Malik

Malik related to me from Nafi that Safiyya bint Abi Ubayd informed him that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "What is the matter with men who have intercourse with their slave-girls and then leave them to go? 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 left off from intercourse with her." Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about an umm walad who commits a crime is that her master is liable for what she has done up to her value. He does not have to surrender her, and he cannot be made to bear more than her value for her crime

Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab from Salim ibn Abdullah from his father that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "Whoever revives dead land, it belongs to him." Malik said, "That is what is done in our community

Malik related to me from Abu'z-Zinad from al-Araj from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Excess water is not withheld in order to prevent herbage from growing

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "The best of what I have heard about the testament of a pregnant woman and about what settlements she is permitted in her property is that the pregnant woman is like the sick person. When the illness is light, and one does not fear for the sick person, he does with his property what he likes. If the illness is such that his life is feared for, he can only dispose of a third of his estate." He said, "It is the same with a woman who is pregnant. The beginning of pregnancy is good news and joy. It is not illness and no fear because Allah the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'We gave her good news of Ishaq and after Ishaq, Yaqub.' (Sura ll ayat 71). And He said, 'She bore a light burden and passed by with it, but when she became heavy, they called upon Allah, their Lord, "If you give us a good-doing son, we will be among the thankful." '(Sura 7 ayat 189). "When a pregnant woman becomes heavy, she is only permitted to dispose of a third of her estate. The beginning of this restriction is after six months. Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'Mothers suckle their children for two complete years.' And He said, 'his bearing and weaning are thirty months.' (Sura 2 ayat 233). "When six months have passed for the pregnant woman from the day she conceived, she is only permitted to dispose of a third of her property." Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "A man who is advancing in the row for battle, can only dispose of a third of his property. He is in the same position as a pregnant woman or an ill person who is feared for, as long as he is in that situation." Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "This ayat is abrogated. It is the word of Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, 'If he leaves goods, the testament is for parents and kinsmen.' What came down about the division of the fixed shares of inheritance in the Book of Allah, the Mighty, the Exalted, abrogated it." Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "The established sunna with us, in which there is no dispute, is that it is not permitted for a testator to make a bequest (in addition to the fixed share) in favour of an heir, unless the other heirs permit him. If some of them permit him and others refuse, he is allowed to diminish the share of those who have given their permission. Those who refuse take their full share from the inheritance. Yahya said that he heard Malik speak about an invalid who made a bequest and asked his heirs to give him permission to make a bequest when he was so ill that he only had command of a third of his property, and they gave him permission to leave some of his heirs more than his third. Malik said, "They cannot revoke that. Had they been permitted to do so, every heir would have done that, and then, when the testator died, they would take that for themselves and prevent him from bequeathing his third and what was permitted to him with respect to his property." Malik said, "If he asks permission of his heirs to grant a bequest to an heir while he is well and they give him permission, that is not binding on them. The heirs can rescind that if they wish. That is because when a man is well, he is entitled to all his property and can do what he wishes with it. If he wishes, he can spend all of it. He can spend it and give sadaqa with it or give it to whomever he likes. His asking permission of his heirs is permitted for the heirs, when they give him permission when authority over all his property is closed off from him and nothing outside of the third is permitted to him, and when they are more entitled to the two-thirds of his property than he is himself. That is when their permission becomes relevant. If he asks one of the heirs to give his inheritance to him when he is dying, and the heir agrees and then the dying man does not dispose of it at all, it is returned to the one who gave it unless the deceased said to him, 'So-and-so - (one of his heirs) - is weak, and I would like you to give him your inheritance.' So he gives it to him. That is permitted when the deceased specified it for him." Malik said, "When a man gives the dying man free use of his share of the inheritance, and the dying man distributes some of it and some remains, it is returned to the giver, after the man has died." Yahya said that he heard Malik speak about someone who made a bequest and mentioned that he had given one of his heirs something which he had not taken possession of, so the heirs refused to permit that. Malik said, "That gift returns to the heirs as inheritance according to the Book of Allah because the deceased did not mean that to be taken out of the third and the heirs do not have a portion in the third (which the dying man is allowed to bequeath)." Malik said from Hisham ibn Urwa from his father that an effeminate man was with Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. He said to Abdullah ibn Abi Umayya while the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was listening. "Abdullah! If Allah grants you victory over Ta'if tomorrow, I will lead you to the daughter of Ghailan. She has four folds on her front and eight folds on her back." The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "This sort of man should not enter freely with you." (It was customary to allow men with no sexual inclination to enter freely where there were women)

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." 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

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "The sunna with us about the crime of slaves is that the hand is not cut off for any harm that a slave causes a man, or something he pilfers, or something guarded which he steals, or hanging dates he cuts down or ruins, or steals. That is against the slave's person and does not exceed the price of the slave whether it is little or much. If his master wishes to give the value of what the slave took or ruined, or pay the blood-price for the injury, he pays it and keeps his slave. If he wishes to surrender him, he surrenders him, and none of that is against him. The master has the option in that." Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab from Said ibn al-Musayyab that Uthman ibn Affan said, "If someone gives something to his small child who is not old enough to look after it himself, and in order that his gift might be permitted he makes the gift public and has it witnessed, the gift is permitted, even if the father keeps charge of it." Malik said, "What is done in our community is that if a man gives his small child some gold or silver and then dies and he has it in his own keeping, the child has none of it unless the father set it aside in coin or placed it with a man to keep for the son. If he does that, it is permitted for the son

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, "A master who frees a slave of his and settles his emancipation so that his testimony is permitted, his inviolability complete, and his right to inherit confirmed, cannot impose stipulations on him like what he imposes on a slave about property or service, nor get him to do anything of slavery, because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "If a man frees his share of 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 commented, "If he owns the slave completely, it is more proper to free him completely and not mingle any slavery with it." Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said and somebody else from al-Hasan ibn Abi al-Hasan al-Basri and from Muhammad ibn Sirin that a man in the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, freed six of his slaves while he was dying. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, drew lots between them and freed a third of those slaves. Malik added that he had heard that the man did not have any property other than them

Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said from Amra bint Abd ar- Rahman that Barira came asking the help of A'isha, umm al-muminin. A'isha said, "If your masters agree that I pay them your price in one lump sum and set you free I will do it." Barira mentioned that to her masters and they said, "No, not unless your wala' is ours." Yahya ibn Said added that Amra bint Abd ar-Rahman claimed that A'isha mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace said, "Buy her and set her free. The wala' only belongs to the one who sets free

Malik related to me from Abdullah ibn Dinar from Abdullah ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade selling or giving away the wala

Malik said that it was not permissible for a slave to buy himself from his master on the provision that he could give the wala' to whomever he wished as the wala' was for the one who set him free, and that had a man given permission to his mawla to give the wala' to whomever he wished, that would not have been permitted, because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, "The wala' is for the one who sets free. " The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade selling or giving away the wala'. For if it was permitted to the master to stipulate that for him and to give him permission to give the wala' to whomever he liked, that would be a gift. Malik related to me from Rabia ibn Abd ar-Rahman that az-Zubayr ibn al-Awwam bought a slave and set him free. The slave had children by a free woman. When az-Zubayr freed him, he said, "They are my mawali." The man argued, "They are the mawali of their mother. Rather, they are our mawali." They took the dispute to Uthman ibn Affan, and Uthman gave a judgement that az-Zubayr had their wala

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

Malik related to me from Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Hazm from Abd al-Malik ibn Abi Bakr ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn al- Harith ibn Hisham that his father told him that al-Asi ibn Hisham had died and left three sons, two by one wife and one by another wife. One of the two with the same mother died and left property and mawali. His full brother inherited his property and the wala' of his mawali. Then he also died, and left as heirs his son and his paternal half brother. His son said, "I obtain what my father inherited of property and the wala' of the mawali." His brother said, "It is not like that. You obtain the property. As for the wala' of the mawali, it is not so. Do you think that had it been my first brother who died today, I would not have inherited from him?" They argued and went to Uthman ibn Affan. He gave a judgement that the brother had the wala' of the mawali

Malik related to me from Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Hazm that his father told him that he was sitting with Aban ibn Uthman, and an argument was brought to him between some people from the Juhayna tribe and some people from the Banu al-Harith ibn al-Khazraj. A woman of the Juhayna tribe was married to a man from the Banu al-Harith ibn al- Khazraj, called Ibrahim ibn Kulayb. She died and left property and mawali, and her son and husband inherited them from her. Then her son died and his heirs said, "We have the wala' of the mawali. Her son obtained them." Those of the Juhayna said, "It is not like that. They are the mawali of our female associate. When her child died, we have their wala' and we inherit them." Aban ibn Uthman gave a judgement that the people from the Juhayna tribe did indeed have the wala' of the mawali

Malik related to me that he had heard that Said ibn al-Musayyab spoke about a man who died and left three sons and left mawali whom he had freed. Then two of his sons died and left children. He said, "The third remaining son inherits the mawali. When he dies, his children and the children of his brothers share equally in the wala' of the mawali

Malik related to me that he had asked Ibn Shihab about a slave who was released. He said, "He gives his wala' to whomever he likes. If he dies and has not given his wala' to anyone, his inheritance goes to the muslims and his blood-money is paid by them." Malik said, "The best of what has been heard about a slave who is released is that no one gets his wala', and his inheritance goes to the muslims, and they pay his blood-money." Malik said that when the slave of a jew or christian became muslim and he was freed before being sold, the wala' of the freed slave went to the muslims. If the jew or christian became muslim afterwards, the wala' did not revert to him. " He said, "However, if a jew or christian frees a slave from their own deen, and then the freed one becomes muslim before the jew or christian who freed him becomes muslim and then the one who freed him has become muslim, his wala' reverts to him because the wala' was confirmed for him on the day he freed him." Malik said that the muslim child of a jew or christian inherited the mawali of his jewish or christian father when the freed mawla became muslim before the one who freed him became muslim. If the freed one was already muslim when he was freed, the muslim children of the christian or jew had nothing of the wala' of a muslim slave because the jew and the christian did not have the wala'. The wala' of a muslim slave went to the community of muslims

Malik related to me from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar said, "A mukatab is a slave as long as any of his kitaba remains to be paid

Malik related to me that he had heard that Urwa ibn az-Zubayr and Sulayman ibn Yasar said, "The mukatab is a slave as long as any of his kitaba remains to be paid." Malik said, "This is my opinion as well." Malik said, "If a mukatab dies and leaves more property than what remains to be paid of his kitaba and he has children who were born during the time of his kitaba or whose kitaba has been written as well, they inherit any property that remains after the kitaba has been paid

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 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." 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

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." Malik related to me that he heard that Urwa ibn az-Zubayr and Sulayman ibn Yasar when asked whether the sons of a man, who had a kitaba written for himself and his children and then died, worked for the kitaba of their father or were slaves, said, "They work for the kitaba of their father and they have no reduction at all for the death of their father." Malik said, "If they are small and unable to work, one does not wait for them to grow up and they are slaves of their father's master unless the mukatab has left what will pay their instalments for them until they can work. If there is enough to pay for them in what he has left, that is paid for on their behalf and they are left in their condition until they can work, and then if they pay, they are free. If they cannot do it, they are slaves." Malik spoke about a mukatab who died and left property which was not enough to pay his kitaba, and he also left a child with him in his kitaba and an umm walad, and the umm walad wanted to work for them. He said, "The money is paid to her if she is trustworthy with it and strong enough to work. If she is not strong enough to work and not trustworthy with property, she is not given any of it and she and the children of the mukatab revert to being slaves of the master of the mukatab." Malik said, "If people are written together in one kitaba and there is no kinship between them, and some of them are incapable and others work until they are all set free, those who worked can claim from those who were unable, the portion of what they paid for them because some of them assumed the responsibility for others

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 related to me that he had heard that Said ibn al-Musayyab was asked about a mukatab who was shared between two men. One of them freed his portion and then the mukatab died and left a lot of money. Said replied, "The one who kept his kitaba is paid what remains due to him, and then they divide what is left between them both equally." Malik said, "When a mukatab who fulfils his kitaba and becomes free dies, he is inherited from by the people who wrote his kitaba and their children and paternal relations - whoever is most deserving." He said, "This is also for whoever is set free when he dies after being set free - his inheritance is for the nearest people to him of children or paternal relations who inherit by means of the wala'." Malik said, "Brothers, written together in the same kitaba, are in the same position as children to each other when none of them have children written in the kitaba or born in the kitaba. When one of them dies and leaves property, he pays for them all that is against them of their kitaba and sets them free. The money left over after that goes to his children rather than his brothers

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." Malik said, "When a mukatab sets his own slaves free, it is only permitted for a mukatab to set his own slaves free with the consent of his master. If his master gives his consent and the mukatab sets his slave free, his wala' goes to the mukatab . If the mukatab then dies before he has been set free himself, the wala' of the freed slave goes to the master of the mukatab. If the freed one dies before the mukatab has been set free, the master of the mukatab inherits from him." Malik said, "It is like that also when a mukatab gives his slave a kitaba and his mukatab is set free before he is himself. The wala' goes to the master of the mukatab as long as he is not free. If this one who wrote the kitaba is set free, then the wala' of his mukatab who was freed before him reverts to him. If the first mukatab dies before he pays, or he cannot pay his kitaba and he has free children, they do not inherit the wala' of their father's mukatab because the wala' has not been established for their father and he does not have the wala' until he is free." Malik spoke about a mukatab who was shared between two men and one of them forewent what the mukatab owed him and the other insisted on his due. Then the mukatab died and left property. Malik said, "The one who did not abandon any of what he was owed, is paid in full. Then the property is divided between them both just as if a slave had died because what the first one did was not setting him free. He only abandoned a debt that was owed to him ." Malik said, "One clarification of that is that when a man dies and leaves a mukatab and he also leaves male and female children and one of the children frees his portion of the mukatab, that does not establish any of the wala' for him. Had it been a true setting free, the wala' would have been established for whichever men and women freed him." Malik said, "Another clarification of that is that if one of them freed his portion and then the mukatab could not pay, the value of what was left of the mukatab would be altered because of the one who freed his portion. Had it been a true setting-free, his estimated value would have been taken from the property of the one who set free until he had been set completely free as the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'Whoever frees his share in a slave and has money to cover the full price of the slave, justly evaluated for him, gives his partners their shares. If not, he frees of him what he frees.' " (See Book 37 hadith 1). He said, "Another clarification of that is that part of the sunna of the muslims in which there is no dispute, is that whoever frees his share of a mukatab, the mukatab is not set fully free using his property. Had he been truly set free, the wala' would have been his alone rather than his partners. Part of what will clarify that also is that part of the sunna of the muslims is that the wala' belongs to whoever writes the contract of kitaba. The women who inherit from the master of the mukatab do not have any of the wala' of the mukatab. If they free any of their share, the wala' belongs to the male children of the master of the mukatab or his male paternal relations." Malik said, "If people are together in one kitaba, their master cannot free one of them without consulting his companions who are with him in the kitaba and obtaining their consent. If they are young, however, their consultation means nothing and it is not permitted to them. That is because a man might work for all the people and he might pay their kitaba for them to complete their freedom. Their master approaches the one who will pay for them and their rescue from slavery is through him. He frees him and so makes those who remain unable to pay. He does it intending benefit and increase for himself. It is not permitted for him to do that to those of them who remain. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'There must be no harm nor return of harm.' This is the most severe harm." Malik said about slaves who wrote a kitaba together that it was permitted for their master to free the old and exhausted of them and the young when neither of them could pay anything, and there was no help nor strength to be had from any of them in their kitaba. Malik said about a man who had his slave in a kitaba and then the mukatab died and left his umm walad, and there remained for him some of his kitaba to pay and he left what would pay it, "The umm walad is a slave since the mukatab was not freed until he died and he did not leave children that were set free by his paying what remained, so that the umm walad of their father was freed by their being set free." Malik said about a mukatab who set free a slave of his or gave sadaqa with some of his property and his master did not know that until he had set the mukatab free, "That has been performed by him and the master does not rescind it. If the master of the mukatab knows before he sets the mukatab free, he can reject that and not permit it. If the mukatab is then freed and it becomes in his power to do so, he does not have to free the slave, nor give the sadaqa unless he does it voluntarily from himself." 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. Yahya related to me that Malik said, "What is done in our community in the case of a man who makes his slave-girl a mudabbara and she gives birth to children after that, and then the slave-girl dies before the one who gave her a tadbir is that her children are in her position. The conditions which were confirmed for her are confirmed for them. The death of their mother does not harm them. If the one who made her mudabbara dies, they are free if their value is less than one third of his total property." Malik said, "For every mother by birth as opposed to mother by suckling, her children are in her position. If she is free and she gives birth after she is free, her children are free. If she is a mudabbara or mukataba, or freed after a number of years in service, or part of her is free or pledged or she is an umm walad, each of her children are in the same position as their mother. They are set free when she is set free and they are slaves when she is a slave." Malik said about the mudabbara given a tadbir while she was pregnant, "Her children are in her position. That is also the position of a man who frees his slave- girl while she is pregnant and does not know that she is pregnant." Malik said, "The sunna about such women is that their children follow them and are set free by their being set free." Malik said, "It is the same as if a man had bought a slave-girl while she was pregnant. The slave-girl and what is in her womb belong to the one who bought her whether or not the buyer stipulates that." Malik continued, "It is not halal for the seller to make an exception about what is in her womb because that is an uncertain transaction. It reduces her price and he does not know if that will reach him or not. That is as if one sold the foetus in the womb of the mother. That is not halal because it is an uncertain transaction ." Malik said about the mukatab or mudabbar who bought a slave- girl and had intercourse with her and she became pregnant by him and gives birth, "The children of both of them by a slave-girl are in his position. They are set free when he is set free and they are slaves when he is a slave." Malik said, "When he is set free, the umm walad is part of his property which is surrendered to him when he is set free." Malik spoke about a mudabbar who said to his master, "Free me immediately and I will give fifty dinars which I will have to pay in instalments." His master said, "Yes. You are free and you must pay fifty dinars, and you will pay me ten dinars every year." The slave was satisfied with this. Then the master dies one, two or three days after that. He said, "The freeing is confirmed and the fifty dinars become a debt against him. His testimony is permitted, his inviolability as a free man is confirmed, as are his inheritance and his liability to the full hudud punishments. The death of his master, however, does not reduce the debt for him at all." Malik said that if a man who made his slave a mudabbar died and he had some property at hand and some absent property, and in the property at hand there was not enough (in the third he was allowed to bequeath) to cover the value of the mudabbar, the mudabbar was kept there together with this property, and his tax (kharaj) was gathered until the master's absent property was clear. Then if a third of what his master left would cover his value, he was freed with his property and what had gathered of his tax. If there was not enough to cover his value in what his master had left, as much of him was freed as the third would allow, and his property was left in his hands. 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 related to me from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar made two of his slave-girls mudabbara, and he had intercourse with them while they were mudabbara

Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said that Said ibn al-Musayyab used to say, "When a man makes his slave-girl mudabbara, he can have intercourse with her. He cannot sell her or give her away and her children are in the same position as her

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community about a mudabbar is that the owner cannot sell him or change the position in which he has put him. If a debt overtakes the master, his creditors cannot sell the mudabbar as long as the master is alive. If the master dies and has no debts, the mudabbar is included in the third (of the bequest) because he expected his work from him as long as he lived. He cannot serve him all his life, and then he frees him from his heirs out of the main portion of his property when he dies. If the master of the mudabbar dies and has no property other than him, one third of him is freed, and two thirds of him belong to the heirs. If the master of the mudabbar dies and owes a debt which encompasses the mudabbar, he is sold to meet the debt because he can only be freed in the third (which is allowed for bequest) ." He said, "If the debt only includes half of the slave, half of him is sold for the debt. Then a third of what remains after the debt is freed. " Malik said, "It is not permitted to sell a mudabbar and it is not permitted for anyone to buy him unless the mudabbar buys himself from his master. He is permitted to do that. Or else some one gives the master of the mudabbar money and his master who made him a mudabbar frees him. That is also permitted for him." Malik said, "His wala' belongs to his master who made him a mudabbar." Malik said, "It is not permitted to sell the service of a mudabbar because it is an uncertain transaction since one does not know how long his master will live. That is uncertain and it is not good." Malik spoke about a slave who was shared between two men, and one of them made his portion mudabbar. He said, "They estimate his value between them. If the one who made him mudabbar buys him, he is all mudabbar. If he does not buy him, his tadbir is revoked unless the one who retains ownership of him wishes to give his partner who made him mudabbar his value. If he gives him to him for his value, that is binding, and he is all mudabbar." Malik spoke about the christian man who made a christian slave of his mudabbar and then the slave became muslim. He said, "One separates the master and the slave, and the slave is removed from his christian master and is not sold until his situation becomes clear. If the christian dies and has a debt, his debt is paid from the price of the slave unless he has in his estate what will pay the debt. Then the mudabbar is set free." Malik related to me that he 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 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 related to me from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar said, "The Jews came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and mentioned to him that a man and woman from among them had committed adultery. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, asked them, 'What do you find in the Torah about stoning?' They said, 'We make their wrong action known and flog them.' Abdullah ibn Salam said, 'You have lied! It has stoning for it, so bring the Torah.' They spread it out and one of them placed his hand over the ayat of stoning. Then he read what was before it and what was after it. Abdullah ibn Salam told him to lift his hand. He lifted his hand and there was the ayat of stoning. They said, 'He has spoken the truth, Muhammad. The ayat of stoning is in it.' So the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave the order and they were stoned . " Abdullah ibn Umar added, "I saw the man leaning over the woman to protect her from the stones." Malik commented, "By leaning he meant throwing himself over her so that the stones fell on him

Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said from Said ibn al-Musayyab that a man from the Aslam tribe came to Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and said to him, "I have committed adultery." Abu Bakr said to him, "Have you mentioned this to anyone else?" He said, "No." Abu Bakr said to him, "Then cover it up with the veil of Allah. Allah accepts tawba from his slaves." His self was still unsettled, so he went to Umar ibn al- Khattab. He told him the same as he had said to Abu Bakr, and Umar told him the same as Abu Bakr had said to him. His self was still not settled so he went to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said to him, "I have committed adultery," insistently. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, turned away from him three times. Each time the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, turned away from him until it became too much. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, questioned his family, "Does he have an illness which affects his mind, or is he mad?" They said, "Messenger of Allah, by Allah, he is well." The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Unmarried or married?" They said, "Married, Messenger of Allah." The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave the order and he was stoned

Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said that Said ibn al-Musayyab said, "I have heard that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to a man from the Aslam tribe called Hazzal, 'Hazzal, had you veiled him with your cloak, it would have been better for you.' " Yahya ibn Said said, "I related this hadith in an assembly among whom was Yazid ibn Nuaym ibn Hazzal al-Aslami. Yazid said, 'Hazzal was my grandfather. This hadith is true

Malik related to me that Ibn Shihab informed him that a man confessed that he had committed adultery in the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and he testified against himself four times, so the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave the order and he was stoned. Ibn Shihab said, "Because of this a man is to be taken for his own confession against himself

Malik related to me from Yaqub ibn Zayd ibn Talha from his father Zayd ibn Talha that Abdullah ibn Abi Mulayka informed him that a woman came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and informed him that she had committed adultery and was pregnant. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to her, "Go away until you give birth." When she had given birth, she came to him. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to her, "Go away until you have suckled and weaned the baby." When she had weaned the baby, she came to him. He said, "Go and entrust the baby to someone." She entrusted the baby to someone and then came to him. He gave the order and she was stoned

Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab from Ubaydullah ibn Abdullah ibn Utba ibn Masud that Abu Hurayra and Zayd ibn Khalid al-Juhani informed him that two men brought a dispute to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. One of them said, "Messenger of Allah! Judge between us by the Book of Allah!" The other said, and he was the wiser of the two, "Yes, Messenger of Allah. Judge between us by the Book of Allah and give me permission to speak." He said, "Speak." He said, "My son was hired by this person and he committed fornication with his wife. He told me that my son deserved stoning, and I ransomed him for one hundred sheep and a slave-girl. Then I asked the people of knowledge and they told me that my son deserved to be flogged with one hundred lashes and exiled for a year, and they informed me that the woman deserved to be stoned." The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "By him in whose Hand myself is, I will judge between you by the Book of Allah. As for your sheep and slave girl, they should be returned to you. Your son should have one hundred lashes and be exiled for a year." He ordered Unays al-Aslami to go to the wife of the other man and to stone her if she confessed . She confessed and he stoned her

Malik related to me from Suhayl ibn Abi Salih from his father from Abu Hurayra that Sad ibn Ubada said to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "What do you think I should do if I were to find a man with my wife? Should I leave him there until I had brought four witnesses?" The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Yes

Malik related to me, "Ibn Shihab did not think and nor do I, that there is a generally agreed on way of doing things regarding a piercing wound in any of the organs or limbs of the body, but I think that there is ijtihad in the case. The imam uses ijtihad in it, and there is no generally agreed on way of doing things in our community about it." Malik said, "What is done in our community about the wound to the brain and the wound which splinters the bone, and the wound that bares the bone is that they apply only to the head and face. Whatever of that occurs in the body only has ijtihad in it." Malik said, "I do not think the lower jaw and the nose are part of the head in their injury because they are separate bones, and except for them the head is one bone

Malik said that he had heard that Said ibn al-Musayyab and Sulayman ibn Yasar were asked, "Does one deal more harshly in taking the blood-money in the sacred month?" They said, "No. But it is increased in it because of violating the month." It was said to Said, "Does one increase for the wound as one increases for the life?" He said, "Yes." Malik added, "I think that they meant the same as what Umar ibn al-Khattab did with respect to the blood-money of the Mudliji when he struck his son." (i.e. giving 120 camels instead of)

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 related to me from Malik that he saw whomever he was satisfied with among the people of knowledge say about a man who willed that his murderer be pardoned when he murdered him intentionally, "That is permitted for him. He is more entitled to the man's blood than any of his relatives after him." Malik said about a man who pardoned murder, after he had claimed his right and it was obliged for him, "There is no blood-money against the murderer unless the one who pardons him stipulates that when he pardons him." Malik said about the murderer when he was pardoned, "He is flogged one hundred lashes and jailed for a year." Malik said, "When a man murders intentionally and there is a clear proof of that, and the murdered man has sons and daughters and the sons pardon and the daughters refuse to pardon, the pardon of the sons is permitted in opposition to the daughters and there is no authority for the daughters with the sons in demanding blood and pardoning

Yahya said that Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community is that retaliation is taken from someone who breaks someone's hand or foot intentionally and not blood-money." Malik said, "Retaliation is not inflicted on anyone until the wound of the injured party has healed. Then retaliation is inflicted on him. If the wound of the person on whom the retaliation has been inflicted is like the first person's wound when it heals, it is retaliation. If the wound of the one on whom the retaliation has been inflicted becomes worse or he dies, there is nothing held against the one who has taken retaliation. If the wound of the person on whom the retaliation has been inflicted heals and the injured party is paralysed or his injury has healed but he has a scar, defect, or blemish, the person on whom the retaliation has been inflicted does not have his hand broken again and further retaliation is not taken for his injury." He said, "But there is blood-money from him according to what he has impaired or maimed of the hand of the injured party. The bodily injury is also like that." Malik said, "When a man intentionally goes to his wife and gouges out her eye or breaks her hand or cuts off her finger or such like, and does it intentionally, retaliation is inflicted on him. As for a man who strikes his wife with a rope or a whip and hits what he did not mean to hit or does what he did not intend to do, he pays blood-money for what he has struck according to this principle, and retaliation is not inflicted on him." Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Abu Bakr ibn Muhammd ibn Amr ibn Hazm took retaliation for the breaking of a leg. Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu'z-Zinad from Sulayman ibn Yasar that a slave was set free by one of the people on hajj and his master had abandoned the right to inherit from him. The ex-slave then killed a man from the Banu A'idh tribe. An A'idhi, the father of the slain man came to Umar ibn al-Khattab seeking the blood-money of his son. Umar said, "He has no blood-money." The A'idhi said, "What would you think if it had been my son who killed him?" Umar said, "Then you would pay his blood-money." He said, "He is then like the black and white Arqam snake. If it is left, it devours and if it is killed, it takes revenge

Malik related to me that he had heard that when Umar ibn Abd al- Aziz left Madina, he turned towards it and wept. Then he said, "O Muzahim! Do you fear that we might be among those that Madina casts off?

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "I disapprove of youths wearing any gold because I heard that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade wearing gold rings, and I disapprove of it for males old or young." Yahya said, "I heard Malik say about men wearing wraps dyed with safflower in their houses and courtyards, 'I do not know that any of that is haram but I prefer other garments than that