Malik said, "The generally agreed-on way of doing things among us in the case of slave whose master makes a bequest to free part of him - a third, a fourth, a half, or any share after his death, is that only the portion of him is freed that his master has named. This is because the freeing of that portion is only obliged to take place after the death of the master because the master has the option to withdraw the bequest as long as he lives. When the slave is freed from his master, the master is a testator and the testator only has access to free what he can take from his property, being the third of the property he is allowed to bequeath, and the rest of the slave is not free because the man's property has gone out of his hands. How can the rest of the slave which belongs to other people be free when they did not initiate the setting free and did not confirm it and they do not have the wala' established for them? Only the deceased could do that. He was the one who freed him and the one for whom the wala' was confirmed. That is not to be borne by another's property unless he bequeaths within the third of his property what remains of a lave to be freed. That is a request against his partners and inheritors and the partners must not refuse the slave that when it is within the third of the dead man's property because there is no harm in that to the inheritors."

Malik said, "If a man frees a third of his slave while he is critically ill, he must complete the emancipation so all of him is free from him, if it is within the third of his property that he has access to, because he is not treated in the same way as a man who frees a third of a slave after his death, because had the one who freed a third of his slave after his death lived, he could have cancelled it and the slave's being set free would be of no effect. The master who made the freeing of the third of the slave irrevocable in his illness, would still have to free all of him if he lived. If he died, the slave would be set free within the third of the bequest. That is because the command of the deceased is permissible in his third as the command of the healthy is permissible in all his property."

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in our community is that any setting-free which a man makes in a bequest that he wills in health or illness can be rescinded by him when he likes and changed when he likes as long as it is not a tadbir.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 . "

Malik said, The best of what I have heard about a mukatab whose master frees him at death, is that the mukatab is valued according to what he would fetch if he were sold. If that value is less than what remains against him of his kitaba, his freedom is taken from the third that the deceased can bequeath. One does not look at the number of dirhams which remain against him in his kitaba. That is because had he been killed, his killer would not be in debt for other than his value on the day he killed him. Had he been injured, the one who injured him would not be liable for other than the blood-money of the injury on the day of his injury. One does not look at how much he has paid of dinars and dirhams of the contract he has written because he is a slave as long as any of his kitaba remains. If what remains in his kitaba is less than his value, only whatever of his kitaba remains owing from him is taken into account in the third of the property of the deceased. That is because the deceased left him what remains of his kitaba and so it becomes a bequest which the deceased made."

Malik said, "The illustration of that is that if the price of the mukatab is one thousand dirhams, and only one hundred dirhams remain of his kitaba, his master leaves him the one hundred dirhams which complete it for him. It is taken into account in the third of his master and by it he becomes free."

Malik said that if a man wrote his slave a kitaba at his death, the value of the slave was estimated. If there was enough to cover the price of the slave in one third of his property, that was permitted for him.

Malik said, "The illustration of that is that the price of the slave is one thousand dinars. His master writes him a kitaba for two hundred dinars at his death. The third of the property of his master is one thousand dinars, so that is permitted for him. It is only a bequest which he makes from one third of his property. If the master has left bequests to people, and there is no surplus in the third after the value of the mukatab, one begins with the mukatab because the kitaba is setting free, and setting free has priority over bequests. When those bequests are paid from the kitaba of the mukatab, they follow it. The heirs of the testator have a choice. If they want to give the people with bequests all their bequests and the kitaba of the mukatab is theirs, they have that. If they refuse and hand over the mukatab and what he owes to the people with bequests they can do that, because the third commences with the mukatab and because all the bequests which he makes are as one."

If the heirs then say, "What our fellow bequeathed was more than one third of his property and he has taken what was not his," Malik said, "His heirs choose. It is said to them, 'Your companion has made the bequests you know about and if you would like to give them to those who are to receive them according to the deceased's bequests, then do so. If not, hand over to the people with bequests one third of the total property of the deceased.' "

Malik continued, "If the heirs surrender the mukatab to the people with bequests, the people with bequests have what he owes of his kitaba. If the mukatab pays what he owes of his kitaba, they take that in their bequests according to their shares. If the mukatab cannot pay, he is a slave of the people with bequests and does not return to the heirs because they gave him up when they made their choice, and because when he was surrendered to the people with bequests, they were liable. If he died, they would not have anything against the heirs. If the mukatab dies before he pays his kitaba and he leaves property which is more than what he owes, his property goes to the people with bequests. If the mukatab pays what he owes, he is free and his wala' returns to the paternal relations of the one who wrote the kitaba for him."

Malik spoke about a mukatab who owed his master ten thousand dirhams in his kitaba, and when he died he remitted one thousand dirhams from it. He said, "The mukatab is valued and his value is taken into consideration. If his value is one thousand dirhams and the reduction is a tenth of the kitaba, that portion of the slave's price is one hundred dirhams. It is a tenth of the price. A tenth of the kitaba is therefore reduced for him. That is converted to a tenth of the price in cash. That is as if he had had all of what he owed reduced for him. Had he done that, only the value of the slave - one thousand dirhams - would have been taken into account in the third of the property of the deceased. If that which he had remitted is half of the kitaba, half the price is taken into account in the third of the property of the deceased. If it is more or less than that, it is according to this reckoning."

Malik said, "When a man reduces the kitaba of his mukatab by one thousand dirhams at his death from a kitaba of ten thousand dirhams, and he does not stipulate whether it is from the beginning or the end of his kitaba, each instalment is reduced for him by one tenth."

Malik said, "If a man remits one thousand dirhams from his mukatab at his death from the beginning or end of his kitaba, and the original basis of the kitaba is three thousand dirhams, the mukatab's cash value is estimated. Then that value is divided. That thousand which is from the beginning of the kitaba is converted into its portion of the price according to its proximity to the term and its precedence and then the thousand which follows the first thousand is according to its precedence also until it comes to its end, and every thousand is paid according to its place in advancing and deferring the term because what is deferred of that is less in respect of its price. Then it is placed in the third of the deceased according to whatever of the price befalls that thousand according to the difference in preference of that, whether it is more or less, then it is according to this reckoning."

Malik spoke about a man who willed a man a fourth of a mukatab or freed a fourth, and then the man died and the mukatab died and left a lot of property, more than he owed. He said, "The heirs of the first master and the one who was willed a fourth of the mukatab are given what they are still owed by the mukatab. Then they divide what is left over, and the one willed a fourth has a third of what is left after the kitaba is paid. The heirs of his master gets two-thirds. That is because the mukatab is a slave as long as any of his kitaba remains to be paid. He is inherited from by the possession of his person."

Malik said about a mukatab whose master freed him at death, "If the third of the deceased will not cover him, he is freed from it according to what the third will cover and his kitaba is decreased according to that. If the mukatab owed five thousand dirhams and his value is two thousand dirhams cash, and the third of the deceased is one thousand dirhams, half of him is freed and half of the kitaba has been reduced for him." Malik said about a man who said in his will, "My slave so-and-so is free and write a kitaba for so-and- so", that the setting free had priority over the kitaba.

That he used to give his verdict regarding the male or female slaves owned by more than one master, one of whom may manumit his share of the slave. Ibn `Umar used to say in such a case, "The manumitted should manumit the slave completely if he has sufficient money to pay the rest of the price of that slave (which is to be justly estimated) and the other shareholders are to take the price of their shares and the slave is freed (released from slavery)." Ibn `Umar narrated this verdict from the Prophet.

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."

Malik related to me that he had heard that a slave-girl came to Umar ibn al-Khattab (who had been beaten by her master with a red hot iron) and he set her free.

Malik said, "The generally agreed- on way of doing things among us is that a man is not permitted to be freed while he has a debt against him which exceeds his property. A boy is not allowed to be set free until he has reached puberty. The young person whose affairs are managed cannot set free in his property, even when he reaches puberty, until he manages his property."

Malik related to me from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "It is the duty of a muslim man who has something to be given as a bequest not to spend two nights without writing a will about it."

Malik said, "The generally agreed-on way of doing things in our community is that when the testator writes something in health or illness as a bequest, and it has freeing slaves or things other than that in it, he can alter it in any way he chooses, until he is on his deathbed. If he prefers to abandon a bequest or change it, he can do so unless he has made a slave mudabbar (to be freed after his death). If he has made him mudabbar, there is no way to change what he has made mudabbar. He is allowed to change his testament because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "It is the duty of a muslim man who has something to be given as a bequest not to spend two nights without writing a will about it."

Malik explained, "Had the testator not been able to change his will nor what was mentioned in it about freeing slaves, each testator might withhold making bequests from his property, whether in freeing slaves or other than it. A man gives a bequest in his health and in his travelling." (i.e. he does not wait till his death bed ) .

Malik summed up, "The way of doing things in our community about which there is no dispute is that he can change whatever he likes of that except for the mudabbar."

Malik related to me that he heard Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman and others mention that al-Furafisa ibn Umar al-Hanafi had a mukatab who offered to pay him all of his kitaba that he owed. Al-Furafisa refused to accept it and the mukatab went to Marwan ibn al-Hakam who was the amir of Madina and brought up the matter. Marwan summoned al-Furafisa and told him to accept. He refused. Marwan then ordered that the payment be taken from the mukatab and placed in the treasury. He said to the mukatab "Go, you are free." When al-Furafisa saw that, he took the money.

Malik said, "What is done among us when a mukatab pays all the instalments he owes before their term, is that it is permitted to him. The master cannot refuse him that. That is because payment removes every condition from the mukatab as well as service and travel. The setting free of a man is not complete while he has any remaining slavery, and neither would his inviolability as a free man be complete and his testimony permitted and inheritance obliged and such things in that situation. His master must not make any stipulation of service on him after he has been set free."

Malik said that it was permitted for a mukatab who became extremely ill and wanted to pay his master all his instalments because his heirs who were free would then inherit from him and he had no children with him in his kitaba, to do so, because by that he completed his inviolability as a free man, his testimony was permitted, and his admission of what he owed of debts to people was permitted. His bequest was permitted as well. His master could not refuse him that by saying, "He is escaping from me with his property."

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 from Yahya ibn Said that Abu'd-Darda wrote to Salman al-Farsi, "Come immediately to the holy land." Salman wrote back to him, "Land does not make anyone holy. Man's deeds make him holy. I have heard that you were put up as a doctor to treat and cure people. If you are innocent, then may you have delight! If you are a quack, then beware lest you kill a man and enter the Fire!" When Abu'd-Darda judged between two men, and they turned from him to go, he would look at them and say, "Come back to me, and tell me your story again. A quack! By Allah!"

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "If someone makes use of a slave, without permission of its master, in anything important to him, whose like has a fee, he is liable for what befalls the slave if anything befalls him. If the slave is safe and his master asks for his wage for what he has done, that is the master's right. This is what is done in our community."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say about a slave who is part free and part enslaved, "His property is suspended in his hand and he cannot begin anything with it. He eats from it and clothes himself in an approved fashion. If he dies, his property belongs to the one to whom he is in slavery."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "The way of doing things in our community is that a parent can take his child to account for what he spends on him from the day the child has property, cash or goods, if the parent wants that."

Malik related to me that he had heard that Abdullah ibn Masud used to say, "If someone makes a loan, they should not stipulate better than it. Even if it is a handful of grass, it is usury."

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us is that there is no harm in borrowing any animals with a set description and itemisation, and one must return the like of them. This is not done in the case of female slaves. It is feared about that that it will lead to making halal what is not halal, so it is not good. The explanation of what is disapproved of in that, is that a man borrow a slave-girl and have intercourse with her as seems proper to him. Then he returns her to her owner. That is not good and it is not halal. The people of knowledge still forbid it and do not give an indulgence to any one in it."

Malik related to me that he heard that Abu Salama ibn Abd ar- Rahman and Sulayman ibn Yasar were both asked, "Does one pronounce judgement on the basis of an oath with one witness?" They both said, "Yes."

Malik said, "The precedent of the sunna in judging by an oath with one witness is that if the plaintiff takes an oath with his witness, he is confirmed in his right. If he draws back and refuses to take an oath, the defendant is made to take an oath. If he takes an oath, the claim against him is dropped. If he refuses to take an oath, the claim is confirmed against him."

Malik said, "This procedure pertains to property cases in particular. It does not occur in any of the hadd-punishments, nor in marriage, divorce, freeing slaves, theft or slander. If some one says, 'Freeing slaves comes under property,' he has erred. It is not as he said. Had it been as he said, a slave could take an oath with one witness, if he could find one, that his master had freed him.

"However, when a slave lays claim to a piece of property, he can take an oath with one witness and demand his right as the freeman demands his right."

Malik said, "The sunna with us is that when a slave brings somebody who witnesses that he has been set free, his master is made to take an oath that he has not freed him, and the slave's claim is dropped."

Malik said, "The sunna about divorce is also like that with us. When a woman brings somebody who witnesses that her husband has divorced her, the husband is made to take an oath that he has not divorced her. If he takes the oath, the divorce does not proceed . "

Malik said, "There is only one sunna of bringing a witness in cases of divorce and freeing a slave. The right to make an oath only belongs to the husband of the woman, and the master of the slave. Freeing is a hadd matter, and the testimony of women is not permitted in it because when a slave is freed, his inviolability is affirmed and the hadd punishments are applied for and against him. If he commits fornication and he is a muhsan, he is stoned. If he kills a slave, he is killed for it. Inheritance is established for him, between him and whoever inherits from him. If somebody disputes this, arguing that if a man frees his slave and then a man comes to demand from the master of the slave payment of a debt, and a man and two women testify to his right, that establishes the right against the master of the slave so that his freeing him is cancelled if he only has the slave as property, inferring by this case that the testimony of women is permitted in cases of setting free. The case is not as he suggests (i.e. it is a case of property not freeing). It is like a man who frees his slave, and then the claimant of a debt comes to the master and takes an oath with one witness, demanding his right. By that, the freeing of the slave would be cancelled. Or else a man comes who has frequent dealings and transactions with the master of the slave. He claims that he is owed money by the master of the slave. Someone says to the master of the slave, 'Take an oath that you don't owe what he claims'. If he draws back and refuses to take an oath, the one making the claim takes an oath and his right against the master of the slave is confirmed. That would cancel the freeing of the slave if it is confirmed that property is owed by the master."

Malik said, "It is the same case with a man who marries a slave-girl and then the master of the slave-girl comes to the man who has married her and claims, 'You and so-and-so have bought my slave-girl from me for such an amount of dinars. The husband of the slave-girl denies that. The master of the slave-girl brings a man and two women and they testify to what he has said. The sale is confirmed and his claim is considered true. So the slave-girl is haram for her husband and they have to separate, even though the testimony of women is not accepted in divorce."

Malik said, "It is also the same case with a man who accuses a free man, so the hadd falls on him. A man and two women come and testify that the one accused is a slave. That would remove the hadd from the accused after it had befallen him, even though the testimony of women is not accepted in accusations involving hadd punishments."

Malik said, "Another similar case in which judgement appears to go against the precedent of the sunna is that two women testify that a child is born alive and so it is necessary for him to inherit if a situation arises where he is entitled to inherit, and the child's property goes to those who inherit from him, if he dies, and it is not necessary that the two women witnesses should be accompanied by a man or an oath even though it may involve vast properties of gold, silver, live-stock, gardens and slaves and other properties. However, had two women testified to one dirham or more or less than that in a property case, their testimony would not affect anything and would not be permitted unless there was a witness or an oath with them."

Malik said, "There are people who say that an oath is not acceptable with only one witness and they argue by the word of Allah the Blessed, the Exalted, and His word is the Truth, 'And call in to witness two witnesses, men; or if the two be not men, then one man and two women, such witnesses as you approve of.' (Sura 2 ayat 282). Such people argue that if he does not bring one man and two women, he has no claim and he is not allowed to take an oath with one witness."

Malik said, "Part of the proof against those who argue this, is to reply to them, 'Do you think that if a man claimed property from a man, the one claimed from would not swear that the claim was false?' If he swears, the claim against him is dropped. If he refuses to take an oath, the claimant is made to take an oath that his claim is true, and his right against his companion is established. There is no dispute about this with any of the people nor in any country. By what does he take this? In what place in the Book of Allah does he find it? So if he confirms this, let him confirm the oath with one witness, even if it is not in the Book of Allah, the Mighty, the Majestic! It is enough that this is the precedent of the sunna. However, man wants to recognise the proper course of action and the location of the proof. In this there is a clarification for what is obscure about that, if Allah ta'ala wills."

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us is that when slaves write their kitaba together in one kitaba, and some are responsible for others, and they are not reduced anything by the death of one of the responsible ones, and then one of them says, 'I can't do it,' and gives up, his companions can use him in whatever work he can do and they help each other with that in their kitaba until they are freed, if they are freed, or remain slaves if they remain slaves."

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us is that when a master gives a slave his kitaba, it is not permitted for the master to let anyone assume the responsibility for the kitaba of his slave if the slave dies or is incapable. This is not part of the sunna of the muslims. That is because when a man assumes responsibility to the master of a mukatab for what the mukatab owes of his kitaba, and then the master of the mukatab pursues that from the one who assumes the responsibility, he takes his money falsely. It is not as if he is buying the mukatab, so that what he gives is part of the price of something that is his, and neither is the mukatab being freed so that the price established for him buys his inviolability as a free man. If the mukatab is unable to meet the payments he reverts to his master and is his slave. That is because kitaba is not a fixed debt which can be assumed by the master of the mukatab. It is something which, when it is paid by the mukatab, sets him free. If the mukatab dies and has a debt, his master is not one of the creditors for what remains unpaid of the kitaba. The creditors have precedence over the master. If the mukatab cannot meet the payments, and he owes debts to people, he reverts to being a slave owned by his master and the debts to the people are the liability of the mukatab. The creditors do not enter with the master into any share of the price of his person."

Malik said, "When people are written together in one kitaba and there is no kinship between them by which they inherit from each other, and some of them are responsible for others, then none of them are freed before the others until all the kitaba has been paid. If one of them dies and leaves property and it is more than all of what is against them, it pays all that is against them . The excess of the property goes to the master, and none of those who have been written in the kitaba with the deceased have any of the excess. The master's claims are overshadowed by their claims for the portions which remain against them of the kitaba which can be fulfilled from the property of the deceased, because the deceased had assumed their responsibility and they must use his property to pay for their freedom. If the deceased mukatab has a free child not born in kitaba and who was not written in the kitaba, it does not inherit from him because the mukatab was not freed until he died."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "If a slave who has wealth is sold, that wealth belongs to the seller unless the buyer stipulates its inclusion."

Malik said, "The generally agreed upon way of doing things among us is that if the buyer stipulates the inclusion of the slave's property whether it be cash, debts, or goods of known or unknown value, then they belong to the buyer, even if the slave possesses more than that for which he was purchased, whether he was bought for cash, as payment for a debt, or in exchange for goods. This is possible because a master is not asked to pay zakat on his slave's property. If a slave has a slave-girl, it is halal for him to have intercourse with her by his right of possession. If a slave is freed or put under contract (kitaba) to purchase his freedom, then his property goes with him. If he becomes bankrupt, his creditors take his property and his master is not liable for any of his debts."

Yahya related to me that Malik said, "I consider that if a man dies and he has not paid zakat on his property, then zakat is taken from the third of his property (from which he can make bequests), and the third is not exceeded and the zakat is given priority over bequests. In my opinion it is the same as if he had a debt, which is why I think it should be given priority over bequests."

Malik continued, "This applies if the deceased has asked for the zakat to be deducted. If the deceased has not asked for it to be deducted but his family do so then that is good, but it is not binding upon them if they do not do it."

Malik continued, "The sunna which we are all agreed upon is that zakat is not due from someone who inherits a debt (i.e. wealth that was owed to the deceased), or goods, or a house, or a male or female slave, until a year has elapsed over the price realised from whatever he sells (i.e. slaves or a house, which are not zakatable) or over the wealth he inherits, from the day he sold the things, or took possession of them."

Malik said, "The sunna with us is that zakat does not have to be paid on wealth that is inherited until a year has elapsed over it."

Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard Rabia ibn Abd ar- Rahman say that a slave could marry four women.

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

Malik said, "The slave differs with the muhallil if the slave is given permission by his master for his ex-wife. If his master does not give him permission, he separates them. The muhallil is separated in any case if he intends to make the woman halal by marriage."

Malik said, "When a slave is owned by his wife or a husband owns his wife, the possession of each of them is rendered void without divorce. If a man, for instance, is married to a slave-girl, and then he buys her, he must divorce her as a matter of course. They can then re- marry. If they re-marry afterwards, that separation was not divorce."

Malik said, "When a slave is freed by his wife who owns him and she is in the idda-period from him, they can only return to each other after she has made another marriage."

Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said from Abu Bakr ibn Hazm that a boy from Ghassan was dying in Madina while his heir was in Syria. That was mentioned to Umar ibn al-Khattab. It was said to him, "So-and-so is dying. Shall he make a bequest?" He said, "Let him make a bequest."

Yahya ibn Said said that Abu Bakr had said, "He was a boy of ten or twelve years." Yahya said, "He willed the well of Jusham, and his people sold it for 30,000 dirhams."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "The generally agreed-on way of doing things in our community is that a simpleton, an idiot, or a lunatic who recovers at times, can make wills if they have enough of their wits about them to recognise what they will. Someone who has not enough wits to recognise what he wills, and is overcome in his intellect, cannot make a bequest."

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Said ibn al-Musayyab was asked whether a man who had vowed to fast a month could fast voluntarily, and Said said, "He should fulfil his vow before he does any voluntary fasting."

Malik said, "I have heard the same thing from Sulayman ibn Yasar."

Malik said, "If someone dies with an unfulfilled vow to free a slave or to fast or to give sadaqa or to give away a camel, and makes a bequest that his vow should be fulfilled from his estate, then the sadaqa or the gift of the camel are taken from one third of his estate. Preference is given to it over other bequests, except things of a similar nature, because by his vow it has become incumbent on him, and this is not the case with something he donates voluntarily. They (vows and voluntary donations) are settled from a limited one-third of his estate, and not from the whole of it, since if the dying man were free to dispose of all of his estate, he might delay settling what had become incumbent on him (i.e. his vows), so that when death came and the estate passed into the hands of his heirs, he would have bequeathed such things (i.e. his vows) that were not claimed by anyone (like debts). If that (i.e. to dispose freely of his property) were allowed him, he would delay these things (i.e. his vows) until when he was near death, he would designate them and they might take up all of his estate. He must not do that."

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."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yahya 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 ."

Malik said in the case of an umm walad who injured someone, "The blood-money of that injury is the responsibility of her master from his property, unless the blood-money of the injury is greater than the value of the umm walad. Her master does not have to pay more than her value. That is because when the master of a slave or slave-girl surrenders his slave or slave-girl for an injury which one of them has done, he does not owe any more than that, even if the blood-money is greater. As the master of the umm walad cannot surrender her because of the precedent of the sunna, when he pays her price, it is as if he had surrendered her. He does not have to pay more than that. This is the best of what I have heard about the matter. The master is not obliged to assume responsibility for more than an umm walad's value because of her criminal action."

Malik spoke to me about a man who wrote a kitaba for his slave for gold or silver and stipulated against him in his kitaba a journey, service, sacrifice or similar, which he specified by its name, and then the mukatab was able to pay all his instalments before the end of the term.

He said, "If he pays all his instalments and he is set free and his inviolability as a free man is complete, but he still has this condition to fulfil, the condition is examined, and whatever involves his person in it, like service or a journey etc., is removed from him and his master has nothing in it. Whatever there is of sacrifice, clothing, or anything that he must pay, that is in the position of dinars and dirhams, and is valued and he pays it along with his instalments, and he is not free until he has paid that along with his instalments."

Malik said, "The generally agreed-on way of doing things among us about which there is no dispute, is that a mukatab is in the same position as a slave whom his master will free after a service of ten years. If the master who will free him dies before ten years, what remains of his service goes to his heirs and his wala' goes to the one who contracted to free him and to his male children or paternal relations."

Malik spoke about a man who stipulated against his mukatab that he could not travel, marry, or leave his land without his permission, and that if he did so without his permission it was in his power to cancel the kitaba. He said, "If the mukatab does any of these things it is not in the man's power to cancel the kitaba. Let the master put that before the Sultan. The mukatab, however, should not marry, travel, or leave the land of his master without his permission, whether or not he stipulates that. That is because the man may write a kitaba for his slave for 100 dinars and the slave may have 1000 dinars or more than that. He goes off and marries a woman and pays her bride-price which sweeps away his money and then he cannot pay. He reverts to his master as a slave who has no property. Or else he may travel and his instalments fall due while he is away. He cannot do that and kitaba is not to be based on that. That is in the hand of his master. If he wishes, he gives him permission in that. If he wishes, he refuses it."

That Aisha, the mother of the Believers, intended to buy a slave girl in order to manumit her. The slave girl's master said, "We are ready to sell her to you on the condition that her Wala should be for us." Aisha mentioned that to Allah's Apostle who said, "This (condition) should not prevent you from buying her, for the Wala is for the one who manumits (the slave)."

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."

This hadith is narrated to us on the authority of Muhammad b. 'Abdullah b. Numair, on the authority of Muhammad b. Bishr, on the authority of Abd Hayyan al-Taymi with the exception that in this narration (instead of the words (Iza Waladat al'amah rabbaha), the words are (Iza Waladat al'amah Ba'laha), i, e, when slave-girl gives birth to her master.

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 from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar said that statements like "I cut myself off from you",or"You are abandoned", were considered as three pronouncements of divorce.

Malik said that any strong statements such as these or others were considered as three pronouncements of divorce for a woman whose marriage had been consummated. In the case of a woman whose marriage had not been consummated, the man was asked to make an oath on his deen, as to whether he had intended one or three pronouncements of divorce. If he had intended one pronouncement, he was asked to make an oath by Allah to confirm it, and he became a suitor among other suitors, because a woman whose marriage had been consummated, required three pronouncements of divorce to make her inaccessible for the husband, whilst only one pronouncement was needed to make a woman whose marriage had not been consummated inaccessible.

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

The Prophet said, "Listen and obey (your chief) even if an Ethiopian whose head is like a raisin were made your chief."

One day Allah's Apostle narrated to us a long narration about Ad-Dajjal and among the things he narrated to us, was: "Ad-Dajjal will come, and he will be forbidden to enter the mountain passes of Medina. He will encamp in one of the salt areas neighboring Medina and there will appear to him a man who will be the best or one of the best of the people. He will say 'I testify that you are Ad-Dajjal whose story Allah's Apostle has told us.' Ad-Dajjal will say (to his audience), 'Look, if I kill this man and then give him life, will you have any doubt about my claim?' They will reply, 'No,' Then Ad- Dajjal will kill that man and then will make him alive. The man will say, 'By Allah, now I recognize you more than ever!' Ad-Dajjal will then try to kill him (again) but he will not be given the power to do so."

Malik said, "The recognised and permitted form of qirad is that a man take capital from an associate to use. He does not guarantee it and in travelling pays out of the capital for food and clothes and what he makes good use of, according to the amount of capital. That is, when he travels to do the work and the capital can support it. If he remains with his people, he does not have expenses or clothing from the capital."

Malik said, "There is no harm in the two parties in a qirad helping each other by way of a favour when it is acceptable to them both."

Malik said, "There is no harm in the investor of the capital buying some of the goods from the agent in the qirad if that is acceptable and without conditions."

Malik spoke about an investor making a qirad loan to a man and his slave, to be used by both. He said, "That is permitted, and there is no harm in it because the profit is property for his slave, and the profit is not for the master until he takes it from him. It is like the rest of his earnings."

Yahya said that Malik related from Ibn Shihab from Salim ibn Abdullah ibn Umar from his father that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "What's the matter with men who have intercourse with their slave- girls and then dismiss them? No slave-girl comes to me whose master confesses that he has had intercourse with her but that I connect her child to him, whether or not he has practised coitus interruptus or stopped having intercourse with her."

Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab that Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan gave a judgment that the rapist had to pay the raped woman her bride- price.

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about the man who rapes a woman, virgin or non-virgin, if she is free, is that he must pay the bride-price of the like of her. If she is a slave, he must pay what he has diminished of her worth. The hadd-punishment in such cases is applied to the rapist, and there is no punishment applied to the raped woman. If the rapist is a slave, that is against his master unless he wishes to surrender him."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about a slave who finds something and uses it before the term which is set for finds has been reached, and that is a year, is that it is against his person. Either his master gives the price of what his slave has used, or he surrenders his slave to them as compensation. If he withheld it until the term was reached which is set for finds and he used it, it is a debt against him which follows him and it is not against his person and there is nothing against his master in it."

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."

The Prophet (saws) was brought a pouch containing bead and divided it among free women and slave women. Aisha said: My father used to divide things between free men and slave.

The Prophet said to his companions, "Is it difficult for any of you to recite one third of the Qur'an in one night?" This suggestion was difficult for them so they said, "Who among us has the power to do so, O Allah's Apostle?" Allah Apostle replied: " Allah (the) One, the Self-Sufficient Master Whom all creatures need.' (Surat Al-Ikhlas 112.1--to the End) is equal to one third of the Qur'an."

The Prophet (saws) said: Anyone who incites a woman against her husband or a slave against his master is not one of us.