Yahya related to me from Malik, "The generally agreed upon way of doing things among us and what I have seen the people of knowledge doing in our city about the fixed shares of inheritance of children from the mother or father when one or other of them dies is that if they leave male and female children, the male takes the portion of two females. If there are only females, and there are more than two, they get two thirds of what is left between them. If there is only one, she gets a half. If someone shares with the children, who has a fixed share and there are males among them, the reckoner begins with the ones with fixed shares. What remains after that is divided among the children according to their inheritance.

"When there are no children, grandchildren through sons have the same position as children, so that grandsons are like sons and grand-daughters are like daughters. They inherit as they inherit and they overshadow as they overshadow. If there are both children and grandchildren through sons, and there is a male among the children, then the grandchildren through sons do not share in the inheritance with him.

"If there is no surviving male among the children, and there are two or more daughters, the granddaughters through a son do not share in the inheritance with them unless there is a male who is in the same position as them in relation to the deceased, or further than them. His presence gives access to whatever is left over, if any, to whoever is in his position and whoever is above him of the granddaughters through sons. If something is left over, they divide it among them, and the male takes the portion of two females. If nothing is left over, they have nothing.

"If the only descendant is a daughter, she takes half, and if there are one or more grand-daughters through a son who are in the same position to the deceased, they share a sixth. If there is a male in the same position as the granddaughters through a son in relation to the deceased, they have no share and no sixth .

"If there is a surplus after the allotting of shares to the people with fixed shares, the surplus goes to the male and whoever is in his position and whoever is above him of the female descendants through sons. The male has the share of two females. The one who is more distant in relationship than grandchildren through sons has nothing. If there is no surplus, they have nothing. That is because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'Allah charges you about your children that the male has the like of the portion of two females. If there are more than two women they have two thirds of what is left. If there is one, she has a half.' (Sura 4 ayat 10)

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community about a mudabbar is that the owner cannot sell him or change the position in which he has put him. If a debt overtakes the master, his creditors cannot sell the mudabbar as long as the master is alive. If the master dies and has no debts, the mudabbar is included in the third (of the bequest) because he expected his work from him as long as he lived. He cannot serve him all his life, and then he frees him from his heirs out of the main portion of his property when he dies. If the master of the mudabbar dies and has no property other than him, one third of him is freed, and two thirds of him belong to the heirs. If the master of the mudabbar dies and owes a debt which encompasses the mudabbar, he is sold to meet the debt because he can only be freed in the third (which is allowed for bequest) ."

He said, "If the debt only includes half of the slave, half of him is sold for the debt. Then a third of what remains after the debt is freed. "

Malik said, "It is not permitted to sell a mudabbar and it is not permitted for anyone to buy him unless the mudabbar buys himself from his master. He is permitted to do that. Or else some one gives the master of the mudabbar money and his master who made him a mudabbar frees him. That is also permitted for him."

Malik said, "His wala' belongs to his master who made him a mudabbar."

Malik said, "It is not permitted to sell the service of a mudabbar because it is an uncertain transaction since one does not know how long his master will live. That is uncertain and it is not good."

Malik spoke about a slave who was shared between two men, and one of them made his portion mudabbar. He said, "They estimate his value between them. If the one who made him mudabbar buys him, he is all mudabbar. If he does not buy him, his tadbir is revoked unless the one who retains ownership of him wishes to give his partner who made him mudabbar his value. If he gives him to him for his value, that is binding, and he is all mudabbar."

Malik spoke about the christian man who made a christian slave of his mudabbar and then the slave became muslim. He said, "One separates the master and the slave, and the slave is removed from his christian master and is not sold until his situation becomes clear. If the christian dies and has a debt, his debt is paid from the price of the slave unless he has in his estate what will pay the debt. Then the mudabbar is set free."

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."

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."

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."

Allah's Apostle said, "Once three persons (from the previous nations) were traveling, and suddenly it started raining and they took shelter in a cave. The entrance of the cave got closed while they were inside. They said to each other, 'O you! Nothing can save you except the truth, so each of you should ask Allah's Help by referring to such a deed as he thinks he did sincerely (i.e. just for gaining Allah's Pleasure).' So one of them said, 'O Allah! You know that I had a laborer who worked for me for one Faraq (i.e. three Sas) of rice, but he departed, leaving it (i.e. his wages). I sowed that Faraq of rice and with its yield I bought cows (for him). Later on when he came to me asking for his wages, I said (to him), 'Go to those cows and drive them away.' He said to me, 'But you have to pay me only a Faraq of rice,' I said to him, 'Go to those cows and take them, for they are the product of that Faraq (of rice).' So he drove them. O Allah! If you consider that I did that for fear of You, then please remove the rock.' The rock shifted a bit from the mouth of the cave. The second one said, 'O Allah, You know that I had old parents whom I used to provide with the milk of my sheep every night. One night I was delayed and when I came, they had slept, while my wife and children were crying with hunger. I used not to let them (i.e. my family) drink unless my parents had drunk first. So I disliked to wake them up and also disliked that they should sleep without drinking it, I kept on waiting (for them to wake) till it dawned. O Allah! If You consider that I did that for fear of you, then please remove the rock.' So the rock shifted and they could see the sky through it. The (third) one said, 'O Allah! You know that I had a cousin (i.e. my paternal uncle's daughter) who was most beloved to me and I sought to seduce her, but she refused, unless I paid her one-hundred Dinars (i.e. gold pieces). So I collected the amount and brought it to her, and she allowed me to sleep with her. But when I sat between her legs, she said, 'Be afraid of Allah, and do not deflower me but legally. 'I got up and left the hundred Dinars (for her). O Allah! If You consider that I did that for fear of you than please remove the rock. So Allah saved them and they came out (of the cave)."

I used to teach (the Qur'an to) some people of the Muhajirln (emigrants), among whom there was `Abdur Rahman bin `Auf. While I was in his house at Mina, and he was with `Umar bin Al-Khattab during `Umar's last Hajj, `Abdur-Rahman came to me and said, "Would that you had seen the man who came today to the Chief of the Believers (`Umar), saying, 'O Chief of the Believers! What do you think about so-and-so who says, 'If `Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-andsuch person, as by Allah, the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was nothing but a prompt sudden action which got established afterwards.' `Umar became angry and then said, 'Allah willing, I will stand before the people tonight and warn them against those people who want to deprive the others of their rights (the question of rulership). `Abdur-Rahman said, "I said, 'O Chief of the believers! Do not do that, for the season of Hajj gathers the riff-raff and the rubble, and it will be they who will gather around you when you stand to address the people. And I am afraid that you will get up and say something, and some people will spread your statement and may not say what you have actually said and may not understand its meaning, and may interpret it incorrectly, so you should wait till you reach Medina, as it is the place of emigration and the place of Prophet's Traditions, and there you can come in touch with the learned and noble people, and tell them your ideas with confidence; and the learned people will understand your statement and put it in its proper place.' On that, `Umar said, 'By Allah! Allah willing, I will do this in the first speech I will deliver before the people in Medina." Ibn `Abbas added: We reached Medina by the end of the month of Dhul-Hijja, and when it was Friday, we went quickly (to the mosque) as soon as the sun had declined, and I saw Sa`id bin Zaid bin `Amr bin Nufail sitting at the corner of the pulpit, and I too sat close to him so that my knee was touching his knee, and after a short while `Umar bin Al-Khattab came out, and when I saw him coming towards us, I said to Sa`id bin Zaid bin `Amr bin Nufail "Today `Umar will say such a thing as he has never said since he was chosen as Caliph." Sa`id denied my statement with astonishment and said, "What thing do you expect `Umar to say the like of which he has never said before?" In the meantime, `Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, `Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, "Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession. And then we used to recite among the Verses in Allah's Book: 'O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief (unthankfulness) on your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father.' Then Allah's Apostle said, 'Do not praise me excessively as Jesus, son of Marry was praised, but call me Allah's Slave and His Apostles.' (O people!) I have been informed that a speaker amongst you says, 'By Allah, if `Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person.' One should not deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given suddenly and it was successful. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the people) from its evil, and there is none among you who has the qualities of Abu Bakr. Remember that whoever gives the pledge of allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the pledge of allegiance was given, are to be supported, lest they both should be killed. And no doubt after the death of the Prophet we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa`da. `Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr. I said to Abu Bakr, 'Let's go to these Ansari brothers of ours.' So we set out seeking them, and when we approached them, two pious men of theirs met us and informed us of the final decision of the Ansar, and said, 'O group of Muhajirin (emigrants) ! Where are you going?' We replied, 'We are going to these Ansari brothers of ours.' They said to us, 'You shouldn't go near them. Carry out whatever we have already decided.' I said, 'By Allah, we will go to them.' And so we proceeded until we reached them at the shed of Bani Sa`da. Behold! There was a man sitting amongst them and wrapped in something. I asked, 'Who is that man?' They said, 'He is Sa`d bin 'Ubada.' I asked, 'What is wrong with him?' They said, 'He is sick.' After we sat for a while, the Ansar's speaker said, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and praising Allah as He deserved, he added, 'To proceed, we are Allah's Ansar (helpers) and the majority of the Muslim army, while you, the emigrants, are a small group and some people among you came with the intention of preventing us from practicing this matter (of caliphate) and depriving us of it.' When the speaker had finished, I intended to speak as I had prepared a speech which I liked and which I wanted to deliver in the presence of Abu Bakr, and I used to avoid provoking him. So, when I wanted to speak, Abu Bakr said, 'Wait a while.' I disliked to make him angry. So Abu Bakr himself gave a speech, and he was wiser and more patient than I. By Allah, he never missed a sentence that I liked in my own prepared speech, but he said the like of it or better than it spontaneously. After a pause he said, 'O Ansar! You deserve all (the qualities that you have attributed to yourselves, but this question (of Caliphate) is only for the Quraish as they are the best of the Arabs as regards descent and home, and I am pleased to suggest that you choose either of these two men, so take the oath of allegiance to either of them as you wish. And then Abu Bakr held my hand and Abu Ubaida bin al-Jarrah's hand who was sitting amongst us. I hated nothing of what he had said except that proposal, for by Allah, I would rather have my neck chopped off as expiator for a sin than become the ruler of a nation, one of whose members is Abu Bakr, unless at the time of my death my own-self suggests something I don't feel at present.' And then one of the Ansar said, 'I am the pillar on which the camel with a skin disease (eczema) rubs itself to satisfy the itching (i.e., I am a noble), and I am as a high class palm tree! O Quraish. There should be one ruler from us and one from you.' Then there was a hue and cry among the gathering and their voices rose so that I was afraid there might be great disagreement, so I said, 'O Abu Bakr! Hold your hand out.' He held his hand out and I pledged allegiance to him, and then all the emigrants gave the Pledge of allegiance and so did the Ansar afterwards. And so we became victorious over Sa`d bin Ubada (whom Al-Ansar wanted to make a ruler). One of the Ansar said, 'You have killed Sa`d bin Ubada.' I replied, 'Allah has killed Sa`d bin Ubada.' `Umar added, "By Allah, apart from the great tragedy that had happened to us (i.e. the death of the Prophet), there was no greater problem than the allegiance pledged to Abu Bakr because we were afraid that if we left the people, they might give the Pledge of allegiance after us to one of their men, in which case we would have given them our consent for something against our real wish, or would have opposed them and caused great trouble. So if any person gives the Pledge of allegiance to somebody (to become a Caliph) without consulting the other Muslims, then the one he has selected should not be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be killed."

Yahya related to me, that Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us about a man buying cloth in one city, and then taking it to another city to sell as a murabaha, is that he is not reckoned to have the wage of an agent, or any allowance for ironing, folding, straightening, expenses, or the rent of a house. As for the cost of transporting the drapery, it is included in the basic price, and no share of the profit is allocated to it unless the agent tells all of that to the investor. If they agree to share the profits accordingly after knowledge of it, there is no harm in that."

Malik said, "As for bleaching, tailoring, dyeing, and such things, they are treated in the same way as drapery. The profit is reckoned in them as it is reckoned in drapery goods. So if he sells the drapery goods without clarifying the things we named as not getting profit, and if the drapery has already gone, the transport is to be reckoned, but no profit is given. If the drapery goods have not gone the transaction between them is null and void unless they make a new mutual agreement on what is to be permitted between them ."

Malik spoke about an agent who bought goods for gold or silver, and the exchange rate on the day of purchase was ten dirhams to the dinar. He took them to a city to sell murabaha, or sold them where he purchased them according to the exchange rate of the day on which he sold them. If he bought them for dirhams and he sold them for dinars, or he bought them for dinars and he sold them for dirhams, and the goods had not gone then he had a choice. If he wished, he accepted to sell the goods and if he wished, he left them. If the goods had been sold, he had the price for which the salesman bought them, and the salesman was reckoned to have the profit on what they were bought for, over what the investor gained as profit.

Malik said, "If a man sells goods worth one hundred dinars for one hundred and ten, and he hears after that they are worth ninety dinars, and the goods have gone, the seller has a choice. If he likes, he has the price of the goods on the day they were taken from him unless the price is more than the price for which he was obliged to sell them in the first place, and he does not have more than that - and it is one hundred and ten dinars. If he likes, it is counted as profit against ninety unless the price his goods reached was less than the value. He is given the choice between what his goods fetch and the capital plus the profit, which is ninety-nine dinars."

Malik said, "If someone sells goods in murabaha and he says, 'It was valued at one hundred dinars to me.' Then he hears later on, that it was worth one hundred and twenty dinars, the customer is given the choice. If he wishes, he gives the salesman the value of the goods on the day he took them, and if he wishes, he gives the price for which he bought them according to the reckoning of what profit he gives him, as far as it goes, unless that is less than the price for which he bought them, for he should not give the owner of the goods a loss from the price for which he bought them because he was satisfied with that. The owner of the goods came to seek extra, so the buyer has no argument against the salesman in that to make a reduction from the first price for which he bought it according to the list of contents."

Malik said, "The best of what I have heard about a mukatab who injures a man so that blood-money must be paid, is that if the mukatab can pay the blood-money for the injury with his kitaba, he does so, and it is against his kitaba. If he cannot do that, and he cannot pay his kitaba because he must pay the blood-money of that injury before the kitaba, and he cannot pay the blood-money of that injury, then his master has an option. If he prefers to pay the blood-money of that injury, he does so and keeps his slave and he becomes an owned slave. If he wishes to surrender the slave to the injured, he surrenders him. The master does not have to do more than surrender his slave."

Malik spoke about people who were in a general kitaba and one of them caused an injury which entailed blood-money. He said, "If any of them does an injury involving blood-money, he and those who are with him in the kitaba are asked to pay all the blood-money of that injury. If they pay, they are confirmed in their kitaba. If they do not pay, and they are incapable then their master has an option. If he wishes, he can pay all the blood-money of that injury and all the slaves revert to him. If he wishes, he can surrender the one who did the injury alone and all the others revert to being his slaves since they could not pay the blood-money of the injury which their companion caused."

Malik said, "The way of doing things about which there is no dispute among us, is that when a mukatab is injured in some way which entails blood-money or one of the mukatab's children who is written with him in the kitaba is injured, their blood-money is the blood-money of slaves of their value, and what is appointed to them as their blood-money is paid to the master who has the kitaba and he reckons that for the mukatab at the end of his kitaba and there is a reduction for the blood-money that the master has taken for the injury."

Malik said, "The explanation of that is say, for example, he has written his kitaba for three thousand dirhams and the blood-money taken by the master for his injury is one thousand dirhams. When the mukatab has paid his master two thousand dirhams he is free. If what remains of his kitaba is one thousand dirhams and the blood-money for his injury is one thousand dirhams, he is free straightaway. If the blood-money of the injury is more than what remains of the kitaba, the master of the mukatab takes what remains of his kitaba and frees him. What remains after the payment of the kitaba belongs to the mukatab. One must not pay the mukatab any of the blood- money of his injury in case he might consume it and use it up. If he could not pay his kitaba completely he would then return to his master one eyed, with a hand cut off, or crippled in body. His master only wrote his kitaba against his property and earnings, and he did not write his kitaba so that he would take the blood-money for what happened to his child or to himself and use it up and consume it. One pays the blood-money of injuries to a mukatab and his children who are born in his kitaba, or their kitaba is written, to the master and he takes it into account for him at the end of his kitaba."

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had asked Ibn Shihab whether someone doing itikaf could go into a house to relieve himself, and he said, "Yes, there is no harm in that."

Malik said, "The situation that we are all agreed upon here is that there is no disapproval of anyone doing itikaf in a mosque where jumua is held. The only reason I see for disapproving of doing itikaf in a mosque where jumua is not held is that the man doing itikaf would have to leave the mosque where he was doing itikaf in order to go to jumua, or else not go there at all. If, however, he is doing itikaf in a mosque where jumua is not held, and he does not have to go to jumua in any other mosque, then I see no harm in him doing itikaf there, because Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, says, 'While you are doing itikaf in mosques,' and refers to all mosques in general, without specifying any particular kind."

Malik continued, "Accordingly, it is permissiblefor a man to do itikaf in a mosque where jumua is not held if he does not have to leave it to go to a mosque where jumua is held."

Malik said, "A person doing itikaf should spend the night only in the mosque where he is doing itikaf, except if his tent is in one of the courtyards of the mosque. I have never heard that someone doing itikaf can put up a shelter anywhere except in the mosque itself or in one of the courtyards of the mosque.

Part of what shows that he must spend the night in the mosque is the saying of A'isha, 'When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was doing itikaf, he would only go into the house to relieve himself.' Nor should he do itikaf on the roof of the mosque or in the minaret."

Malik said, "The person who is going to do itikaf should enter the place where he wishes to do itikaf before the sun sets on the night when he wishes to begin his itikaf, so that he is ready to begin the itikaf at the beginning of the night when he is going to start his itikaf. A person doing itikaf should be occupied with his itikaf, and not turn his attention to other things which might occupy him, such as trading or whatever. There is no harm, however, if some one doing itikaf tells some one to do something for him regarding his estate, or the affairs of his family, or tells someone to sell some property of his, or something else that does not occupy him directly. There is no harm in him arranging for someone else to do that for him if it is a simple matter."

Malik said, "I have never heard any of the people of knowledge mentioning any modification as far as how to do itikaf is concerned. Itikaf is an act of ibada like the prayer, fasting, the hajj, and such like acts, whether they are obligatory or voluntary. Anyone who begins doing any of these acts should do them according to what has come down in the sunna. He should not start doing anything in them that the muslims have not done, whether it is a modification that he imposes on others, or one that he begins doing himself. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, practised itikaf, and the muslims know what the sunna of itikaf is."

Malik said, "Itikaf and jiwar are the same, and Itikaf is the same for a village-dweller as it is for a nomad."

Malik said, "If someone advances for goods to be delivered after a time, and those goods are neither something to be eaten nor drunk, he can sell them to whomever he likes for cash or goods, before he takes delivery of them, to some one other than the person from whom he purchased them. He must not sell them to the person from whom he bought them except in exchange for goods which he takes possession of immediately and does not defer."

Malik said, "If the delivery date for the goods has not arrived, there is no harm in selling them to the original owner for goods which are clearly different and which he takes immediate possession of and does not defer."

Malik spoke about the case of a man who advanced dinars or dirhams for four specified pieces of cloth to be delivered before a specified time and when the term fell due, he demanded delivery from the seller and the seller did not have them. He found that the seller had cloth but inferior quality, and the seller said that he would give him eight of those cloths. Malik said, "There is no harm in that if he takes the cloths which he offers him before they separate. It is not good if delayed terms enter into the transaction. It is also not good if that is before the end of the term, unless he sells him cloth which is notthetypeof cloth for which he made an advance.

Malik said, "The generally agreed-on way of doing things in our community is that any setting-free which a man makes in a bequest that he wills in health or illness can be rescinded by him when he likes and changed when he likes as long as it is not a tadbir. There is no way to rescind a tadbir once he has made it.

"As for every child born to him by a slave-girl who he wills to be set free but he does not make mudabbara, her children are not freed with her when she is freed. That is because her master can change his will when he likes and rescind it when he likes, and being set free is not confirmed for her. She is in the position of a slave-girl whose master says, 'If so- and-so remains with me until I die, she is free.' " (i.e. he does not make a definite contract.)

Malik said, "If she fulfils that, that is hers. If he wishes, before that, he can sell her and her child because he has not entered her child into any condition he has made for her.

"The bequest in setting free is different from the tadbir. The precedent of the sunna makes a distinction between them. Had a bequest been in the position of a tadbir, no testator would be able to change his will and what he mentioned in it of setting free. His property would be tied up and he would not be able to use it."

Malik said about a man who made all his slaves mudabbar while he was well and they were his only property, "If he made some of them mudabbar before the others, one begins with the first until the third of his property is reached. (i.e. their value is matched against the third, and those whose value is covered are free.) If he makes the mall mudabbar in his illness, and says in one statement, 'So-and-so is free. So-and-so is free. So-and-so is free if my death occurs in this illness,' or he makes them all mudabbar in one statement, they are matched against the third and one does not begin with any of them before the others. It is a bequest and they have a third of his property divided between them in shares. Then the third of his property frees each of them according to the extent of his share.

"No single one of them is given preference when that all occurs in his illness."

Malik spoke about a master who made his slave a mudabbar and then he died and the only property he had was the mudabbar slave and the slave had property. He said, "A third of the mudabbar is freed and his property remains in his possession."

Malik said about a mudabbar whose master gave him a kitaba and then the master died and did not leave any property other than him, "A third of him is freed and a third of his kitaba is reduced, and he owes two-thirds."

Malik spoke about a man who freed half of his slave while he was ill and made irrevocable his freeing half of him or all of him, and he had made another slave of his mudabbar before that. He said, "One begins with the slave he made mudabbar before the one he freed while he was ill. That is because the man cannot revoke what he has made mudabbar and cannot follow it with a matter which will rescind it. When this mudabbar is freed, then what remains of the third goes to the one who had half of him freed so as to complete his setting-free entirely in the third of the property of the deceased. If what is left of the third does not cover that, whatever is covered by what is left of the third is freed after the first mudabbar is freed . "

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Sulayman ibn Yasar said, ''Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan, andZayd ibn Thabit gave the grandfather a third with full siblings". Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us and what I have seen the people of knowledge in our city doing is that the paternal grandfather does not inherit anything at all with the father. He is given a sixth as a fixed share with the son and the grandson through a son. Other than that, when the deceased does not leave a mother or a paternal aunt, one begins with whoever has a fixed share, and they are given their shares. If there is a sixth of the property left over, the grandfather is given a sixth as a fixed share."

Malik said, "When someone shares with the grandfather and the full siblings in a specified share, one begins with whoever shares with them of the people of fixed shares. They are given their shares. What is left over after that belongs to the grandfather and the full siblings. Then one sees which is the more favourable of two alternatives for the portion of the grandfather. Either a third is allotted to him and the siblings to divide between them, and he gets a share as if he were one of the siblings, or else he takes a sixth from all the capital. Whichever is the best portion for the grandfather is given to him. What is left after that, goes to the full siblings. The male gets the portion of two females except in one particular case. The division in this case is different from the preceding one. This case is when a woman dies and leaves a husband, mother, full sister and grandfather. The husband gets a half, the mother gets a third, the grandfather gets a sixth, and the full sister gets a half. The sixth of the grandfather and the half of the sister are joined and divided into thirds. The male gets the share of two females. Therefore, the grandfather has two thirds, and the sister has one third."

Malik said, "The inheritance of the half-siblings by the father with the grandfather when there are no full siblings with them, is like the inheritance of the full siblings (in the same situation). The males are the same as their males and the females are the same as their females. When there are both full siblings and half-siblings by the father, the full siblings include in their number the number of half-siblings by the father, to limit the inheritance of the grandfather, i.e., if there was only one full sibling with the grandfather. They would share, after the allotting of the fixed shares, the remainder of the inheritance between them equally. If there were also two half-siblings by the father, their number is added to the division of the sum, which would then be divided four ways. A quarter going to the grandfather and three-quarters going to the full siblings who annex the shares technically allotted to the half-siblings by the father. They do not include the number of half-siblings by the mother, because if there were only half-siblings by the father they would not inherit anything with the grandfather and all the capital would belong to the grandfather, and so the siblings would not get anything after the portion of the grandfather.

"It belongs to the full siblings more than the half-siblings by the father, and the half-siblings by the father do not get anything with them unless the full siblings consist of one sister. If there is one full sister, she includes the grandfather with the half-siblings by her father in the division, however many. Whatever remains for her and these half-siblings by the father goes to her rather than them until she has had her complete share, which is half of the total capital. If there is surplus beyond half of all the capital in what she and the half-siblings by the father acquire it goes to them. The male has the portion of two females. If there is nothing left over, they get nothing."

Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka`b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka`b). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Ka`b and said, "That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you." On that, Ka`b said, "By Allah, you will get tired of him!" Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food." (Some difference between narrators about a camel load or two.) Ka`b said, "Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me." Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, "What do you want?" Ka`b replied, "Mortgage your women to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the 'Arabs?" Ka`b said, "Then mortgage your sons to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people's saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you." Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Ka`b that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Ka`b at night along with Ka`b's foster brother, Abu Na'ila. Ka`b invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, "Where are you going at this time?" Ka`b replied, "None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na'ila have come." His wife said, "I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him, Ka`b said. "They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed." Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some narrators mention the men as 'Abu bin Jabr. Al Harith bin Aus and `Abbad bin Bishr). So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail to them, "When Ka`b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head." Ka`b bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. " have never smelt a better scent than this. Ka`b replied. "I have got the best 'Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume." Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka`b "Will you allow me to smell your head?" Ka`b said, "Yes." Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka`b again, "Will you let me (smell your head)?" Ka`b said, "Yes." When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), "Get at him!" So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi`) was killed after Ka`b bin Al-Ashraf."

(the wife of the Prophet) I never remembered my parents believing in any religion other than the true religion (i.e. Islam), and (I don't remember) a single day passing without our being visited by Allah's Apostle in the morning and in the evening. When the Muslims were put to test (i.e. troubled by the pagans), Abu Bakr set out migrating to the land of Ethiopia, and when he reached Bark-al-Ghimad, Ibn Ad-Daghina, the chief of the tribe of Qara, met him and said, "O Abu Bakr! Where are you going?" Abu Bakr replied, "My people have turned me out (of my country), so I want to wander on the earth and worship my Lord." Ibn Ad-Daghina said, "O Abu Bakr! A man like you should not leave his home-land, nor should he be driven out, because you help the destitute, earn their livings, and you keep good relations with your Kith and kin, help the weak and poor, entertain guests generously, and help the calamity-stricken persons. Therefore I am your protector. Go back and worship your Lord in your town."

So Abu Bakr returned and Ibn Ad-Daghina accompanied him. In the evening Ibn Ad-Daghina visited the nobles of Quraish and said to them. "A man like Abu Bakr should not leave his homeland, nor should he be driven out. Do you (i.e. Quraish) drive out a man who helps the destitute, earns their living, keeps good relations with his Kith and kin, helps the weak and poor, entertains guests generously and helps the calamity-stricken persons?" So the people of Quraish could not refuse Ibn Ad-Daghina's protection, and they said to Ibn Ad-Daghina, "Let Abu Bakr worship his Lord in his house. He can pray and recite there whatever he likes, but he should not hurt us with it, and should not do it publicly, because we are afraid that he may affect our women and children." Ibn Ad-Daghina told Abu Bakr of all that. Abu Bakr stayed in that state, worshipping his Lord in his house. He did not pray publicly, nor did he recite Quran outside his house.

Then a thought occurred to Abu Bakr to build a mosque in front of his house, and there he used to pray and recite the Quran. The women and children of the pagans began to gather around him in great number. They used to wonder at him and look at him. Abu Bakr was a man who used to weep too much, and he could not help weeping on reciting the Quran. That situation scared the nobles of the pagans of Quraish, so they sent for Ibn Ad-Daghina. When he came to them, they said, "We accepted your protection of Abu Bakr on condition that he should worship his Lord in his house, but he has violated the conditions and he has built a mosque in front of his house where he prays and recites the Quran publicly. We are now afraid that he may affect our women and children unfavorably. So, prevent him from that. If he likes to confine the worship of his Lord to his house, he may do so, but if he insists on doing that openly, ask him to release you from your obligation to protect him, for we dislike to break our pact with you, but we deny Abu Bakr the right to announce his act publicly." Ibn Ad-Daghina went to Abu- Bakr and said, ("O Abu Bakr!) You know well what contract I have made on your behalf; now, you are either to abide by it, or else release me from my obligation of protecting you, because I do not want the 'Arabs hear that my people have dishonored a contract I have made on behalf of another man." Abu Bakr replied, "I release you from your pact to protect me, and am pleased with the protection from Allah."

At that time the Prophet was in Mecca, and he said to the Muslims, "In a dream I have been shown your migration place, a land of date palm trees, between two mountains, the two stony tracts." So, some people migrated to Medina, and most of those people who had previously migrated to the land of Ethiopia, returned to Medina. Abu Bakr also prepared to leave for Medina, but Allah's Apostle said to him, "Wait for a while, because I hope that I will be allowed to migrate also." Abu Bakr said, "Do you indeed expect this? Let my father be sacrificed for you!" The Prophet said, "Yes." So Abu Bakr did not migrate for the sake of Allah's Apostle in order to accompany him. He fed two she-camels he possessed with the leaves of As-Samur tree that fell on being struck by a stick for four months.

One day, while we were sitting in Abu Bakr's house at noon, someone said to Abu Bakr, "This is Allah's Apostle with his head covered coming at a time at which he never used to visit us before." Abu Bakr said, "May my parents be sacrificed for him. By Allah, he has not come at this hour except for a great necessity." So Allah's Apostle came and asked permission to enter, and he was allowed to enter. When he entered, he said to Abu Bakr. "Tell everyone who is present with you to go away." Abu Bakr replied, "There are none but your family. May my father be sacrificed for you, O Allah's Apostle!" The Prophet said, "i have been given permission to migrate." Abu Bakr said, "Shall I accompany you? May my father be sacrificed for you, O Allah's Apostle!" Allah's Apostle said, "Yes." Abu Bakr said, "O Allah's Apostle! May my father be sacrificed for you, take one of these two she-camels of mine." Allah's Apostle replied, "(I will accept it) with payment." So we prepared the baggage quickly and put some journey food in a leather bag for them. Asma, Abu Bakr's daughter, cut a piece from her waist belt and tied the mouth of the leather bag with it, and for that reason she was named Dhat-un-Nitaqain (i.e. the owner of two belts).

Then Allah's Apostle and Abu Bakr reached a cave on the mountain of Thaur and stayed there for three nights. 'Abdullah bin Abi Bakr who was intelligent and a sagacious youth, used to stay (with them) aver night. He used to leave them before day break so that in the morning he would be with Quraish as if he had spent the night in Mecca. He would keep in mind any plot made against them, and when it became dark he would (go and) inform them of it. 'Amir bin Fuhaira, the freed slave of Abu Bakr, used to bring the milch sheep (of his master, Abu Bakr) to them a little while after nightfall in order to rest the sheep there. So they always had fresh milk at night, the milk of their sheep, and the milk which they warmed by throwing heated stones in it. 'Amir bin Fuhaira would then call the herd away when it was still dark (before daybreak). He did the same in each of those three nights. Allah's Apostle and Abu Bakr had hired a man from the tribe of Bani Ad-Dail from the family of Bani Abd bin Adi as an expert guide, and he was in alliance with the family of Al-'As bin Wail As-Sahmi and he was on the religion of the infidels of Quraish. The Prophet and Abu Bakr trusted him and gave him their two she-camels and took his promise to bring their two she camels to the cave of the mountain of Thaur in the morning after three nights later. And (when they set out), 'Amir bin Fuhaira and the guide went along with them and the guide led them along the sea-shore.

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard the same as that from al-Qasim ibn Muhammad from Ibn Muayqib ad-Dawsi.

Malik said, "This is the way of doing things among us . "

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us is that wheat is not sold for wheat, dates for dates, wheat for dates, dates for raisins, wheat for raisins, nor any kind of food sold for food at all, except from hand to hand. If there is any sort of delayed terms in the transaction, it is not good. It is haram. Condiments are not bartered except from hand to hand."

Malik said, "Food and condiments are not bartered when they are the same type, two of one kind for one of the other. A mudd of wheat is not sold for two mudds of wheat, nor a mudd of dates for two mudds of dates, nor a mudd of raisins for two mudds of raisins, nor is anything of that sort done with grains and condiments when they are of one kind, even if it is hand to hand.

"This is the same position as silver for silver and gold for gold. No increase is halal in the transaction, and only like for like, from hand to hand is halal."

Malik said, "If there is a clear difference in foodstuffs which are measured and weighed, there is no harm in taking two of one kind for one of another, hand to hand. There is no harm in taking a sa of dates for two sa of wheat, and a sa of dates for two sa of raisins, and a sa of wheat for two sa of ghee. If the two sorts in the transaction are different, there is no harm in two for one or more than that from hand to hand. If delayed terms enter into the sale, it is not halal ."

Malik said, "It is not halal to trade a heap of wheat for a heap of wheat. There is no harm in a heap of wheat for a heap of dates, from hand to hand. That is because there is no harm in buying wheat with dates without precise measurement."

Malik said, "With kinds of foods and condiments that differ from each other, and the difference is clear, there is no harm in bartering one kind for another, without precise measurement from hand to hand. If delayed terms enter into the sale, there is no good in it. Bartering such things without precise measurement is like buying it with gold and silver without measuring precisely."

Malik said, "That is because you buy wheat with silver without measuring precisely, and dates with gold without measuring precisely, and it is halal. There is no harm in it."

Malik said, "It is not good for someone to make a heap of food, knowing its measure and then to sell it as if it had not been measured precisely, concealing its measure from the buyer. If the buyer wants to return that food to the seller, he can, because he concealed its measure and so it is an uncertain transaction. This is done with any kind of food or other goods whose measure and number the seller knows, and which he then sells without measurement and the buyer does not know that. If the buyer wants to return that to the seller, he can return t. The people of knowledge still forbid such a transaction."

Malik said, "There is no good in selling one round loaf of bread for two round loaves, nor large for small when some of them are bigger than others. When care is taken that they are like for like, there is no harm in the sale, even if they are not weighed."

Malik said, "It is not good to sell a mudd of butter and a mudd of milk for two mudds of butter. This is like what we described of selling dates when two sa of kabis and a sa of poor quality dates were sold for three sa of ajwa dates after the buyer had said to the seller, 'Two sa of kabis dates for three sa of ajwa dates is not good,' and then he did that to make the transaction possible. The owner of the milk puts the milk with his butter so that he can use the superiority of his butter over the butter of the other party to put his milk in with it."

Malik said, "Flour for wheat is like for like, and there is no harm in that. That is if he does not mix up anything with the flour and sell it for wheat, like for like. Had he put half a mudd of flour and half of wheat, and then sold that for a mudd of wheat, it would be like what we described, and it would not be good because he would want to use the superiority of his good wheat to put flour along with it. Such a transaction is not good."

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."

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."

[Muslim].

Malik related to me from Humayd ibn Qays al-Makki that a son of al-Mutawakkil had a mukatab who died at Makka and left (enough to pay) the rest of his kitaba and he owed some debts to people. He also left a daughter. The governor of Makka was not certain about how to judge in the case, so he wrote to Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan to ask him about it. Abd al-Malik wrote to him, "Begin with the debts owed to people, and then pay what remains of his kitaba. Then divide what remains of the property between the daughter and the master."

Malik said, "What is done among us is that the master of a slave does not have to give his slave a kitaba if he asks for it. I have not heard of any of the Imams forcing a man to give a kitaba to his slave. I heard that one of the people of knowledge, when someone asked about that and mentioned that Allah the Blessed, the Exalted, said, 'Give them their kitaba, if you know some good in them' (Sura 24 ayat 33) recited these two ayats, 'When you are free of the state of ihram, then hunt for game.' (Sura 5 ayat 3) 'When the prayer is finished, scatter in the land and seek Allah's favour.' " (Sura 62 ayat 10)

Malik commented, "It is a way of doing things for which Allah, the Mighty, the Majestic, has given permission to people, and it is not obligatory for them." Malik said, "I heard one of the people of knowledge say about the word of Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, 'Give them of the wealth which Allah has given you,' that it meant that a man give his slave a kitaba and then reduce the end of his kitaba for him by some specific amount."

Malik said, "This is what I have heard from the people of knowledge and what I see people doing here."

Malik said, "I have heard that Abdullah ibn Umar gave one of his slaves his kitaba for 35,000 dirhams, and then reduced the end of his kitaba by 5,000 dirhams."

Malik said, "What is done among us is that when a master gives a mukatab his kitaba, the mukatab's property goes with him but his children do not go with him unless he stipulates that in his kitaba."

Yahya said, "I heard Malik say that if a mukatab whose master had given him a kitaba had a slave- girl who was pregnant by him, and neither he nor his master knew that on the day he was given his kitaba, the child did not follow him because he was not included in the kitaba. He belonged to the master. As for the slave-girl, she belonged to the mukatab because she was his property."

Malik said that if a man and his wife's son (by another husband) inherited a mukatab from the wife and the mukatab died before he had completed his kitaba, they divided his inheritance between them according to the Book of Allah. If the slave paid his kitaba and then died, his inheritance went to the son of the woman, and the husband had nothing of his inheritance.

Malik said that if a mukatab gave his own slave a kitaba, the situation was looked at. If he wanted to do his slave a favour and it was obvious by his making it easy for him, that was not permitted. If he was giving him a kitaba from desire to find money to pay off his own kitaba, that was permitted for him.

Malik said that if a man had intercourse with a mukataba of his and she became pregnant by him, she had an option. If she liked she could be an umm walad. If she wished, she could confirm her kitaba. If she did not conceive, she still had her kitaba.

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us about a slave who is owned by two men is that one of them does not give a kitaba for his share, whether or not his companion gives him permission to do so, unless they both write the kitaba together, because that alone would effect setting him free. If the slave were to fulfil what he had agreed on to free half of himself, and then the one who had given a kitaba for half of him was not obliged to complete his setting free, that would be in opposition to the words of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. 'If someone frees his share in a slave and has enough money to cover the full price of the slave, justly evaluated for him, he must give his partners their shares, so the slave is completely free . ' "

Malik said, "If he is not aware of that until the mukatab has met the terms or before he has met them the owner who has written him the kitaba returns what he has taken from the mukatab to him, and then he and his partner divide him according to their original shares and the kitaba is invalid. He is the slave of both of them in his original state."

Malik spoke about a mukatab who was owned by two men and one of them granted him a delay in the payment of the right which he was owed, and the other refused to defer it, and so the one who refused to defer the payment exacted his part of the due. Malik said that if the mukatab then died and left property which did not complete his kitaba, "They divide it according to what they are still owed by him. Each of them takes according to his share. If the mukatab leaves more than his kitaba, each of them takes what remains to them of the kitaba, and what remains after that is divided equally between them. If the mukatab is unable to pay his kitaba fully and the one who did not allow him to defer his payment has exacted more than his associate did, the slave is still divided equally between them, and he does not return to his associates the excess of what he has exacted, because he only exacted his right with the permission of his associate. If one of them remits what is owed to him and then his associate exacts part of what he is owed by him and then the mukatab is unable to pay, he belongs to both of them. And the one who has exacted something does not return anything because he only demanded what he was owed. That is like the debt of two men in one writing against one man. One of them grants him time to pay and the other is greedy and exacts his due. Then the debtor goes bankrupt. The one who exacted his due does not have to return any of what he took."

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."