Malik related to me from Hisham ibn Urwa that his father said that there was only one hadd against a man who slandered a group of people.

Malik said, "If they are on separate occasions there is still only one hadd against him."

Malik related to me from Abu'r-Rijal Muhammad ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Haritha ibn an-Numan al- Ansari, then from the Banu'n-Najar from his mother Amra bint Abd ar- Rahman that two men cursed each other in the time of Umar ibn al- Khattab. One of them said to the other, " By Allah, my father is not an adulterer and my mother is not an adulteress." Umar ibn al-Khattab asked advice about that. One person said, "He has praised his father and mother." Another said, "His father and mother have praise other than this. We think that he is to be flogged with the hadd." So Umar flogged him with the hadd of eighty lashes.

Malik said, "There is no hadd in our view except for slander, denial or insinuation, in which one sees that the speaker intends by that denial or slander. Then the hadd is completely imposed on the one who said it."

Malik said, "What is done in our community when a man denies that another man is from his father, is that he deserves the hadd. If the mother who is denied is a slave, then he deserves the hadd as well. '

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "The way of doing things generally agreed upon in our community in the case of a man who dies and has sons and one of them claims, 'My father confirmed that so-and- so was his son,' is that the relationship is not established by the testimony of one man, and the confirmation of the one who confirmed it is only permitted as regards his own share in the division of his father's property. The one testified for is only given his due from the share of the testifier."

Malik said, "An example of this is that a man dies leaving two sons, and 600 dinars. Each of them takes 300 dinars. Then one of them testifies that his deceased father confirmed that so-and-so was his son. The one who testifies is obliged to give 100 dinars to the one thus connected. This is half of the inheritance of the one thought to be related, had he been related. If the other confirms him, he takes the other 100 and so he completes his right and his relationship is established. His position is similar to that of a woman who confirms a debt against her father or her husband and the other heirs deny it. She must pay to the person whose debt she confirms, the amount according to her share of the full debt, had it been confirmed against all the heirs. If the woman inherits an eighth, she pays the creditor an eighth of his debt. If a daughter inherits a half, she pays the creditor half of his debt. Whichever women confirm him, pay him according to this.

Malik said, "If a man's testimony is in agreement with what the woman testified to, that so- and-so had a debt against his father, the creditor is made to take an oath with one witness and he is given all his due. This is not the position with women because a man's testimony is allowed and the creditor must take an oath with the testimony of his witness, and take all his due. If he does not take an oath, he only takes from the inheritance of the one who confirmed him according to his share of the debt, because he confirmed his right and the other heirs denied it. It is permitted for him to confirm it."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Abd ar-Rahman ibn al-Qasim from his father that a man from Yemen who had his hand and foot cut off came and went before Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and complained to him that the governor of the Yemen had wronged him, and the man used to pray part of the night. Abu Bakr said, "By your father, your night is not the night of a thief." Then they missed a necklace of Asma bint Umays, the wife of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq. The man came to go around with them looking for it. He said, "O Allah! You are responsible for the one who invaded the people of this good house by night!" They found the jewelry with a goldsmith. He claimed that the maimed man had brought it to him. The maimed man confessed or it was testified against him. Abu Bakr as-Siddiq ordered that his left hand be cut off. Abu Bakr said, "By Allah! His dua against himself is more serious, as far as I am concerned, than his theft."

Yahya said that Malik said, "What is done among us about the person who steals several times and is then called to reckoning, is that only his hand is cut off for all he stole when the hadd has not been applied againsthim. If the hadd has been applied against him before that, and he steals what obliges cutting off, then the next limb is cut off."

Yahya said that Malik spoke about a man who died and had a debt owing to him and there was one witness, and some people had a debt against him and they had only one witness, and his heirs refused to take an oath on their rights with their witness. He said, "The creditors take an oath and take their rights. If there is anything left over, the heirs do not take any of it. That is because the oaths were offered to them before and they abandoned them, unless they say, 'We did not know that our companion had extra,' and it is known that they only abandoned the oaths because of that. I think that they should take an oath and take what remains after his debt."

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."

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."

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Marwan ibn al-Hakam wrote to Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan to mention to him that a drunkard was brought to him who had killed a man. Muawiya wrote to him to kill him in retaliation for the dead man.

Yahya said that Malik said, "The best of what I have heard on the interpretation of this ayat, the word of Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, 'The free man for the free man and the slave for the slave - these are men and the woman for the woman,' (Sura 2 ayat 178) is that retaliation is between women as it is between men. The free woman is killed for the free woman as the free man is killed for the free man. The slave-girl is slain for the slave-girl as the slave is slain for the slave. Retaliation is between women as it is between men. That is because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'We have written for them in it that it is a life for a life and an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds there is retaliation.' (Sura 5 ayat 48) Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, mentioned that it is a life for a life. It is the life of a free woman for the life of a free man, and her injury for his injury."

Malik said about a man who held a man fast for another man to hit, and he died on the spot, "If he held him and he thought that he meant to kill him, the two of them are both killed for him. If he held him and he thought that he meant to beat him as people sometimes do, and he did not think that he meant to kill him, the murderer is slain and the one who held him is punished with a very severe punishment and jailed for a year. There is no killing against him."

Malik said about a man who murdered a man intentionally or gouged out his eye intentionally, and then was slain or had his eye gouged out himself before retaliation was inflicted on him, "There is no blood-money nor retaliation against him. The right of the one who was killed or had his eye gouged out goes when the thing which he is claiming as retaliation goes. It is the same with a man who murders another man intentionally and then the murderer dies. When the murderer dies, the one seeking blood-revenge has nothing of blood- money or anything else. That is by the word of Allah, the Blessed the Exalted, 'Retaliation is written for you in killing. The free man for the free man and the slave for the slave.' "

Malik said, "He only has retaliation against the one who killed him. If the man who murdered him dies, he has no retaliation or blood-money."

Malik said, "There is no retaliation held against a free man by a slave for any injury. The slave is killed for the free man when he intentionally murders him. The free man is not slain for the slave, even if he murders him intentionally. It is the best of what I have heard."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "The way of doing things in our community about which there is no dispute, is that if a man gives sadaqa to his son - sadaqa which the son takes possession of or which is in the father's keeping and the father has had his sadaqa witnessed, he cannot take back any of it because he cannot reclaim any sadaqa."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "The generally agreed-on way of doing things in our community in the case of someone who gives his son a gift or grants him a gift which is not sadaqa is that he can take it back as long as the child does not start a debt, which people claim from him, and which they trust him for on the strength of the gift his father has given him. The father cannot take back anything from the gift after debts are started against it.

"If a man gives his son or daughter something and a woman marries the man, and she only marries him for the wealth and the property which his father has given him and so the father wants to take that back, or, if a man marries a woman whose father has given her a gift and he marries her with an increased bride-price because of the wealth and property that her father has given, then the father says, 'I will take that back,' then the father cannot take back any of that from the son or daughter if it is as I have described to you."

Yahya said that he heard Malik speak about a man who bought goods - animals or clothes or wares, and the sale was found not to be permitted so it was revoked and the one who had taken the goods was ordered to return the owner his goods. Malik said, "The owner of the goods only has their value on the day they were taken from him, and not on the day they are returned to him. That is because the man is liable for them from the day he took them and whatever loss is in them after that is against him. For that reason, their increase and growth are also his. A man may take the goods at a time when they are selling well and are in demand, and then have to return them at a time when they have fallen in price and no one wants them. For instance, the man may take the goods from the other man, and sell them for ten dinars or keep them while their price is that. Then he may have to return them while their price is only a dinar. He should not go off with nine dinars from the man's property. Or perhaps they are taken by the man, and he sells them for a dinar or keeps them, while their price is only a dinar, then he has to return them, and their value on the day he returns them is ten dinars. The one who took them does not have to pay nine dinars from his property to the owner. He is only obliged to pay the value of what he took possession of on the day it was taken ."

He said, "Part of what clarifies this is that when a thief steals goods, only their price on the day he stole them is looked at. If cutting off the hand is necessary because of it, that is done. If the cutting off is delayed, either because the thief is imprisoned until his situation is examined or he flees and then is caught, the delay of the cutting off of the hand does not make the hadd, which was obliged for him on the day he stole, fall from him even if those goods become cheap after that. Nor does delay oblige cutting off the hand if it was not obliged on the day he took those goods, even if they become expensive after that."

Yahya said that Malik said, "The way of doing things in our community about Yahya said that Malik said, "The procedure in swearing in manslaughter is that those who claim blood swear and it becomes due by their swearing. They swear fifty oaths, and there is blood-money for them according to the division of their inheritances. If it is not possible to divide up the oaths which they swear between them evenly, one looks to the one who has most of those oaths against him, and that oath is obliged against him."

Malik said, "If the slain man only has female heirs, they swear and take the blood-money. If he only has one male heir, he swears fifty oaths and takes the blood-money. That is only in the accidental killing, not in the intentional one."

Regarding the Qur'anic Verse: 'O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will.' (4.19) The custom (in the Pre-lslamic Period) was that if a man died, his relatives used to have the right to inherit his wife, and if one of them wished, he could marry her, or they could marry her to somebody else, or prevent her from marrying if they wished, for they had more right to dispose of her than her own relatives. Therefore this Verse was revealed concerning this matter.

A man from Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque and called (the Prophet ) saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." On that the Prophet turned his face from him to the other side, whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and repeated his statement. The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side again. The man moved again (and repeated his statement) for the fourth time. So when the man had given witness four times against himself, the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" He replied, "No." The Prophet then said (to his companions), "Go and stone him to death." The man was a married one. Jabir bin `Abdullah Al-Ansari said: I was one of those who stoned him. We stoned him at the Musalla (`Id praying place) in Medina. When the stones hit him with their sharp edges, he fled, but we caught him at Al-Harra and stoned him till he died.

I started abusing Hassan in front of `Aisha. She said, "Do not abuse him as he used to defend Allah's Apostle (against the infidels). `Aisha added, "Once Hassan took the permission from the Prophet to say poetic verses against the infidels. On that the Prophet said, 'How will you exclude my forefathers (from that)? Hassan replied, 'I will take you out of them as one takes a hair out of the dough." Hisham's father added, "I abused Hassan as he was one of those who spoke against `Aisha."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Said ibn al-Musayyab had said that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "If a man marries a woman who is insane, or has leprosy or white leprosy, without being told of her condition by her guardian, and he has sexual relations with her, she keeps her bride-price in its entirety. Her husband has damages against her guardian."

Malik said, "The husband has damages against her guardian when the guardian is her father, brother, or one who is deemed to have knowledge of her condition. If the guardian who gives her in marriage is a nephew, a mawla or a member of her tribe who is not deemed to have knowledge of her condition, there are no damages against him, and the woman returns what she has taken of her bride-price, and the husband leaves her whatever amount is thought to be fair."

Yahya said that Malik said, "The way of doing things in our community about which there is no dispute is that women do not swear in the swearing for the intentional act. If the murdered man only has female relatives, the women have no right to swear for blood and no pardon in murder."

Yahya said that Malik said about a man who is murdered, "If the paternal relatives of the murdered man or his mawali say, 'We swear and we demand our companion's blood,' that is their right."

Malik said, "If the women want to pardon him, they cannot do that. The paternal relatives and mawali are entitled to do that more than them because they are the ones who demand blood and swear for it."

Malik said, "If the paternal relatives or mawali pardon after they demand blood and the women refuse and say, 'We will not abandon our right against the murderer of our companion,' the women are more entitled to that because whoever takes retaliation is more entitled than the one who leaves it among the women and paternal relatives when the murder is established and killing obliged."

Malik said, "At least two claimants must swear in murder. The oaths are repeated by them until they swear fifty oaths, then they have the right to blood. That is how things are done in our community."

Malik said, "When people beat a man and he dies in their hands, they are all slain for him. If he dies after their beating, there is swearing. If there is swearing, it is only against one man and only he is slain. We have never known the swearing to be against more than one man."

Malik spoke about a slave who had his hand or foot broken and then the break mended . He said, "The one who injured him is not obliged to pay anything. If that break causes him loss or scar, the one who injured him must pay according to what he diminished of the value of the slave."

Malik said, "What is done in our community about retaliation between slaves is that it is like retaliation between freemen. The life of the slave-girl for the life of the slave, and her injury for his injury. When a slave intentionally kills a slave, the master of the murdered slave has a choice. If he wishes, he kills him, and if he wishes, he takes the blood-money. If he takes the blood-money, he takes the value of his slave. If the owner of the slave who killed wishes to give the value of the murdered slave, he does it. If he wishes, he surrenders his slave. If he surrenders him, he is not obliged to do anything other than that. When the owner of the murdered slave takes the slave who murdered and is satisifed with him, he must not kill him. All retaliations between slaves for cutting off of the hand and foot and such things are dealt with in the same way as in the murder."

Malik said about a muslim slave who injures a jew or christian, "If the master of the slave wishes to pay blood-money for him according to the injury, he does it. Or else he surrenders him and he is sold, and the jew or christian is given the blood-money of the injury or all the price of the slave if the blood-money is greater than his price. The jew or christian is not given a muslim slave."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Hisham ibn Urwa that his father said that a man who pronounced a dhihar from his four wives in one statement, had only to do one kaffara. Yahya related the same as that to me from Malik from Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman.

Malik said, "That is what is done among us. Allah, the Exalted said about the kaffara for pronouncing dhihar, 'It is to free a slave before they touch one another. If he does not find the means to do that, then fasting for two consecutive months before they touch one another. If he cannot do that, it is to feed sixty poor people. ' " (Sura 58 ayats 4,5).

Malik said that a man who pronounced dhihar from his wife on various occasions had only to do one kaffara. If he pronounced dhihar, and then did kaffara, and then pronounced dhihar after he had done the kaffara, he had to do kaffara again.

Malik said, "Some one who pronounces dhihar from his wife and then has intercourse with her before he has done kaffara, only has to do one kaffara. He must abstain from her until he does kaffara and ask forgiveness of Allah. That is the best of what I have heard. "

Malik said, "It is the same with dhihar using any prohibited relations of fosterage and ancestry."

Malik said, "Women have no dhihar."

Malik said that he had heard that the commentary on the word of Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, "Those of you who pronounce the dhihar about their wives, and then retract what they have said," (Sura 56 ayat 3), was that a man pronounced dhihar on his wife and then decided to keep her and have intercourse with her. If he decided on that, he must do kaffara. If he divorced her and did not decide to retract his dhihar of her and to keep her and have intercourse with her, there would be no kaffara incumbent on him.

Maliksaid, "If he marries her after that, he does not touch her until he has completed the kaffara of pronouncing dhihar."

Malik said that if a man who pronounced dhihar from his slave-girl wanted to have intercourse with her, he had to do the kaffara of the dhihar before he could sleep with her.

Malik said, "There is no ila in a man's dhihar unless it is evident that he does not intend to retract his dhihar."

Some Muslim men emigrated to Ethiopia whereupon Abu Bakr also prepared himself for the emigration, but the Prophet said (to him), "Wait, for I hope that Allah will allow me also to emigrate." Abu Bakr said, "Let my father and mother be sacrificed for you. Do you hope that (emigration)?" The Prophet said, 'Yes." So Abu Bakr waited to accompany the Prophet and fed two she-camels he had on the leaves of As-Samur tree regularly for four months One day while we were sitting in our house at midday, someone said to Abu Bakr, "Here is Allah's Apostle, coming with his head and a part of his face covered with a cloth-covering at an hour he never used to come to us." Abu Bakr said, "Let my father and mother be sacrificed for you, (O Prophet)! An urgent matter must have brought you here at this hour." The Prophet came and asked the permission to enter, and he was allowed. The Prophet entered and said to Abu Bakr, "Let those who are with you, go out." Abu Bakr replied, "(There is no stranger); they are your family. Let my father be sacrificed for you, O Allah's Apostle!" The Prophet said, "I have been allowed to leave (Mecca)." Abu Bakr said, " I shall accompany you, O Allah's Apostle, Let my father be sacrificed for you!" The Prophet said, "Yes," Abu Bakr said, 'O Allah's Apostles! Let my father be sacrificed for you. Take one of these two shecamels of mine" The Prophet said. I will take it only after paying its price." So we prepared their baggage and put their journey food In a leather bag. And Asma' bint Abu Bakr cut a piece of her girdle and tied the mouth of the leather bag with it. That is why she was called Dhatan- Nitaqaln. Then the Prophet and Abu Bakr went to a cave in a mountain called Thour and remained there for three nights. `Abdullah bin Abu Bakr. who was a young intelligent man. used to stay with them at night and leave before dawn so that in the morning, he would he with the Quraish at Mecca as if he had spent the night among them. If he heard of any plot contrived by the Quraish against the Prophet and Abu Bakr, he would understand it and (return to) inform them of it when it became dark. 'Amir bin Fuhaira, the freed slave of Abu Bakr used to graze a flock of milch sheep for them and he used to take those sheep to them when an hour had passed after the `Isha prayer. They would sleep soundly till 'Amir bin Fuhaira awakened them when it was still dark. He used to do that in each of those three nights.

The person who increased the number of Adhans for the Jumua prayers to three was `Uthman bin `Affan and it was when the number of the (Muslim) people of Medina had increased. In the lifetime of the Prophet there was only one Mu'adh-dhin and the Adhan used to be pronounced only after the Imam had taken his seat (i.e. on the pulpit).

Yahya related to me from Malik that Yahya ibn Said said that Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Hazm informed him that he had taken a Nabatean who had stolen some iron rings and jailed him in order to cut off his hand. Amra bint Abd ar-Rahman sent a girl mawla to him called Umayya. Abu Bakr said that she had come to him while he was among the people and said that his aunt Amra sent word to him saying, "Son of my brother! You have taken a Nabatean for something insignificant which was mentioned to me. Do you want to cut off his hand?" He had said, "Yes." She said, ''Amra says to you not to cut off the hand except for a quarter of a dinar and upwards."

Abu Bakr added, "So I let the Nabatean go."

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us about the confession of slaves is that if a slave confesses something against himself, the hadd and punishment for it is inflicted on his body. His confession is accepted from him and one does not suspect that he would inflict something on himself."

Malik said, "As for the one of them who confesses to a matter which will incur damages agains this master, his confession is not accepted against his master."

Malik said, "One does not cut off the hand of a hireling or a man who is with some people to serve them, if he robs them, because his state is not the state of a thief. His state is the state of a treacherous one. The treacherous one does not have his hand cut off."

Malik said about a person who borrows something and then denies it, "His hand is not cut off. He is like a man who owes a debt to another man and denies it. He does not have his hand cut off for what he has denied."

Malik said, "The generally agreed-on way of dealing among us, with the thief who is found in a house and has gathered up goods and has not taken them out, is that his hand is not cut off. That is like the man who places wine before him to drink it and does not do it. The hadd is not imposed on him. That is like a man who sits with a woman and desires to have haram intercourse with her and does not do it and he does not reach her. There is no hadd against that either."

Malik said, "The generally agreed-on way of doing things among us is that there is no cutting off the hand for what is taken by chance, openly and in haste, whether or not its price reaches that for which the hand is cut off."

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz during his khalifate, wrote to one of his governors, "Whatever a father, or guardian, who gives someone in marriage, makes a condition in the way of unreturnable gift or of favour, belongs to the woman if she wants it."

Malik spoke about a woman whose father gave her in marriage and made an unreturnable gift a condition of the bride-price which was to be given. He said, "Whatever is given as a condition by which marriage occurs belongs to the woman if she wants it. If the husband parts from her before the marriage is consummated, the husband has half of the unreturnable gift by which the marriage occurred."

Malik said about a man who married off his young son and the son had no wealth at all, that the bride- price was obliged of the father if the young man had no property on the day of marriage. If the young man did have property the bride- price was taken from his property unless the father stipulated that he would pay the bride-price. The marriage was affirmed for the son if he was a minor only if he was under the guardianship of his father.

Malik said that if a man divorced his wife before he had consummated the marriage and she was a virgin, her father returned half of the bride-price to him. That half was permitted to the husband from the father to compensate him for his expenses.

Malik said that that was because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, "Unless they (women with whom he had not consummated marriage) make remission or he makes remission to him in whose hand is the knot of marriage." (Sura 2 ayat 237). (He being the father of a virgin daughter or the master of a female slave.)

Malik said, "That is what I have heard about the matter, and that is how things are done among us."

Malik said that a jewish or christian woman who was married to a jew or christian and then became muslim before the marriage had been consummated, did not keep anything from the bride-price.

Malik said, "I do not think that women should be married for less than a quarter of a dinar. That is the lowest amount for which cutting off the hand is obliged ."

While I and my father were with Jabir bin `Abdullah, some people asked him about taking a bath. He replied, "A Sa` of water is sufficient for you." A man said, "A Sa` is not sufficient for me." Jabir said, "A Sa` was sufficient for one who had more hair than you and was better than you (meaning the Prophet)." And then Jabir (put on) his garment and led the prayer.

The Prophet and one of his companions entered upon an Ansari man. The Prophet and his companion greeted (the man) and he replied, "O Allah's Apostle! Let my father and mother be sacrificed for you! It is hot," while he was watering his garden. The Prophet asked him, "If you have water kept overnight in a water skin, (give us), or else we will drink by putting our mouths in the basin." The man was watering the garden The man said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have water kept overnight in a water-skin. He went to the shade and poured some water into a bowl and milked some milk from a domestic goat in it. The Prophet drank and then gave the bowl to the man who had come along with him to drink.

Lian was mentioned in the presence of the Prophet, `Asim bin Adi said a statement about it, and when he left, a man from his tribe came to him complaining that he had seen a man with his wife. `Asim said, "I have been put to trial only because of my statement." So he took the man to the Prophet and the man told him about the incident. The man (husband) was of yellow complexion, thin, and of lank hair, while the man whom he had accused of having been with his wife, was reddish brown with fat thick legs and fat body. The Prophet said, "O Allah! Reveal the truth." Later on the lady delivered a child resembling the man whom the husband had accused of having been with her. So the Prophet made them take the oath of Lian. A man said to Ibn `Abbas in the gathering, "Was that the same lady about whom the Prophet said, "If I were to stone any lady (for committing illegal sexual intercourse) to death without witnesses, I would have stoned that lade to death?" Ibn `Abbas said, "No, that was another lady who used to behave in such a suspicious way among the Muslims that one might accuse her of committing illegal sexual intercourse."

Malik related to me from Zurayq ibn Hakim al-Ayli that a man called Misbah asked his son for help and he thought him unnecessarily slow. When the son came, his father said to him, "O fornicator." Zurayq said, "So the son asked me to help him against the father. When I wanted to flog him, his son said, 'By Allah, if you flog him, I will acknowledge that I have committed fornication.' When he said that, the situation was confused for me, so I wrote about it to Umar ibn Abd al- Aziz who was the governor at that time, and I mentioned it to him. Umar wrote me to permit his pardon."

Zurayq said, "I wrote to Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz also, 'What do you think about a man who is slandered or his parents are slandered and both or only one of them are dead?' He said, Umar wrote to me, 'If he forgives, his pardon is permitted for himself. If his parents are slandered and one or both of them are dead, take the judgement of the Book of Allah for it unless he wants to veil it.' "

Yahya said, "I heard Malik say, 'That is because the slandered man might fear that if that is unveiled about him, a clear proof might be established. If it is according to what we have described, his pardon is permitted."

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.

During the affliction of Ibn Az-Zubair, two men came to Ibn `Umar and said, "The people are lost, and you are the son of `Umar, and the companion of the Prophet, so what forbids you from coming out?" He said, "What forbids me is that Allah has prohibited the shedding of my brother's blood." They both said, "Didn't Allah say, 'And fight then until there is no more affliction?" He said "We fought until there was no more affliction and the worship is for Allah (Alone while you want to fight until there is affliction and until the worship become for other than Allah." Narrated Nafi` (through another group of sub-narrators): A man came to Ibn `Umar and said, "O Abu `Abdur Rahman! What made you perform Hajj in one year and Umra in another year and leave the Jihad for Allah' Cause though you know how much Allah recommends it?" Ibn `Umar replied, "O son of my brother! Islam is founded on five principles, i.e. believe in Allah and His Apostle, the five compulsory prayers, the fasting of the month of Ramadan, the payment of Zakat, and the Hajj to the House (of Allah)." The man said, "O Abu `Abdur Rahman! Won't you listen to why Allah has mentioned in His Book: 'If two groups of believers fight each other, then make peace between them, but if one of then transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then you all fight against the one that transgresses. (49.9) and:--"And fight them till there is no more affliction (i.e. no more worshiping of others along with Allah)." Ibn `Umar said, "We did it, during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle when Islam had only a few followers. A man would be put to trial because of his religion; he would either be killed or tortured. But when the Muslims increased, there was no more afflictions or oppressions." The man said, "What is your opinion about `Uthman and `Ali?" Ibn `Umar said, "As for `Uthman, it seems that Allah has forgiven him, but you people dislike that he should be forgiven. And as for `Ali, he is the cousin of Allah's Apostle and his son-in-law." Then he pointed with his hand and said, "That is his house which you see."

It was mentioned in the presence of `Aisha that the Prophet had appointed `Ali as successor by will. Thereupon she said, "Who said so? I saw the Prophet, while I was supporting him against my chest. He asked for a tray, and then fell on one side and expired, and I did not feel it. So how (do the people say) he appointed `Ali as his successor?"

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."

Two men had a dispute in the presence of Allah's Apostle. One of them said, "Judge us according to Allah's Laws." The other who was more wise said, "Yes, Allah's Apostle, judge us according to Allah's Laws and allow me to speak (first)" The Prophet said to him, 'Speak " He said, "My son was a laborer for this man, and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife, and the people told me that my son should be stoned to death, but I have given one-hundred sheep and a slave girl as a ransom (expiation) for my son's sin. Then I asked the religious learned people (about It), and they told me that my son should he flogged one-hundred stripes and should be exiled for one year, and only the wife of this man should be stoned to death " Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, I will judge you according to Allah's Laws: O man, as for your sheep and slave girl, they are to be returned to you." Then the Prophet had the man's son flogged one hundred stripes and exiled for one year, and ordered Unais Al-Aslami to go to the wife of the other man, and if she confessed, stone her to death. She confessed and was stoned to death.

Yahya related to me that Malik heard Ibn Shihab say, "When a man gives his wife the right of choice, and she chooses him, that is not divorce."

Malik added, "That is the best of what I have heard."

Malik said that if a woman who had been given the right of choice by her husband chose herself, she was divorced trebly. If her husband said, "But I only gave her the right of choice in one," he had none of that. That was the best of what he had heard.

Malik said, "If the man gives his wife the right of choice and she says, 'I accept one', and he says, 'I did not mean that, I have given the right of choice in all three together,' then if she only accepts one, she remains with him in her marriage, and that is not separation if Allah, the Exalted wills."

Yahya related to me from Malik that Yahya ibn Said said, "I vowed to walk, but I was struck by a pain in the kidney, so I rode until I came to Makka. I questioned Ata ibn Abi Rabah and others, and they said, 'You must sacrifice an animal.' When I came to Madina I questioned the ulama there, and they ordered me to walk again from the place from which I was unable to go on. So I walked."

Yahya said that he had heard Malik say, "What is done among us regarding someone who makes a vow to walk to the House of Allah, and then cannot do it and so rides, is that he must return and walk from the place from which he was unable to go on. If he cannot walk, he should walk what he can and then ride, and he must sacrifice a camel, a cow, or a sheep if that is all that he can find."

Malik, when asked about a man who said to another, "I will carry you to the House of Allah", answered, "If he intended to carry him on his shoulder, by that he meant hardship and exhaustion to himself, and he does not have to do that. Let him walk by foot and make sacrifice. If he did not intend anything, let him do hajj and ride, and take the man on hajj with him. That is because he said, 'I will carry you to the house of Allah.' If the man refuses to do hajj with him, then there is nothing against him, and what is demanded of him is cancelled."

Yahya said that Malik was asked whether it was enough for a man who had made a vow that he would walk to the House of Allah a certain (large) number of times, or who had forbidden himself from talking to his father and brother, if he did not fulfil a certain vow, and he had taken upon himself, by the oath, something which he was incapable of fulfilling in his lifetime, even though he were to try every year, to fulfil only one or a (smaller) number of vows by Allah? Malik said, "The only satisfaction for that that I know is fulfilling what he has obliged himself to do. Let him walk for as long as he is able and draw near Allah the Exalted by what he can of good."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Suhayl ibn Abi Salih from his father from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Whoever makes an oath and then sees that something else would be better than it, should do kaffara for his oath and do what is better."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "Anyone who says that he has a vow but does not mention the name of Allah, is still obliged to make the kaffara for an oath (if he breaks it)".

Malik said, "Emphasis is when a man swears one thing several times, repeating the oath in his speech time after time. For instance, the statement, 'By Allah, I will not decrease it from such-and-such,' sworn three times or more. The kaffara of that is like the kaffara of one oath. If a man swears, 'I will not eat this food or wear these clothes or enter this house,' that is all in one oath, and he is only obliged to do one kaffara. It is the same for a man who says to his wife, 'You are divorced if I clothe you in this garment or let you go to the mosque,' and it is one entire statement in the normal pattern of speech. If he breaks any of that oath, divorce is necessary, and there is no breaking of oath after that in whatever he does. There is only one oath to be broken in that."

Malik said, "What we do about a woman who makes a vow without her husband's permission is that she is allowed to do so and she must fulfill it, if it only concerns her own person and will not harm her husband. If, however, it will harm her husband, he may forbid her to fulfill it, but it remains an obligation against her until she has the opportunity to complete it."