what the first hundred was based on. If you wish, you are free of the goods.' If the hundred dinars are paid to the agent, it is a qirad according to the conditions of the first qirad. If he refuses, the goods belong to the agent and he must pay their price."
Malik spoke about two people in a qirad who settled up and the agent still had some of the goods which he used - threadbare cloth or a waterskin or the like of that. Malik said, "Any of that which is insignificant is of no importance and belongs to the agent. I have not heard anyone give a decision calling for the return of that. Anything which has a price is returned. If it is something which has value like an animal, camel, coarse cloth or the like of that which fetches a price, I think that he should return what he has remaining of such things unless the owner overlooks it."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 32, Hadith 16 |
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."
| USC-MSA web (English) reference | : Book 39, Hadith 7 |
[Al- Bukhari and Muslim].
| Reference | : Riyad as-Salihin 1214 |
| In-book reference | : Book 8, Hadith 224 |
On the authority of Muadh bin Jabal (may Allah be pleased with him) who said:
| Reference | : Hadith 29, 40 Hadith an-Nawawi |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 88 |
| In-book reference | : Book 5, Hadith 5 |
| English translation | : Book 5, Hadith 88 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 612 |
| In-book reference | : Book 31, Hadith 9 |
| English translation | : Book 31, Hadith 612 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 703 |
| In-book reference | : Book 31, Hadith 100 |
| English translation | : Book 31, Hadith 703 |
| Reference | : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 1022 |
| In-book reference | : Book 42, Hadith 59 |
| English translation | : Book 42, Hadith 1022 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 4, Hadith 47 |
| English translation | : Book 4, Hadith 666 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 4, Hadith 645 |
| Sunnah.com reference | : Book 2, Hadith 234 |
| English translation | : Book 2, Hadith 330 |
| Arabic reference | : Book 2, Hadith 335 |
| صَحِيح (الألباني) | حكم : |
| Reference | : Mishkat al-Masabih 1796 |
| In-book reference | : Book 6, Hadith 25 |
[Muslim].
Another narration is: A delegation from Kufah came to 'Umar (May Allah be pleased with him). Among them was one who used to make fun of Owais (May Allah be pleased with him). 'Umar (May Allah be pleased with him) enquired, "Is there anyone among you who is from Qaran?" So this man stepped forward. Then 'Umar (May Allah be pleased with him) said, "I heard Messenger of Allah (PBUH) saying, 'A man will come to you from Yemen named Owais. He will have left in the Yemen only his mother. He was suffering from leucoderma and prayed to Allah to be cured of it. So he was cured except for a space of the size of a dinar or a dirham. Whoever of you should meet him should ask him to pray for forgiveness for him."'
Another narration is: 'Umar (May Allah be pleased with him) said: "I heard Messenger of Allah (PBUH) saying, 'The best one of the next generation (At-Tabi'un) is a man called Owais, he will have a mother and he will be suffering from leucoderma. Go to him and ask him to pray for forgiveness for you".
[Muslim].
وفي رواية لمسلم أيضًا عن أُسِير بن جابر رضي الله عنه أن أهل الكوفة وفدوا على عمر رضي الله عنه ، وفيهم رجل ممن كان يسخر بأويس، فقال عمر: هل ...
| Reference | : Riyad as-Salihin 372 |
| In-book reference | : Introduction, Hadith 372 |
| Grade: | Hasan (Darussalam) [ (Muslim (1763); (Darussalam) |
| Reference | : Musnad Ahmad 208 |
| In-book reference | : Book 2, Hadith 125 |