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)."

قالَ يَحْيى: سَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ: فِي هَذِهِ الآيَةِ «إنَّها مَنسُوخَةٌ. قَوْلُ اللَّهِ تَبارَكَ وتَعالى: ﴿إنْ تَرَكَ خَيْرًا الوَصِيَّةُ لِلْوالِدَيْنِ والأقْرَبِينَ﴾ [البقرة ١٨٠] نَسَخَها ما نَزَلَ مِن قِسْمَةِ الفَرائِضِ فِي كِتابِ اللَّهِ ﷿». قالَ: وسَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ: «السُّنَّةُ الثّابِتَةُ عِنْدَنا الَّتِي لا اخْتِلافَ فِيها. أنَّهُ لا تَجُوزُ وصِيَّةٌ لِوارِثٍ. إلّا أنْ يُجِيزَ لَهُ ذَلِكَ ورَثَةُ المَيِّتِ وأنَّهُ إنْ أجازَ لَهُ بَعْضُهُمْ. وأبى بَعْضٌ. جازَ لَهُ حَقُّ مَن أجازَ مِنهُمْ. ومَن أبى، أخَذَ حَقَّهُ مِن ذَلِكَ». قالَ: وسَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ فِي المَرِيضِ الَّذِي يُوصِي فَيَسْتَأْذِنُ ورَثَتَهُ فِي وصِيَّتِهِ وهُوَ مَرِيضٌ: «لَيْسَ لَهُ مِن مالِهِ إلّا ثُلُثُهُ. فَيَأْذَنُونَ لَهُ أنْ يُوصِيَ لِبَعْضِ ورَثَتِهِ بِأكْثَرَ مِن ثُلُثِهِ. إنَّهُ لَيْسَ لَهُمْ أنْ يَرْجِعُوا فِي ذَلِكَ. ولَوْ جازَ ذَلِكَ لَهُمْ، صَنَعَ كُلُّ وارِثٍ ذَلِكَ فَإذا هَلَكَ المُوصِي، أخَذُوا ذَلِكَ لِأنْفُسِهِمْ ومَنَعُوهُ الوَصِيَّةَ فِي ثُلُثِهِ، وما أُذِنَ لَهُ بِهِ فِي مالِهِ». قالَ: «فَأمّا أنْ يَسْتَأْذِنَ ورَثَتَهُ فِي وصِيَّةٍ يُوصِي بِها لِوارِثٍ فِي صِحَّتِهِ، فَيَأْذَنُونَ لَهُ. فَإنَّ ذَلِكَ لا يَلْزَمُهُمْ. ولِوَرَثَتِهِ أنْ يَرُدُّوا ذَلِكَ إنْ شاءُوا. وذَلِكَ أنَّ الرَّجُلَ إذا كانَ صَحِيحًا كانَ أحَقَّ بِجَمِيعِ مالِهِ. يَصْنَعُ فِيهِ ما شاءَ إنْ شاءَ أنْ يَخْرُجَ مِن جَمِيعِهِ، خَرَجَ فَيَتَصَدَّقُ بِهِ. أوْ يُعْطِيهِ مَن شاءَ وإنَّما يَكُونُ اسْتِئْذانُهُ ورَثَتَهُ جائِزًا عَلى الوَرَثَةِ. إذا أذِنُوا لَهُ حِينَ يُحْجَبُ عَنْهُ مالُهُ، ولا يَجُوزُ لَهُ شَيْءٌ إلّا فِي ثُلُثِهِ. وحِينَ هُمْ أحَقُّ بِثُلُثَيْ مالِهِ مِنهُ. فَذَلِكَ حِينَ يَجُوزُ عَلَيْهِمْ أمْرُهُمْ وما أذِنُوا لَهُ بِهِ. فَإنْ سَألَ بَعْضُ ورَثَتِهِ أنْ يَهَبَ لَهُ مِيراثَهُ حِينَ تَحْضُرُهُ الوَفاةُ فَيَفْعَلُ. ثُمَّ لا يَقْضِي فِيهِ الهالِكُ شَيْئًا. فَإنَّهُ رَدٌّ عَلى مَن وهَبَهُ إلّا أنْ يَقُولَ لَهُ المَيِّتُ: فُلانٌ، لِبَعْضِ ورَثَتِهِ ضَعِيفٌ، وقَدْ أحْبَبْتُ أنْ تَهَبَ لَهُ مِيراثَكَ فَأعْطاهُ إيّاهُ فَإنَّ ذَلِكَ جائِزٌ إذا سَمّاهُ المَيِّتُ لَهُ» قالَ: «وإنْ وهَبَ لَهُ مِيراثَهُ. ثُمَّ أنْفَذَ الهالِكُ بَعْضَهُ وبَقِيَ بَعْضٌ فَهُوَ رَدٌّ عَلى الَّذِي وهَبَ يَرْجِعُ إلَيْهِ ما بَقِيَ بَعْدَ وفاةِ الَّذِي أُعْطِيَهُ». قالَ: وسَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ: فِيمَن أوْصى بِوَصِيَّةٍ فَذَكَرَ أنَّهُ «قَدْ كانَ أعْطى بَعْضَ ورَثَتِهِ شَيْئًا لَمْ يَقْبِضْهُ فَأبى الوَرَثَةُ أنْ يُجِيزُوا ذَلِكَ فَإنَّ ذَلِكَ يَرْجِعُ إلى الوَرَثَةِ مِيراثًا عَلى كِتابِ اللَّهِ لِأنَّ المَيِّتَ لَمْ يُرِدْ أنْ يَقَعَ شَيْءٌ مِن ذَلِكَ فِي ثُلُثِهِ ولا يُحاصُّ أهْلُ الوَصايا فِي ثُلُثِهِ بِشَيْءٍ مِن ذَلِكَ»

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."

قالَ يَحْيى: سَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ فِي الرَّجُلِ يَبْتاعُ السِّلْعَةَ مِنَ الحَيَوانِ أوِ الثِّيابِ أوِ العُرُوضِ: فَيُوجَدُ ذَلِكَ البَيْعُ غَيْرَ جائِزٍ فَيُرَدُّ ويُؤْمَرُ الَّذِي قَبَضَ السِّلْعَةَ أنْ يَرُدَّ إلى صاحِبِهِ سِلْعَتَهُ. قالَ مالِكٌ: فَلَيْسَ لِصاحِبِ السِّلْعَةِ إلّا قِيمَتُها يَوْمَ قُبِضَتْ مِنهُ ولَيْسَ يَوْمَ يَرُدُّ ذَلِكَ إلَيْهِ. وذَلِكَ أنَّهُ ضَمِنَها مِن يَوْمَ قَبَضَها. فَما كانَ فِيها مِن نُقْصانٍ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ. كانَ عَلَيْهِ. فَبِذَلِكَ كانَ نِماؤُها وزِيادَتُها لَهُ. وإنَّ الرَّجُلَ يَقْبِضُ السِّلْعَةَ فِي زَمانٍ هِيَ فِيهِ نافِقَةٌ مَرْغُوبٌ فِيها ثُمَّ يَرُدُّها فِي زَمانٍ هِيَ فِيهِ ساقِطَةٌ لا يُرِيدُها أحَدٌ فَيَقْبِضُ الرَّجُلُ السِّلْعَةَ مِنَ الرَّجُلِ فَيَبِيعُها بِعَشَرَةِ دَنانِيرَ. ويُمْسِكُها وثَمَنُها ذَلِكَ. ثُمَّ يَرُدُّها وإنَّما ثَمَنُها دِينارٌ فَلَيْسَ لَهُ أنْ يَذْهَبَ مِن مالِ الرَّجُلِ بِتِسْعَةِ دَنانِيرَ أوْ يَقْبِضُها مِنهُ الرَّجُلُ فَيَبِيعُها بِدِينارٍ. أوْ يُمْسِكُها. وإنَّما ثَمَنُها دِينارٌ. ثُمَّ يَرُدُّها وقِيمَتُها يَوْمَ يَرُدُّها عَشَرَةُ دَنانِيرَ. فَلَيْسَ عَلى الَّذِي قَبَضَها أنْ يَغْرَمَ لِصاحِبِها مِن مالِهِ تِسْعَةَ دَنانِيرَ. إنَّما عَلَيْهِ قِيمَةُ ما قَبَضَ يَوْمَ قَبْضِهِ. قالَ: ومِمّا يُبَيِّنُ ذَلِكَ أنَّ السّارِقَ إذا سَرَقَ السِّلْعَةَ فَإنَّما يُنْظَرُ إلى ثَمَنِها يَوْمَ يَسْرِقُها. فَإنْ كانَ يَجِبُ فِيهِ القَطْعُ كانَ ذَلِكَ عَلَيْهِ وإنِ اسْتَأْخَرَ قَطْعُهُ إمّا فِي سِجْنٍ يُحْبَسُ فِيهِ حَتّى يُنْظَرَ فِي شَأْنِهِ وإمّا أنْ يَهْرُبَ السّارِقُ ثُمَّ يُؤْخَذَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَلَيْسَ اسْتِئْخارُ قَطْعِهِ بِالَّذِي يَضَعُ عَنْهُ -[٧٦٩]- حَدًّا قَدْ وجَبَ عَلَيْهِ يَوْمَ سَرَقَ وإنْ رَخُصَتْ تِلْكَ السِّلْعَةُ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ. ولا بِالَّذِي يُوجِبُ عَلَيْهِ قَطْعًا لَمْ يَكُنْ وجَبَ عَلَيْهِ يَوْمَ أخَذَها إنْ غَلَتْ تِلْكَ السِّلْعَةُ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ

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."

قالَ يَحْيى: سَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ: السُّنَّةُ عِنْدَنا فِي جِنايَةِ العَبِيدِ. «أنَّ كُلَّ ما أصابَ العَبْدُ مِن جُرْحٍ جَرَحَ بِهِ إنْسانًا. أوْ شَيْءٍ اخْتَلَسَهُ. أوْ حَرِيسَةٍ احْتَرَسَها، أوْ تَمْرٍ مُعَلَّقٍ جَذَّهُ أوْ أفْسَدَهُ -[٧٧١]- أوْ سَرِقَةٍ سَرَقَها لا قَطْعَ عَلَيْهِ فِيها، إنَّ ذَلِكَ فِي رَقَبَةِ العَبْدِ. لا يَعْدُو ذَلِكَ الرَّقَبَةَ. قَلَّ ذَلِكَ أوْ كَثُرَ فَإنْ شاءَ سَيِّدُهُ أنْ يُعْطِيَ قِيمَةَ ما أخَذَ غُلامُهُ، أوْ أفْسَدَ أوْ عَقْلَ ما جَرَحَ، أعْطاهُ. وأمْسَكَ غُلامَهُ وإنْ شاءَ أنْ يُسْلِمَهُ أسْلَمَهُ، ولَيْسَ عَلَيْهِ شَيْءٌ غَيْرُ ذَلِكَ فَسَيِّدُهُ فِي ذَلِكَ بِالخِيارِ»

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."

قالَ مالِكٌ: «والأمْرُ المُجْتَمَعُ عَلَيْهِ عِنْدَنا فِي العَبْدِ يُعْتِقُ سَيِّدُهُ مِنهُ شِقْصًا. ثُلُثَهُ أوْ رُبُعَهُ أوْ نِصْفَهُ. أوْ سَهْمًا مِنَ الأسْهُمِ بَعْدَ مَوْتِهِ. أنَّهُ لا يَعْتِقُ مِنهُ إلّا ما أعْتَقَ سَيِّدُهُ وسَمّى مِن ذَلِكَ -[٧٧٣]- الشِّقْصِ. وذَلِكَ أنَّ عَتاقَةَ ذَلِكَ الشِّقْصِ، إنَّما وجَبَتْ وكانَتْ بَعْدَ وفاةِ المَيِّتِ، وأنَّ سَيِّدَهُ كانَ مُخَيَّرًا فِي ذَلِكَ ما عاشَ. فَلَمّا وقَعَ العِتْقُ لِلْعَبْدِ عَلى سَيِّدِهِ المُوصِي، لَمْ يَكُنْ لِلْمُوصِي إلّا ما أخَذَ مِن مالِهِ. ولَمْ يَعْتِقْ ما بَقِيَ مِنَ العَبْدِ. لِأنَّ مالَهُ قَدْ صارَ لِغَيْرِهِ. فَكَيْفَ يَعْتِقُ ما بَقِيَ مِنَ العَبْدِ عَلى قَوْمٍ آخَرِينَ. لَيْسُوا هُمُ ابْتَدَءُوا العَتاقَةَ. ولا أثْبَتُوها. ولا لَهُمُ الوَلاءُ ولا يَثْبُتُ لَهُمْ وإنَّما صَنَعَ ذَلِكَ المَيِّتُ هُوَ الَّذِي أعْتَقَ. وأُثْبِتَ لَهُ الوَلاءُ. فَلا يُحْمَلُ ذَلِكَ فِي مالِ غَيْرِهِ إلّا أنْ يُوصِيَ بِأنْ يَعْتِقَ ما بَقِيَ مِنهُ فِي مالِهِ. فَإنَّ ذَلِكَ لازِمٌ لِشُرَكائِهِ ووَرَثَتِهِ. ولَيْسَ لِشُرَكائِهِ أنْ يَأْبَوْا ذَلِكَ عَلَيْهِ وهُوَ فِي ثُلُثِ مالِ المَيِّتِ. لِأنَّهُ لَيْسَ عَلى ورَثَتِهِ فِي ذَلِكَ ضَرَرٌ». قالَ مالِكٌ: «ولَوْ أعْتَقَ رَجُلٌ ثُلُثَ عَبْدِهِ وهُوَ مَرِيضٌ. فَبَتَّ عِتْقَهُ عَتَقَ عَلَيْهِ كُلُّهُ فِي ثُلُثِهِ. وذَلِكَ أنَّهُ لَيْسَ بِمَنزِلَةِ الرَّجُلِ يُعْتِقُ ثُلُثَ عَبْدِهِ بَعْدَ مَوْتِهِ. لِأنَّ الَّذِي يُعْتِقُ ثُلُثَ عَبْدِهِ بَعْدَ مَوْتِهِ، لَوْ عاشَ رَجَعَ فِيهِ. ولَمْ يَنْفُذْ عِتْقُهُ. وأنَّ العَبْدَ الَّذِي يَبِتُّ سَيِّدُهُ عِتْقَ ثُلُثِهِ فِي مَرَضِهِ، يَعْتِقُ عَلَيْهِ كُلُّهُ إنْ عاشَ. وإنْ ماتَ عَتَقَ عَلَيْهِ فِي ثُلُثِهِ. وذَلِكَ أنَّ أمْرَ المَيِّتِ جائِزٌ فِي ثُلُثِهِ. كَما أنَّ أمْرَ الصَّحِيحِ جائِزٌ فِي مالِهِ كُلِّهِ»

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 ﷺ 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."

قالَ مالِكٌ: مَن أعْتَقَ عَبْدًا لَهُ فَبَتَّ عِتْقَهُ، حَتّى تَجُوزَ شَهادَتُهُ وتَتِمَّ حُرِّيَّتُهُ ويَثْبُتَ مِيراثُهُ. " فَلَيْسَ لِسَيِّدِهِ أنْ يَشْتَرِطَ عَلَيْهِ مِثْلَ ما يَشْتَرِطُ عَلى عَبْدِهِ مِن مالٍ أوْ خِدْمَةٍ. ولا يَحْمِلَ عَلَيْهِ شَيْئًا مِنَ الرِّقِّ. لِأنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ﷺ قالَ: «مَن أعْتَقَ شِرْكًا لَهُ فِي عَبْدٍ قُوِّمَ عَلَيْهِ قِيمَةَ العَدْلِ. فَأعْطى شُرَكاءَهُ حِصَصَهُمْ. وعَتَقَ عَلَيْهِ العَبْدُ» -[٧٧٤]- قالَ مالِكٌ: «فَهُوَ، إذا كانَ لَهُ العَبْدُ خالِصًا أحَقُّ بِاسْتِكْمالِ عَتاقَتِهِ. ولا يَخْلِطُها بِشَيْءٍ مِنَ الرِّقِّ»

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 ﷺ had said, "The wala' is for the one who sets free. " The Messenger of Allah ﷺ 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.

قالَ مالِكٌ فِي العَبْدِ يَبْتاعُ نَفْسَهُ مِن سَيِّدِهِ عَلى أنَّهُ يُوالِي مَن شاءَ: «إنَّ ذَلِكَ لا يَجُوزُ وإنَّما الوَلاءُ لِمَن أعْتَقَ. ولَوْ أنَّ رَجُلًا أذِنَ لِمَوْلاهُ أنْ يُوالِيَ مَن شاءَ، ما جازَ ذَلِكَ. لِأنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ﷺ قالَ: «الوَلاءُ لِمَن أعْتَقَ ونَهى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ عَنْ بَيْعِ الوَلاءِ وعَنْ هِبَتِهِ» فَإذا جازَ لِسَيِّدِهِ أنْ يَشْتَرِطَ ذَلِكَ لَهُ، وأنْ يَأْذَنَ لَهُ أنْ يُوالِيَ مَن شاءَ، فَتِلْكَ الهِبَةُ»

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."

قالَ مالِكٌ: الأمْرُ المُجْتَمَعُ عَلَيْهِ عِنْدَنا «أنَّ العَبِيدَ إذا كُوتِبُوا جَمِيعًا كِتابَةً واحِدَةً فَإنَّ بَعْضَهُمْ حُمَلاءُ عَنْ بَعْضٍ. وإنَّهُ لا يُوضَعُ عَنْهُمْ لِمَوْتِ أحَدِهِمْ شَيْءٌ. وإنْ قالَ أحَدُهُمْ: قَدْ عَجَزْتُ. وألْقى بِيَدَيْهِ. فَإنَّ لِأصْحابِهِ أنْ يَسْتَعْمِلُوهُ فِيما يُطِيقُ مِنَ العَمَلِ. ويَتَعاوَنُونَ بِذَلِكَ فِي كِتابَتِهِمْ حَتّى يَعْتِقَ بِعِتْقِهِمْ إنْ عَتَقُوا. ويَرِقَّ بِرِقِّهِمْ إنْ رَقُّوا». قالَ مالِكٌ: الأمْرُ المُجْتَمَعُ عَلَيْهِ عِنْدَنا «أنَّ العَبْدَ إذا كاتَبَهُ سَيِّدُهُ. لَمْ يَنْبَغِ لِسَيِّدِهِ أنْ يَتَحَمَّلَ لَهُ بِكِتابَةِ عَبْدِهِ أحَدٌ. إنْ ماتَ العَبْدُ أوْ عَجَزَ. ولَيْسَ هَذا مِن سُنَّةِ المُسْلِمِينَ. وذَلِكَ أنَّهُ إنْ تَحَمَّلَ رَجُلٌ لِسَيِّدِ المُكاتَبِ بِما عَلَيْهِ مِن كِتابَتِهِ. ثُمَّ اتَّبَعَ ذَلِكَ سَيِّدُ المُكاتَبِ قِبَلَ الَّذِي تَحَمَّلَ لَهُ أخَذَ مالَهُ باطِلًا. لا هُوَ ابْتاعَ المُكاتَبَ فَيَكُونَ ما أُخِذَ مِنهُ مِن ثَمَنِ شَيْءٍ هُوَ لَهُ. ولا المُكاتَبُ عَتَقَ فَيَكُونَ فِي ثَمَنِ حُرْمَةٍ ثَبَتَتْ لَهُ فَإنْ عَجَزَ المُكاتَبُ رَجَعَ إلى سَيِّدِهِ. وكانَ عَبْدًا مَمْلُوكًا لَهُ. وذَلِكَ أنَّ الكِتابَةَ لَيْسَتْ بِدَيْنٍ ثابِتٍ. يُتَحَمَّلُ لِسَيِّدِ المُكاتَبِ بِها. إنَّما هِيَ شَيْءٌ. إنْ أدّاهُ المُكاتَبُ عَتَقَ. وإنْ ماتَ المُكاتَبُ وعَلَيْهِ دَيْنٌ لَمْ يُحاصَّ الغُرَماءَ سَيِّدُهُ بِكِتابَتِهِ. وكانَ الغُرَماءُ أوْلى بِذَلِكَ مِن سَيِّدِهِ. وإنْ عَجَزَ المُكاتَبُ وعَلَيْهِ دَيْنٌ لِلنّاسِ. رُدَّ عَبْدًا مَمْلُوكًا لِسَيِّدِهِ. وكانَتْ دُيُونُ النّاسِ فِي ذِمَّةِ المُكاتَبِ. لا يَدْخُلُونَ مَعَ سَيِّدِهِ فِي شَيْءٍ مِن ثَمَنِ رَقَبَتِهِ». -[٧٩٢]- قالَ مالِكٌ: «إذا كاتَبَ القَوْمُ جَمِيعًا كِتابَةً واحِدَةً. ولا رَحِمَ بَيْنَهُمْ يَتَوارَثُونَ بِها. فَإنَّ بَعْضَهُمْ حُمَلاءُ عَنْ بَعْضٍ. ولا يَعْتِقُ بَعْضُهُمْ دُونَ بَعْضٍ حَتّى يُؤَدُّوا الكِتابَةَ كُلَّها. فَإنْ ماتَ أحَدٌ مِنهُمْ وتَرَكَ مالًا هُوَ أكْثَرُ مِن جَمِيعِ ما عَلَيْهِمْ. أُدِّيَ عَنْهُمْ جَمِيعُ ما عَلَيْهِمْ. وكانَ فَضْلُ المالِ لِسَيِّدِهِ. ولَمْ يَكُنْ لِمَن كاتَبَ مَعَهُ مِن فَضْلِ المالِ شَيْءٌ. ويَتْبَعُهُمُ السَّيِّدُ بِحِصَصِهِمِ الَّتِي بَقِيَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ مِنَ الكِتابَةِ الَّتِي قُضِيَتْ مِن مالِ الهالِكِ لِأنَّ الهالِكَ إنَّما كانَ تَحَمَّلَ عَنْهُمْ فَعَلَيْهِمْ أنْ يُؤَدُّوا ما عَتَقُوا بِهِ مِن مالِهِ. وإنْ كانَ لِلْمُكاتَبِ الهالِكِ ولَدٌ حُرٌّ لَمْ يُولَدْ فِي الكِتابَةِ. ولَمْ يُكاتَبْ عَلَيْهِ لَمْ يَرِثْهُ لِأنَّ المُكاتَبَ لَمْ يُعْتَقْ حَتّى ماتَ»

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."

قالَ مالِكٌ: أحْسَنُ ما سَمِعْتُ فِي المُكاتَبِ يَجْرَحُ الرَّجُلَ جَرْحًا يَقَعُ فِيهِ العَقْلُ عَلَيْهِ: «أنَّ المُكاتَبَ إنْ قَوِيَ عَلى أنْ يُؤَدِّيَ عَقْلَ ذَلِكَ الجَرْحِ مَعَ كِتابَتِهِ، أدّاهُ. وكانَ عَلى كِتابَتِهِ. فَإنْ لَمْ يَقْوَ عَلى ذَلِكَ فَقَدْ عَجَزَ عَنْ كِتابَتِهِ. وذَلِكَ أنَّهُ يَنْبَغِي أنْ يُؤَدِّيَ عَقْلَ ذَلِكَ الجَرْحِ قَبْلَ الكِتابَةِ. فَإنْ هُوَ عَجَزَ عَنْ أداءِ عَقْلِ ذَلِكَ الجَرْحِ خُيِّرَ سَيِّدُهُ. فَإنْ أحَبَّ أنْ يُؤَدِّيَ عَقْلَ ذَلِكَ الجَرْحِ فَعَلَ وأمْسَكَ غُلامَهُ وصارَ عَبْدًا مَمْلُوكًا. وإنْ شاءَ أنْ يُسَلِّمَ العَبْدَ إلى المَجْرُوحِ أسْلَمَهُ. ولَيْسَ عَلى السَّيِّدِ أكْثَرُ مِن أنْ يُسَلِّمَ عَبْدَهُ» قالَ مالِكٌ فِي القَوْمِ يُكاتَبُونَ جَمِيعًا: «فَيَجْرَحُ أحَدُهُمْ جَرْحًا فِيهِ عَقْلٌ» قالَ مالِكٌ: "مَن جَرَحَ مِنهُمْ جَرْحًا فِيهِ عَقْلٌ. قِيلَ لَهُ ولِلَّذِينَ مَعَهُ فِي الكِتابَةِ أدُّوا جَمِيعًا عَقْلَ ذَلِكَ الجَرْحِ. فَإنْ أدَّوْا ثَبَتُوا عَلى كِتابَتِهِمْ. وإنْ لَمْ يُؤَدُّوا فَقَدْ عَجَزُوا. ويُخَيَّرُ سَيِّدُهُمْ فَإنْ شاءَ أدّى عَقْلَ ذَلِكَ الجَرْحِ ورَجَعُوا عَبِيدًا لَهُ جَمِيعًا وإنْ شاءَ. أسْلَمَ الجارِحَ وحْدَهُ ورَجَعَ الآخَرُونَ عَبِيدًا لَهُ جَمِيعًا بِعَجْزِهِمْ عَنْ أداءِ عَقْلِ ذَلِكَ الجَرْحِ الَّذِي جَرَحَ صاحِبُهُمْ «قالَ مالِكٌ: «الأمْرُ الَّذِي لا اخْتِلافَ فِيهِ عِنْدَنا أنَّ المُكاتَبَ إذا أُصِيبَ بِجَرْحٍ يَكُونُ لَهُ فِيهِ عَقْلٌ. أوْ أُصِيبَ أحَدٌ مِن ولَدِ المُكاتَبِ الَّذِينَ مَعَهُ فِي كِتابَتِهِ. فَإنَّ عَقْلَهُمْ عَقْلُ العَبِيدِ فِي قِيمَتِهِمْ. وأنَّ ما أُخِذَ لَهُمْ مِن عَقْلِهِمْ يُدْفَعُ إلى سَيِّدِهِمِ الَّذِي لَهُ الكِتابَةُ. ويُحْسَبُ ذَلِكَ لِلْمُكاتَبِ فِي آخِرِ كِتابَتِهِ. فَيُوضَعُ عَنْهُ ما أخَذَ سَيِّدُهُ مِن دِيَةِ جَرْحِهِ» قالَ مالِكٌ وتَفْسِيرُ ذَلِكَ: أنَّهُ كَأنَّهُ كاتَبَهُ عَلى ثَلاثَةِ آلافِ دِرْهَمٍ. وكانَ دِيَةُ جَرْحِهِ الَّذِي أخَذَها سَيِّدُهُ ألْفَ دِرْهَمٍ فَإذا أدّى المُكاتَبُ إلى سَيِّدِهِ ألْفَيْ دِرْهَمٍ فَهُوَ حُرٌّ. وإنْ كانَ الَّذِي بَقِيَ عَلَيْهِ مِن كِتابَتِهِ ألْفَ دِرْهَمٍ وكانَ الَّذِي أخَذَ مِن دِيَةِ جَرْحِهِ ألْفَ دِرْهَمٍ فَقَدْ عَتَقَ. وإنْ كانَ عَقْلُ جَرْحِهِ أكْثَرَ مِمّا بَقِيَ عَلى المُكاتَبِ أخَذَ سَيِّدُ المُكاتَبِ ما بَقِيَ مِن كِتابَتِهِ. وعَتَقَ وكانَ ما فَضَلَ بَعْدَ أداءِ كِتابَتِهِ لِلْمُكاتَبِ ولا يَنْبَغِي أنْ يُدْفَعَ إلى المُكاتَبِ شَيْءٌ مِن دِيَةِ جَرْحِهِ. فَيَأْكُلَهُ. ويَسْتَهْلِكَهُ. فَإنْ عَجَزَ رَجَعَ إلى سَيِّدِهِ أعْوَرَ أوْ مَقْطُوعَ اليَدِ أوْ مَعْضُوبَ الجَسَدِ. وإنَّما كاتَبَهُ سَيِّدُهُ عَلى مالِهِ وكَسْبِهِ. ولَمْ يُكاتِبْهُ عَلى أنْ يَأْخُذَ ثَمَنَ ولَدِهِ. ولا ما أُصِيبَ مِن عَقْلِ جَسَدِهِ فَيَأْكُلَهُ ويَسْتَهْلِكَهُ ولَكِنْ عَقْلُ جِراحاتِ المُكاتَبِ ووَلَدِهِ الَّذِينَ وُلِدُوا فِي كِتابَتِهِ. أوْ كاتَبَ عَلَيْهِمْ يُدْفَعُ إلى سَيِّدِهِ ويُحْسَبُ ذَلِكَ لَهُ فِي آخِرِ كِتابَتِهِ»

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."

قالَ مالِكٌ إنَّ أحْسَنَ ما سُمِعَ فِي الرَّجُلِ يَشْتَرِي مُكاتَبَ الرَّجُلِ: «أنَّهُ لا يَبِيعُهُ إذا كانَ كاتَبَهُ بِدَنانِيرَ أوْ دَراهِمَ إلّا بِعَرْضٍ مِنَ العُرُوضِ يُعَجِّلُهُ ولا يُؤَخِّرُهُ. لِأنَّهُ إذا أخَّرَهُ كانَ دَيْنًا بِدَيْنٍ وقَدْ نُهِيَ عَنِ الكالِئِ بِالكالِئِ. قالَ: وإنْ كاتَبَ المُكاتَبَ سَيِّدُهُ بِعَرْضٍ مِنَ العُرُوضِ مِنَ الإبِلِ أوِ البَقَرِ أوِ الغَنَمِ أوِ الرَّقِيقِ. فَإنَّهُ يَصْلُحُ لِلْمُشْتَرِي أنْ يَشْتَرِيَهُ بِذَهَبٍ أوْ فِضَّةٍ أوْ عَرْضٍ مُخالِفٍ لِلْعُرُوضِ الَّتِي كاتَبَهُ سَيِّدُهُ عَلَيْها يُعَجِّلُ ذَلِكَ ولا يُؤَخِّرُهُ» قالَ مالِكٌ أحْسَنُ ما سَمِعْتُ فِي المُكاتَبِ: «أنَّهُ إذا بِيعَ كانَ أحَقَّ بِاشْتِراءِ كِتابَتِهِ مِمَّنِ اشْتَراها إذا قَوِيَ أنْ يُؤَدِّيَ إلى سَيِّدِهِ الثَّمَنَ الَّذِي باعَهُ بِهِ نَقْدًا. وذَلِكَ أنَّ اشْتِراءَهُ نَفْسَهُ عَتاقَةٌ والعَتاقَةُ تُبَدَّأُ عَلى ما كانَ مَعَها مِنَ الوَصايا وإنْ باعَ بَعْضُ مَن كاتَبَ المُكاتَبَ نَصِيبَهُ مِنهُ فَباعَ نِصْفَ المُكاتَبِ أوْ ثُلُثَهُ أوْ رُبُعَهُ أوْ سَهْمًا مِن أسْهُمِ المُكاتَبِ فَلَيْسَ لِلْمُكاتَبِ فِيما بِيعَ مِنهُ شُفْعَةٌ. وذَلِكَ أنَّهُ يَصِيرُ بِمَنزِلَةِ القَطاعَةِ ولَيْسَ لَهُ أنْ يُقاطِعَ بَعْضَ مَن كاتَبَهُ إلّا بِإذْنِ شُرَكائِهِ. وأنَّ ما بِيعَ مِنهُ لَيْسَتْ لَهُ بِهِ حُرْمَةٌ تامَّةٌ. وأنَّ مالَهُ مَحْجُورٌ عَنْهُ. وأنَّ اشْتِراءَهُ بَعْضَهُ يُخافُ عَلَيْهِ مِنهُ العَجْزُ لِما يَذْهَبُ مِن مالِهِ. ولَيْسَ ذَلِكَ بِمَنزِلَةِ اشْتِراءِ المُكاتَبِ نَفْسَهُ كامِلًا. إلّا أنْ يَأْذَنَ لَهُ مَن بَقِيَ لَهُ فِيهِ كِتابَةٌ فَإنْ أذِنُوا لَهُ كانَ أحَقَّ بِما بِيعَ مِنهُ» قالَ مالِكٌ: "لا يَحِلُّ بَيْعُ نَجْمٍ مِن نُجُومِ المُكاتَبِ وذَلِكَ أنَّهُ غَرَرٌ إنْ عَجَزَ المُكاتَبُ بَطَلَ ما عَلَيْهِ. وإنْ ماتَ أوْ أفْلَسَ وعَلَيْهِ دُيُونٌ لِلنّاسِ لَمْ يَأْخُذِ الَّذِي اشْتَرى نَجْمَهُ بِحِصَّتِهِ مَعَ غُرَمائِهِ شَيْئًا. وإنَّما الَّذِي يَشْتَرِي نَجْمًا مِن نُجُومِ المُكاتَبِ بِمَنزِلَةِ سَيِّدِ المُكاتَبِ فَسَيِّدُ المُكاتَبِ لا يُحاصُّ بِكِتابَةِ غُلامِهِ غُرَماءَ المُكاتَبِ. وكَذَلِكَ الخَراجُ أيْضًا يَجْتَمِعُ لَهُ عَلى غُلامِهِ. فَلا يُحاصُّ بِما اجْتَمَعَ لَهُ مِنَ الخَراجِ غُرَماءَ غُلامِهِ " قالَ مالِكٌ: «لا بَأْسَ بِأنْ يَشْتَرِيَ المُكاتَبُ كِتابَتَهُ بِعَيْنٍ أوْ عَرْضٍ مُخالِفٍ لِما كُوتِبَ بِهِ مِنَ العَيْنِ أوِ العَرْضِ أوْ غَيْرِ مُخالِفٍ مُعَجَّلٍ أوْ مُؤَخَّرٍ» قالَ مالِكٌ فِي المُكاتَبِ يَهْلِكُ ويَتْرُكُ أُمَّ ولَدٍ وأوْلادًا لَهُ صِغارًا مِنها أوْ مِن غَيْرِها. فَلا يَقْوَوْنَ عَلى السَّعْيِ ويُخافُ عَلَيْهِمُ العَجْزُ عَنْ كِتابَتِهِمْ. قالَ: «تُباعُ أُمُّ ولَدِ أبِيهِمْ. إذا كانَ فِي ثَمَنِها ما يُؤَدّى بِهِ عَنْهُمْ جَمِيعُ كِتابَتِهِمْ أُمَّهُمْ. كانَتْ أوْ غَيْرَ أُمِّهِمْ يُؤَدّى عَنْهُمْ ويَعْتِقُونَ لِأنَّ أباهُمْ كانَ لا يَمْنَعُ بَيْعَها إذا خافَ العَجْزَ عَنْ كِتابَتِهِ. فَهَؤُلاءِ إذا خِيفَ عَلَيْهِمُ العَجْزُ بِيعَتْ أُمُّ ولَدِ أبِيهِمْ فَيُؤَدّى عَنْهُمْ ثَمَنُها فَإنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ فِي ثَمَنِها ما يُؤَدّى عَنْهُمْ ولَمْ تَقْوَ هِيَ ولا هُمْ عَلى السَّعْيِ رَجَعُوا جَمِيعًا رَقِيقًا لِسَيِّدِهِمْ» قالَ مالِكٌ الأمْرُ عِنْدَنا فِي الَّذِي يَبْتاعُ كِتابَةَ المُكاتَبِ ثُمَّ يَهْلِكُ المُكاتَبُ قَبْلَ أنْ يُؤَدِّيَ كِتابَتَهُ: «أنَّهُ يَرِثُهُ الَّذِي اشْتَرى كِتابَتَهُ. وإنْ عَجَزَ فَلَهُ رَقَبَتُهُ. وإنْ أدّى المُكاتَبُ كِتابَتَهُ إلى الَّذِي اشْتَراها وعَتَقَ فَوَلاؤُهُ لِلَّذِي عَقَدَ كِتابَتَهُ لَيْسَ لِلَّذِي اشْتَرى كِتابَتَهُ مِن ولائِهِ شَيْءٌ»

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."

حَدَّثَنِي مالِكٌ فِي رَجُلٍ كاتَبَ عَبْدَهُ بِذَهَبٍ أوْ ورِقٍ. واشْتَرَطَ عَلَيْهِ فِي كِتابَتِهِ سَفَرًا أوْ خِدْمَةً أوْ ضَحِيَّةً: «إنَّ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ مِن ذَلِكَ سَمّى بِاسْمِهِ ثُمَّ قَوِيَ المُكاتَبُ عَلى أداءِ نُجُومِهِ كُلِّها قَبْلَ مَحِلِّها. قالَ: إذا أدّى نُجُومَهُ كُلَّها وعَلَيْهِ هَذا الشَّرْطُ عَتَقَ فَتَمَّتْ حُرْمَتُهُ ونُظِرَ إلى ما شَرَطَ عَلَيْهِ مِن خِدْمَةٍ أوْ سَفَرٍ أوْ ما أشْبَهَ ذَلِكَ. مِمّا يُعالِجُهُ هُوَ بِنَفْسِهِ. فَذَلِكَ مَوْضُوعٌ عَنْهُ لَيْسَ لِسَيِّدِهِ فِيهِ شَيْءٌ وما كانَ مِن ضَحِيَّةٍ أوْ كِسْوَةٍ أوْ شَيْءٍ يُؤَدِّيهِ. فَإنَّما هُوَ بِمَنزِلَةِ الدَّنانِيرِ والدَّراهِمِ يُقَوَّمُ ذَلِكَ عَلَيْهِ فَيَدْفَعُهُ مَعَ نُجُومِهِ ولا يَعْتِقُ حَتّى يَدْفَعَ ذَلِكَ مَعَ نُجُومِهِ «قالَ مالِكٌ الأمْرُ المُجْتَمَعُ عَلَيْهِ عِنْدَنا الَّذِي لا اخْتِلافَ فِيهِ» أنَّ المُكاتَبَ بِمَنزِلَةِ عَبْدٍ أعْتَقَهُ سَيِّدُهُ بَعْدَ خِدْمَةِ عَشْرِ سِنِينَ. فَإذا هَلَكَ سَيِّدُهُ الَّذِي أعْتَقَهُ قَبْلَ عَشْرِ سِنِينَ. فَإنَّ ما بَقِيَ عَلَيْهِ مِن خِدْمَتِهِ لِوَرَثَتِهِ وكانَ ولاؤُهُ لِلَّذِي عَقَدَ عِتْقَهُ ولِوَلَدِهِ مِنَ الرِّجالِ أوِ العَصَبَةِ» قالَ مالِكٌ فِي الرَّجُلِ يَشْتَرِطُ عَلى مُكاتَبِهِ أنَّكَ لا تُسافِرُ ولا تَنْكِحُ ولا تَخْرُجُ مِن أرْضِي إلّا بِإذْنِي: «فَإنْ فَعَلْتَ شَيْئًا مِن ذَلِكَ بِغَيْرِ إذْنِي فَمَحْوُ كِتابَتِكَ بِيَدِي» قالَ مالِكٌ: لَيْسَ مَحْوُ كِتابَتِهِ بِيَدِهِ إنْ فَعَلَ المُكاتَبُ شَيْئًا مِن ذَلِكَ. ولْيَرْفَعْ سَيِّدُهُ ذَلِكَ إلى السُّلْطانِ ولَيْسَ لِلْمُكاتَبِ أنْ يَنْكِحَ ولا يُسافِرَ ولا يَخْرُجَ مِن أرْضِ سَيِّدِهِ. إلّا بِإذْنِهِ اشْتَرَطَ ذَلِكَ أوْ لَمْ يَشْتَرِطْهُ. وذَلِكَ أنَّ الرَّجُلَ يُكاتِبُ عَبْدَهُ بِمِائَةِ دِينارٍ ولَهُ ألْفُ دِينارٍ أوْ أكْثَرُ مِن ذَلِكَ فَيَنْطَلِقُ فَيَنْكِحُ المَرْأةَ فَيُصْدِقُها الصَّداقَ الَّذِي يُجْحِفُ بِمالِهِ ويَكُونُ -[٨٠٣]- فِيهِ عَجْزُهُ فَيَرْجِعُ إلى سَيِّدِهِ عَبْدًا لا مالَ لَهُ. أوْ يُسافِرُ فَتَحِلُّ نُجُومُهُ وهُوَ غائِبٌ فَلَيْسَ ذَلِكَ لَهُ ولا عَلى ذَلِكَ كاتَبَهُ. وذَلِكَ بِيَدِ سَيِّدِهِ إنْ شاءَ أذِنَ لَهُ فِي ذَلِكَ وإنْ شاءَ مَنَعَهُ»

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 ﷺ 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."

قالَ مالِكٌ: «إنَّ المُكاتَبَ إذا أعْتَقَ عَبْدَهُ إنَّ ذَلِكَ غَيْرُ جائِزٍ لَهُ. إلّا بِإذْنِ سَيِّدِهِ فَإنْ أجازَ ذَلِكَ سَيِّدُهُ لَهُ ثُمَّ عَتَقَ المُكاتَبُ كانَ ولاؤُهُ لِلْمُكاتَبِ. وإنْ ماتَ المُكاتَبُ قَبْلَ أنْ يُعْتَقَ كانَ ولاءُ المُعْتَقِ لِسَيِّدِ المُكاتَبِ وإنْ ماتَ المُعْتَقُ قَبْلَ أنْ يُعْتَقَ المُكاتَبُ ورِثَهُ سَيِّدُ المُكاتَبِ» قالَ مالِكٌ: وكَذَلِكَ أيْضًا لَوْ كاتَبَ المُكاتَبُ عَبْدًا فَعَتَقَ المُكاتَبُ الآخَرُ قَبْلَ سَيِّدِهِ الَّذِي كاتَبَهُ فَإنَّ ولاءَهُ لِسَيِّدِ المُكاتَبِ ما لَمْ يَعْتِقِ المُكاتَبُ الأوَّلُ الَّذِي كاتَبَهُ. فَإنْ عَتَقَ الَّذِي كاتَبَهُ رَجَعَ إلَيْهِ ولاءُ مُكاتَبِهِ الَّذِي كانَ عَتَقَ قَبْلَهُ. وإنْ ماتَ المُكاتَبُ الأوَّلُ قَبْلَ أنْ يُؤَدِّيَ أوْ عَجَزَ عَنْ كِتابَتِهِ ولَهُ ولَدٌ أحْرارٌ لَمْ يَرِثُوا ولاءَ مُكاتَبِ أبِيهِمْ لِأنَّهُ لَمْ يَثْبُتْ لِأبِيهِمُ الوَلاءُ. ولا يَكُونُ لَهُ الوَلاءُ حَتّى يَعْتِقَ «قالَ مالِكٌ» فِي المُكاتَبِ يَكُونُ بَيْنَ الرَّجُلَيْنِ فَيَتْرُكُ أحَدُهُما لِلْمُكاتَبِ الَّذِي لَهُ عَلَيْهِ ويَشِحُّ الآخَرُ ثُمَّ يَمُوتُ المُكاتَبُ ويَتْرُكُ مالًا «قالَ مالِكٌ: «يَقْضِي الَّذِي لَمْ يَتْرُكْ لَهُ شَيْئًا ما بَقِيَ لَهُ عَلَيْهِ. ثُمَّ يَقْتَسِمانِ المالَ كَهَيْئَتِهِ لَوْ ماتَ عَبْدًا لِأنَّ الَّذِي صَنَعَ لَيْسَ بِعَتاقَةٍ. وإنَّما تَرَكَ ما كانَ لَهُ عَلَيْهِ» -[٨٠٤]- قالَ مالِكٌ ومِمّا يُبَيِّنُ ذَلِكَ: «أنَّ الرَّجُلَ إذا ماتَ وتَرَكَ مُكاتَبًا وتَرَكَ بَنِينَ رِجالًا ونِساءً. ثُمَّ أعْتَقَ أحَدُ البَنِينَ نَصِيبَهُ مِنَ المُكاتَبِ إنَّ ذَلِكَ لا يُثْبِتُ لَهُ مِنَ الوَلاءِ شَيْئًا ولَوْ كانَتْ عَتاقَةً لَثَبَتَ الوَلاءُ لِمَن أعْتَقَ مِنهُمْ مِن رِجالِهِمْ ونِسائِهِمْ» قالَ مالِكٌ: ومِمّا يُبَيِّنُ ذَلِكَ أيْضًا» أنَّهُمْ إذا أعْتَقَ أحَدُهُمْ نَصِيبَهُ ثُمَّ عَجَزَ المُكاتَبُ لَمْ يُقَوَّمْ عَلى الَّذِي أعْتَقَ نَصِيبَهُ ما بَقِيَ مِنَ المُكاتَبِ ولَوْ كانَتْ عَتاقَةً قُوِّمَ عَلَيْهِ حَتّى يَعْتِقَ فِي مالِهِ كَما قالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ: «مَن أعْتَقَ شِرْكًا لَهُ فِي عَبْدٍ قُوِّمَ عَلَيْهِ قِيمَةَ العَدْلِ. فَإنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ مالٌ عَتَقَ مِنهُ ما عَتَقَ» قالَ: ومِمّا يُبَيِّنُ ذَلِكَ أيْضًا: أنَّ مِن سُنَّةِ المُسْلِمِينَ الَّتِي لا اخْتِلافَ فِيها. أنَّ مَن أعْتَقَ شِرْكًا لَهُ فِي مُكاتَبٍ لَمْ يُعْتَقْ عَلَيْهِ فِي مالِهِ ولَوْ عَتَقَ عَلَيْهِ. كانَ الوَلاءُ لَهُ دُونَ شُرَكائِهِ ومِمّا يُبَيِّنُ ذَلِكَ أيْضًا: أنَّ مِن سُنَّةِ المُسْلِمِينَ أنَّ الوَلاءَ لِمَن عَقَدَ الكِتابَةَ. وأنَّهُ لَيْسَ لِمَن ورِثَ سَيِّدَ المُكاتَبِ مِنَ النِّساءِ مِن ولاءِ المُكاتَبِ. وإنْ أعْتَقْنَ نَصِيبَهُنَّ شَيْءٌ إنَّما ولاؤُهُ لِوَلَدِ سَيِّدِ المُكاتَبِ الذُّكُورِ أوْ عَصَبَتِهِ مِنَ الرِّجالِ»

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 ﷺ 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.

قالَ مالِكٌ: "إذا كانَ القَوْمُ جَمِيعًا فِي كِتابَةٍ واحِدَةٍ. لَمْ يُعْتِقْ سَيِّدُهُمْ أحَدًا مِنهُمْ دُونَ مُؤامَرَةِ أصْحابِهِ الَّذِينَ مَعَهُ فِي الكِتابَةِ ورِضًا مِنهُمْ. وإنْ كانُوا صِغارًا فَلَيْسَ مُؤامَرَتُهُمْ بِشَيْءٍ. ولا يَجُوزُ ذَلِكَ عَلَيْهِمْ. -[٨٠٥]- قالَ: وذَلِكَ أنَّ الرَّجُلَ رُبَّما كانَ يَسْعى عَلى جَمِيعِ القَوْمِ ويُؤَدِّي عَنْهُمْ كِتابَتَهُمْ لِتَتِمَّ بِهِ عَتاقَتُهُمْ فَيَعْمِدُ السَّيِّدُ إلى الَّذِي يُؤَدِّي عَنْهُمْ. وبِهِ نَجاتُهُمْ مِنَ الرِّقِّ، فَيُعْتِقُهُ. فَيَكُونُ ذَلِكَ عَجْزًا لِمَن بَقِيَ مِنهُمْ وإنَّما أرادَ بِذَلِكَ الفَضْلَ والزِّيادَةَ لِنَفْسِهِ فَلا يَجُوزُ ذَلِكَ عَلى مَن بَقِيَ مِنهُمْ وقَدْ قالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ: «لا ضَرَرَ ولا ضِرارَ وهَذا أشَدُّ الضَّرَرِ» قالَ مالِكٌ فِي العَبِيدِ يُكاتَبُونَ جَمِيعًا: «إنَّ لِسَيِّدِهِمْ أنْ يُعْتِقَ مِنهُمُ الكَبِيرَ الفانِيَ والصَّغِيرَ الَّذِي لا يُؤَدِّي واحِدٌ مِنهُما شَيْئًا ولَيْسَ عِنْدَ واحِدٍ مِنهُما عَوْنٌ ولا قُوَّةٌ فِي كِتابَتِهِمْ فَذَلِكَ جائِزٌ لَهُ»

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."

قالَ مالِكٌ فِي الرَّجُلِ يُكاتِبُ عَبْدَهُ. ثُمَّ يَمُوتُ المُكاتَبُ ويَتْرُكُ أُمَّ ولَدِهِ. وقَدْ بَقِيَتْ عَلَيْهِ مِن كِتابَتِهِ بَقِيَّةٌ ويَتْرُكُ وفاءً بِما عَلَيْهِ: «إنَّ أُمَّ ولَدِهِ أمَةٌ مَمْلُوكَةٌ حِينَ لَمْ يُعْتَقِ المُكاتَبُ حَتّى ماتَ. ولَمْ يَتْرُكْ ولَدًا فَيُعْتَقُونَ بِأداءِ ما بَقِيَ فَتُعْتَقُ أُمُّ ولَدِ أبِيهِمْ بِعِتْقِهِمْ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «فِي المُكاتَبِ يُعْتِقُ عَبْدًا لَهُ أوْ يَتَصَدَّقُ بِبَعْضِ مالِهِ ولَمْ يَعْلَمْ بِذَلِكَ سَيِّدُهُ حَتّى عَتَقَ المُكاتَبُ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «يَنْفُذُ ذَلِكَ عَلَيْهِ ولَيْسَ لِلْمُكاتَبِ أنْ يَرْجِعَ فِيهِ فَإنْ عَلِمَ سَيِّدُ المُكاتَبِ قَبْلَ أنْ يَعْتِقَ المُكاتَبُ فَرَدَّ ذَلِكَ ولَمْ يُجِزْهُ فَإنَّهُ إنْ عَتَقَ المُكاتَبُ وذَلِكَ فِي يَدِهِ -[٨٠٦]- لَمْ يَكُنْ عَلَيْهِ أنْ يُعْتِقَ ذَلِكَ العَبْدَ ولا أنْ يُخْرِجَ تِلْكَ الصَّدَقَةَ إلّا أنْ يَفْعَلَ ذَلِكَ طائِعًا مِن عِنْدِ نَفْسِهِ»

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.

قالَ مالِكٌ إنَّ أحْسَنَ ما سَمِعْتُ فِي المُكاتَبِ يُعْتِقُهُ سَيِّدُهُ عِنْدَ المَوْتِ: «أنَّ المُكاتَبَ يُقامُ عَلى هَيْئَتِهِ تِلْكَ الَّتِي لَوْ بِيعَ كانَ ذَلِكَ الثَّمَنَ الَّذِي يَبْلُغُ فَإنْ كانَتِ القِيمَةُ أقَلَّ مِمّا بَقِيَ عَلَيْهِ مِنَ الكِتابَةِ وُضِعَ ذَلِكَ فِي ثُلُثِ المَيِّتِ. ولَمْ يُنْظَرْ إلى عَدَدِ الدَّراهِمِ الَّتِي بَقِيَتْ عَلَيْهِ. وذَلِكَ أنَّهُ لَوْ قُتِلَ لَمْ يَغْرَمْ قاتِلُهُ إلّا قِيمَتَهُ يَوْمَ قَتْلِهِ ولَوْ جُرِحَ لَمْ يَغْرَمْ جارِحُهُ إلّا دِيَةَ جَرْحِهِ يَوْمَ جَرَحَهُ. ولا يُنْظَرُ فِي شَيْءٍ مِن ذَلِكَ إلى ما كُوتِبَ عَلَيْهِ مِنَ الدَّنانِيرِ والدَّراهِمِ. لِأنَّهُ عَبْدٌ ما بَقِيَ عَلَيْهِ مِن كِتابَتِهِ شَيْءٌ وإنْ كانَ الَّذِي بَقِيَ عَلَيْهِ مِن كِتابَتِهِ أقَلَّ مِن قِيمَتِهِ لَمْ يُحْسَبْ فِي ثُلُثِ المَيِّتِ إلّا ما بَقِيَ عَلَيْهِ مِن كِتابَتِهِ. وذَلِكَ أنَّهُ إنَّما تَرَكَ المَيِّتُ لَهُ ما بَقِيَ عَلَيْهِ مِن كِتابَتِهِ فَصارَتْ وصِيَّةً أوْصى بِها» قالَ مالِكٌ وتَفْسِيرُ ذَلِكَ «أنَّهُ لَوْ كانَتْ قِيمَةُ المُكاتَبِ ألْفَ دِرْهَمٍ ولَمْ يَبْقَ مِن كِتابَتِهِ إلّا مِائَةُ دِرْهَمٍ. فَأوْصى سَيِّدُهُ لَهُ بِالمِائَةِ دِرْهَمٍ الَّتِي بَقِيَتْ عَلَيْهِ. حُسِبَتْ لَهُ فِي ثُلُثِ سَيِّدِهِ فَصارَ حُرًّا بِها» قالَ مالِكٌ فِي رَجُلٍ كاتَبَ عَبْدَهُ عِنْدَ مَوْتِهِ: «إنَّهُ يُقَوَّمُ عَبْدًا. فَإنْ كانَ فِي ثُلُثِهِ سَعَةٌ لِثَمَنِ العَبْدِ جازَ لَهُ ذَلِكَ»

قالَ مالِكٌ وتَفْسِيرُ ذَلِكَ: «أنْ تَكُونَ قِيمَةُ العَبْدِ ألْفَ دِينارٍ. فَيُكاتِبُهُ سَيِّدُهُ عَلى مِائَتَيْ دِينارٍ عِنْدَ مَوْتِهِ فَيَكُونُ ثُلُثُ مالِ سَيِّدِهِ ألْفَ دِينارٍ. فَذَلِكَ جائِزٌ لَهُ. وإنَّما هِيَ وصِيَّةٌ أوْصى لَهُ بِها فِي ثُلُثِهِ فَإنْ كانَ السَّيِّدُ قَدْ أوْصى لِقَوْمٍ بِوَصايا. ولَيْسَ فِي الثُّلُثِ فَضْلٌ عَنْ قِيمَةِ المُكاتَبِ، بُدِئَ بِالمُكاتَبِ. لِأنَّ الكِتابَةَ عَتاقَةٌ. والعَتاقَةُ تُبَدَّأُ عَلى الوَصايا، ثُمَّ تُجْعَلُ تِلْكَ الوَصايا فِي كِتابَةِ المُكاتَبِ يَتْبَعُونَهُ بِها ويُخَيَّرُ ورَثَةُ المُوصِي. فَإنْ أحَبُّوا أنْ يُعْطُوا أهْلَ الوَصايا وصاياهُمْ كامِلَةً وتَكُونُ كِتابَةُ المُكاتَبِ لَهُمْ. فَذَلِكَ لَهُمْ وإنْ أبَوْا وأسْلَمُوا المُكاتَبَ وما عَلَيْهِ إلى أهْلِ الوَصايا. فَذَلِكَ لَهُمْ لِأنَّ الثُّلُثَ صارَ فِي المُكاتَبِ ولِأنَّ كُلَّ وصِيَّةٍ أوْصى بِها أحَدٌ فَقالَ: الوَرَثَةُ الَّذِي أوْصى بِهِ صاحِبُنا أكْثَرُ مِن ثُلُثِهِ. وقَدْ أخَذَ ما لَيْسَ لَهُ. قالَ: فَإنَّ ورَثَتَهُ يُخَيَّرُونَ. فَيُقالُ لَهُمْ قَدْ أوْصى صاحِبُكُمْ بِما قَدْ عَلِمْتُمْ. فَإنْ أحْبَبْتُمْ أنْ تُنَفِّذُوا ذَلِكَ لِأهْلِهِ عَلى ما أوْصى بِهِ المَيِّتُ وإلّا فَأسْلِمُوا إلى أهْلِ الوَصايا ثُلُثَ مالِ المَيِّتِ كُلِّهِ. قالَ فَإنْ أسْلَمَ الوَرَثَةُ المُكاتَبَ إلى أهْلِ الوَصايا. كانَ لِأهْلِ الوَصايا ما عَلَيْهِ مِنَ الكِتابَةِ فَإنْ أدّى المُكاتَبُ ما عَلَيْهِ مِنَ الكِتابَةِ أخَذُوا ذَلِكَ فِي وصاياهُمْ عَلى قَدْرِ حِصَصِهِمْ وإنْ عَجَزَ المُكاتَبُ كانَ عَبْدًا لِأهْلِ الوَصايا لا يَرْجِعُ إلى أهْلِ المِيراثِ لِأنَّهُمْ تَرَكُوهُ حِينَ خُيِّرُوا. ولِأنَّ أهْلَ الوَصايا حِينَ أُسْلِمَ إلَيْهِمْ ضَمِنُوهُ فَلَوْ ماتَ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُمْ عَلى الوَرَثَةِ شَيْءٌ وإنْ ماتَ المُكاتَبُ قَبْلَ أنْ يُؤَدِّيَ كِتابَتَهُ وتَرَكَ مالًا هُوَ أكْثَرُ مِمّا عَلَيْهِ. فَمالُهُ لِأهْلِ الوَصايا. وإنْ أدّى المُكاتَبُ ما عَلَيْهِ عَتَقَ ورَجَعَ ولاؤُهُ إلى عَصَبَةِ الَّذِي عَقَدَ كِتابَتَهُ»

قالَ مالِكٌ: «فِي المُكاتَبِ يَكُونُ لِسَيِّدِهِ عَلَيْهِ عَشَرَةُ آلافِ دِرْهَمٍ فَيَضَعُ عَنْهُ عِنْدَ مَوْتِهِ ألْفَ دِرْهَمٍ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «يُقَوَّمُ المُكاتَبُ فَيُنْظَرُ كَمْ قِيمَتُهُ. فَإنْ كانَتْ قِيمَتُهُ ألْفَ دِرْهَمٍ فالَّذِي وُضِعَ عَنْهُ عُشْرُ الكِتابَةِ. وذَلِكَ فِي القِيمَةِ مِائَةُ دِرْهَمٍ. وهُوَ عُشْرُ القِيمَةِ فَيُوضَعُ عَنْهُ عُشْرُ الكِتابَةِ فَيَصِيرُ ذَلِكَ إلى عُشْرِ القِيمَةِ نَقْدًا. وإنَّما ذَلِكَ كَهَيْئَتِهِ لَوْ وُضِعَ عَنْهُ جَمِيعُ ما عَلَيْهِ ولَوْ فَعَلَ ذَلِكَ لَمْ يُحْسَبْ فِي ثُلُثِ مالِ المَيِّتِ إلّا قِيمَةُ المُكاتَبِ ألْفُ دِرْهَمٍ. وإنْ كانَ الَّذِي وُضِعَ عَنْهُ نِصْفُ الكِتابَةِ حُسِبَ فِي ثُلُثِ مالِ المَيِّتِ نِصْفُ القِيمَةِ. وإنْ كانَ أقَلَّ مِن ذَلِكَ أوْ أكْثَرَ فَهُوَ عَلى هَذا الحِسابِ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «إذا وضَعَ الرَّجُلُ عَنْ مُكاتَبِهِ عِنْدَ مَوْتِهِ ألْفَ دِرْهَمٍ مِن عَشَرَةِ آلافِ دِرْهَمٍ ولَمْ يُسَمِّ أنَّها مِن أوَّلِ كِتابَتِهِ أوْ مِن آخِرِها. وُضِعَ عَنْهُ مِن كُلِّ نَجْمٍ عُشْرُهُ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «وإذا وضَعَ الرَّجُلُ عَنْ مُكاتَبِهِ عِنْدَ المَوْتِ ألْفَ دِرْهَمٍ مِن أوَّلِ كِتابَتِهِ أوْ مِن آخِرِها. وكانَ أصْلُ الكِتابَةِ عَلى ثَلاثَةِ آلافِ دِرْهَمٍ قُوِّمَ المُكاتَبُ قِيمَةَ النَّقْدِ ثُمَّ قُسِمَتْ تِلْكَ القِيمَةُ فَجُعِلَ لِتِلْكَ الألْفِ الَّتِي مِن أوَّلِ الكِتابَةِ حِصَّتُها مِن تِلْكَ القِيمَةِ بِقَدْرِ قُرْبِها مِنَ الأجَلِ وفَضْلِها. ثُمَّ الألْفُ الَّتِي تَلِي الألْفَ الأُولى بِقَدْرِ فَضْلِها أيْضًا. ثُمَّ الألْفُ الَّتِي تَلِيها بِقَدْرِ فَضْلِها أيْضًا حَتّى يُؤْتى عَلى آخِرِها تَفْضُلُ كُلُّ ألْفٍ بِقَدْرِ مَوْضِعِها فِي تَعْجِيلِ الأجَلِ وتَأْخِيرِهِ؛ لِأنَّ ما اسْتَأْخَرَ مِن ذَلِكَ كانَ أقَلَّ فِي القِيمَةِ ثُمَّ يُوضَعُ فِي ثُلُثِ المَيِّتِ قَدْرُ ما أصابَ تِلْكَ الألْفَ مِنَ القِيمَةِ عَلى تَفاضُلِ ذَلِكَ إنْ قَلَّ أوْ كَثُرَ. فَهُوَ عَلى هَذا الحِسابِ»

قالَ مالِكٌ: «فِي رَجُلٍ أوْصى لِرَجُلٍ بِرُبُعِ مُكاتَبٍ أوْ أعْتَقَ رُبُعَهُ. فَهَلَكَ الرَّجُلُ ثُمَّ هَلَكَ المُكاتَبُ وتَرَكَ مالًا كَثِيرًا أكْثَرَ مِمّا بَقِيَ عَلَيْهِ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «يُعْطى ورَثَةُ السَّيِّدِ والَّذِي أوْصى لَهُ بِرُبُعِ المُكاتَبِ ما بَقِيَ لَهُمْ عَلى المُكاتَبِ ثُمَّ يَقْتَسِمُونَ ما فَضَلَ فَيَكُونُ لِلْمُوصى لَهُ بِرُبُعِ المُكاتَبِ ثُلُثُ ما فَضَلَ بَعْدَ أداءِ الكِتابَةِ ولِوَرَثَةِ سَيِّدِهِ الثُّلُثانِ. وذَلِكَ أنَّ المُكاتَبَ عَبْدٌ ما بَقِيَ عَلَيْهِ مِن كِتابَتِهِ شَيْءٌ فَإنَّما يُورَثُ بِالرِّقِّ» قالَ مالِكٌ فِي مُكاتَبٍ أعْتَقَهُ سَيِّدُهُ عِنْدَ المَوْتِ قالَ: «إنْ لَمْ يَحْمِلْهُ ثُلُثُ المَيِّتِ عَتَقَ مِنهُ قَدْرُ ما حَمَلَ الثُّلُثُ ويُوضَعُ عَنْهُ مِنَ الكِتابَةِ قَدْرُ ذَلِكَ. إنْ كانَ عَلى المُكاتَبِ خَمْسَةُ آلافِ دِرْهَمٍ وكانَتْ قِيمَتُهُ ألْفَيْ دِرْهَمٍ نَقْدًا. ويَكُونُ ثُلُثُ المَيِّتِ ألْفَ دِرْهَمٍ. عَتَقَ نِصْفُهُ ويُوضَعُ عَنْهُ شَطْرُ الكِتابَةِ» قالَ مالِكٌ: فِي رَجُلٍ قالَ: «فِي وصِيَّتِهِ غُلامِي فُلانٌ حُرٌّ وكاتِبُوا فُلانًا تُبَدَّأُ العَتاقَةُ عَلى الكِتابَةِ»

Malik said, "The position with us about a woman who is found to be pregnant and has no husband and she says, 'I was forced,' or she says, 'I was married,' is that it is not accepted from her and the hadd is inflicted on her unless she has a clear proof of what she claims about the marriage or that she was forced or she comes bleeding if she was a virgin or she calls out for help so that someone comes to her and she is in that state or what resembles it of the situation in which the violation occurred." He said, "If she does not produce any of those, the hadd is inflicted on her and what she claims of that is not accepted from her." Malik said, "A raped woman cannot marry until she has restored herself by three menstrual periods." He said, "If she doubts her periods, she does not marry until she has freed herself of that doubt."

قالَ مالِكٌ: «الأمْرُ عِنْدَنا فِي المَرْأةِ تُوجَدُ حامِلًا ولا زَوْجَ لَها. فَتَقُولُ: قَدِ اسْتُكْرِهْتُ. أوْ تَقُولُ: تَزَوَّجْتُ. إنَّ ذَلِكَ لا يُقْبَلُ مِنها وإنَّها يُقامُ عَلَيْها الحَدُّ. إلّا أنْ يَكُونَ لَها عَلى ما ادَّعَتْ -[٨٢٨]- مِنَ النِّكاحِ بَيِّنَةٌ. أوْ عَلى أنَّها اسْتُكْرِهَتْ أوْ جاءَتْ تَدْمى إنْ كانَتْ بِكْرًا. أوِ اسْتَغاثَتْ حَتّى أُتِيَتْ. وهِيَ عَلى ذَلِكَ الحالِ. أوْ ما أشْبَهَ هَذا. مِنَ الأمْرِ الَّذِي تَبْلُغُ فِيهِ فَضِيحَةَ نَفْسِها». قالَ: «فَإنْ لَمْ تَأْتِ بِشَيْءٍ مِن هَذا، أُقِيمَ عَلَيْها الحَدُّ. ولَمْ يُقْبَلْ مِنها ما ادَّعَتْ مِن ذَلِكَ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «والمُغْتَصَبَةُ لا تَنْكِحُ حَتّى تَسْتَبْرِئَ نَفْسَها. بِثَلاثِ حِيَضٍ قالَ: فَإنِ ارْتابَتْ مِن حَيْضَتِها. فَلا تَنْكِحُ حَتّى تَسْتَبْرِئَ نَفْسَها مِن تِلْكَ الرِّيبَةِ»

Malik said, "The best of what is heard about a slave-girl whom a man has intercourse with while he has a partner in her is that the hadd is not inflicted on him and the child is connected to him. When the slave-girl becomes pregnant, her value is estimated and he gives his partners their shares of the price and the slave-girl is his. That is what is done among us." Malik said about a man who made his slave-girl halal to a man that if the one for whom she was made halal had intercourse with her, her value was estimated on the day he had intercourse with her and he owed that to her owner whether or not she conceived. The hadd was averted from him by that. If she conceived the child was connected to him. Malik said about a man who had intercourse with his son's or daughter's slave-girl, "The hadd is averted from him and he owes the estimated value of the slave-girl whether or not she conceives."

قالَ مالِكٌ إنَّ أحْسَنَ ما سُمِعَ فِي الأمَةِ يَقَعُ بِها الرَّجُلُ ولَهُ فِيها شِرْكٌ: «أنَّهُ لا يُقامُ عَلَيْهِ الحَدُّ. وأنَّهُ يُلْحَقُ بِهِ الوَلَدُ. وتُقَوَّمُ عَلَيْهِ الجارِيَةُ حِينَ حَمَلَتْ. فَيُعْطى شُرَكاؤُهُ حِصَصَهُمْ مِنَ الثَّمَنِ. وتَكُونُ الجارِيَةُ لَهُ وعَلى هَذا الأمْرُ عِنْدَنا». قالَ مالِكٌ فِي الرَّجُلِ يُحِلُّ لِلرَّجُلِ جارِيَتَهُ: «إنَّهُ إنْ أصابَها الَّذِي أُحِلَّتْ لَهُ قُوِّمَتْ عَلَيْهِ. يَوْمَ أصابَها حَمَلَتْ أوْ لَمْ تَحْمِلْ ودُرِئَ عَنْهُ الحَدُّ بِذَلِكَ. فَإنْ حَمَلَتْ أُلْحِقَ بِهِ الوَلَدُ» قالَ مالِكٌ فِي الرَّجُلِ يَقَعُ عَلى جارِيَةِ ابْنِهِ أوِ ابْنَتِهِ: «أنَّهُ يُدْرَأُ عَنْهُ الحَدُّ. وتُقامُ عَلَيْهِ الجارِيَةُ حَمَلَتْ أوْ لَمْ تَحْمِلْ»

Malik related to me that the generally agreed on way of doing things amongst the community about an accident is that there is no blood-money until the victim is better. If a man's bone, either a hand, or a foot, or another part of his body, is broken accidentally and it heals and becomes sound and returns to its form, there is no blood-money for it. If the limb is impaired or there is a scar on it, there is blood-money for it according to the extent that it is impaired. Malik said, "If that part of the body has a specific blood-money mentioned by the Prophet ﷺ it is according to what the Prophet ﷺ specified. If it is part of what does not have a specific blood-money for it mentioned by the Prophet ﷺ and if there is no previous sunna about it or specific blood-money, one uses ijtihad about it." Malik said, "There is no blood-money for an accidental bodily injury when the wound heals and returns to its form. If there is any scar or mark in that, ijtihad is used about it except for the belly-wound. There is a third of the blood-money of a life for it. " Malik said, "There is no blood-money for the wound which splinters a bone in the body, and it is like the wound to the body which lays bare the bone." Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community is that when the doctor performs a circumcision and cuts off the glans, he must pay the full blood-money. That is because it is an accident which the tribe is responsible for, and the full blood money is payable for all that in which a doctor errs or exceeds, when it is not intentional."

حَدَّثَنِي مالِكٌ: أنَّ الأمْرَ المُجْتَمَعَ عَلَيْهِ عِنْدَهُمْ فِي الخَطَأِ أنَّهُ لاَ يُعْقَلُ حَتّى يَبْرَأ المَجْرُوحُ ويَصِحَّ. وأنَّهُ إنْ كُسِرَ عَظْمٌ مِنَ الإنْسانِ، يَدٌ أوْ رِجْلٌ أوْ غَيْرُ ذلِكَ مِنَ الجَسَدِ خَطَأً، فَبَرَأ وصَحَّ وعادَ لِهَيْئَتِهِ فَلَيْسَ فِيهِ عَقْلٌ. فَإنْ نَقَصَ أوْ كانَ فِيهِ عَثَلٌ، فَفِيهِ مِن عَقْلِهِ بِحِسابِ ما نَقَصَ. قالَ [مالك]: فَإنْ كانَ ذلِكَ العَظْمُ مِمّا جاءَ فِيهِ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ عَقْلٌ مُسَمًّى، فَبِحِسابِ ما فَرَضَ فِيهِ النَّبِيُّ. وما كانَ مِمّا لَمْ يَأْتِ فِيهِ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ عَقْلٌ مُسَمًّى، ولَمْ تَمْضِ فِيهِ سُنَّةٌ ولاَ عَقْلٌ مُسَمًّى، فَإنَّهُ يُجْتَهَدُ فِيهِ. قالَ مالِكٌ: ولَيْسَ فِي الجِراحِ فِي الجَسَدِ، إذا كانَتْ خَطَأً، عَقْلٌ. إذا بَرَأ الجُرْحُ وعادَ لِهَيْئَتِهِ. فَإنْ كانَ فِي شَيْءٍ مِن ذلِكَ عَثَلٌ أوْ شَيْنٌ. فَإنَّهُ يُجْتَهَدُ فِيهِ. إلاَّ الجائِفَةَ. فَإنَّ فِيها ثُلُثَ النَّفْسِ. قالَ مالِكٌ: ولَيْسَ فِي مُنَقَّلَةِ الجَسَدِ عَقْلٌ. وهِيَ مِثْلُ مُوضِحَةِ الجَسَدِ۔ قالَ مالِكٌ الأمْرُ المُجْتَمَعُ عَلَيْهِ عِنْدَنا أنَّ الطَّبِيبَ إذا خَتَنَ فَقَطَعَ الحَشَفَةَ (١)، إنَّ عَلَيْهِ العَقْلَ. وأنَّ ذلِكَ مِنَ الخَطَإ الَّذِي تَحْمِلُهُ العاقِلَةُ. وأنَّ كُلَّ ما أخْطَأ بِهِ الطَّبِيبُ أوْ تَعَدّى، إذا لَمْ يَتَعَمَّدْ ذلِكَ، فَفِيهِ العَقْلُ.

Malik said, "There is no harm in buying dates from specified trees or a specified orchard or buying milk from specified sheep when the buyer starts to take them as soon as he has payed the price. That is like buying oil from a container. A man buys some of it for a dinar or two and gives his gold and stipulates that it be measured out for him. There is no harm in that. If the container breaks and the oil is wasted, the buyer has his gold back and there is no transaction between them." Malik said, "There is no harm in everything which is taken right away as it is, like fresh milk and fresh picked dates which the buyer can take on a day-to-day basis. If the supply runs out before the buyer has what he has paid for in full, the seller gives him back the portion of the gold that is owed to him, or else the buyer takes other goods from him to the value of what he is owed and which they mutually agree about. The buyer should stay with the seller until he has taken it. It is disapproved of for the seller to leave because the transaction would then come into the forbidden category of a debt for a debt. If a stated time period for payment or delivery enters into the transaction, it is also disapproved. Delay and deferment are not permitted in it, and are only acceptable when it is standard practice on definite terms by which the seller guarantees it to the buyer, but this is not to be from one specific orchard or from any specific ewes." Malik was asked about a man who bought an orchard from another man in which there were various types of palm-trees - excellent ajwa palms, good kabis palms, adhq palms and othertypes. The seller kept aside from the sale the produce of a certain palm of his choice. Malik said, "That is not good because if he does that, and keeps aside, for instance, dates of the ajwa variety whose yield would be 15 sa, and he picks the dates of the kabis in their place, and the yield of their dates is 10 sa or he picks the ajwa which yield 15 sa and leaves the kabis which yield 10 sa, it is as if he bought the ajwa for the kabis making allowances for their difference of quality. This is the same as if a man dealing with a man who has heaps of dates before him - a heap of 15 sa of ajwa, a heap of 10 sa of kabis, and a heap of 12 sa of cadhq, gives the owner of the dates a dinar to let him choose and take whichever of the heaps he likes." Malik said, "That is not good." Malik was asked what a man who bought fresh dates from the owner of an orchard and advanced him a dinar was entitled to if the crop was spoilt. Malik said, "The buyer makes a reckoning with the owner of the orchard and takes what is due to him of the dinar. If the buyer has taken two-thirds of a dinar's worth of dates, he gets back the third of a dinar which is owed him. If the buyer has taken three-quarters of a dinar's worth of dates, then he gets back the quarter which is owed to him, or they come to a mutual agreement, and the buyer takes what is owed him from his dinar from the owner of the orchard in something else of his choosing. If, for instance, he prefers to take dry dates or some other goods, he takes them according to what is due. If he takes dry dates or some other goods, he should stay with him until he has been paid in full." Malik said, "This is the same situation as hiring out a specified riding-camel or hiring out a slave tailor, carpenter or some other kind of worker or letting a house and taking payment in advance for the hire of the slave or the rent of the house or camel. Then an accident happens to what has been hired resulting in death or something else. The owner of the camel, slave or house returns what remains of the rent of the camel, the hire of the slave or the rent of the house to the one who advanced him the money, and the owner reckons what will settle that up in full. If, for instance, he has provided half of what the man paid for, he returns the remaining half of what he advanced, or according to whatever amount is due." Malik said, "Paying in advance for something which is on hand is only good when the buyer takes possession of what he has paid for as soon as he hands over the gold, whether it be slave, camel, or house, or in the case of dates, he starts to pick them as soon as he has paid the money." It is not good that there be any deferment or credit in such a transaction. Malik said, "An example illustrating what is disapproved of in this situation is that, for instance, a man may say that he will pay someone in advance for the use of his camel to ride in the hajj, and the hajj is still some time off, or he may say something similar to that about a slave or a house. When he does that, he only pays the money in advance on the understanding that if he finds the camel to be sound at the time the hire is due to begin, he will take it by virtue of what he has already paid. If an accident, or death, or something happens to the camel, then he will get his money back and the money he paid in advance will be considered as a loan." Malik said, "This is distinct from someone who takes immediate possession of what he rents or hires, so that it does not fall into the category of 'uncertainty,' or disapproved payment in advance. That is following a common practice. An example of that is that a man buys a slave, or slave-girl, and takes possession of them and pays their price. If something happens to them within the period of the year indemnification contract, he takes his gold back from the one from whom he bought it. There is no harm in that. This is the precedent of the sunna in the matter of selling slaves." Malik said, "Someone who rents a specified slave, or hires a specified camel, for a future date, at which time he will take possession of the camel or slave, has not acted properly because he did not take possession of what he rented or hired, nor is he advancing a loan which the person is responsible to pay back."

قالَ مالِكٌ: "مَنِ اشْتَرى ثَمَرًا مِن نَخْلٍ مُسَمّاةٍ أوْ حائِطٍ مُسَمًّى، أوْ لَبَنًا مِن غَنَمٍ مُسَمّاةٍ إنَّهُ لا بَأْسَ بِذَلِكَ، إذا كانَ يُؤْخَذُ عاجِلًا يَشْرَعُ المُشْتَرِي فِي أخْذِهِ عِنْدَ دَفْعِهِ الثَّمَنَ، وإنَّما مَثَلُ ذَلِكَ بِمَنزِلَةِ راوِيَةِ زَيْتٍ يَبْتاعُ مِنها رَجُلٌ بِدِينارٍ أوْ دِينارَيْنِ، ويُعْطِيهِ ذَهَبَهُ ويَشْتَرِطُ عَلَيْهِ أنْ يَكِيلَ لَهُ مِنها، فَهَذا لا بَأْسَ بِهِ، فَإنِ انْشَقَّتِ الرّاوِيَةُ فَذَهَبَ زَيْتُها، فَلَيْسَ لِلْمُبْتاعِ إلّا ذَهَبُهُ، ولا يَكُونُ بَيْنَهُما بَيْعٌ، وأمّا كُلُّ شَيْءٍ كانَ حاضِرًا يُشْتَرى عَلى وجْهِهِ مِثْلُ اللَّبَنِ إذا حُلِبَ، والرُّطَبِ يُسْتَجْنى، فَيَأْخُذُ المُبْتاعُ يَوْمًا بِيَوْمٍ، فَلا بَأْسَ بِهِ، فَإنْ فَنِيَ قَبْلَ أنْ يَسْتَوْفِيَ المُشْتَرِي ما اشْتَرى رَدَّ عَلَيْهِ البائِعُ مِن ذَهَبِهِ بِحِسابِ ما بَقِيَ لَهُ، أوْ يَأْخُذُ مِنهُ المُشْتَرِي سِلْعَةً، بِما بَقِيَ لَهُ يَتَراضَيانِ عَلَيْها، ولا يُفارِقُهُ حَتّى يَأْخُذَها، فَإنْ فارَقَهُ، فَإنَّ ذَلِكَ مَكْرُوهٌ لِأنَّهُ يَدْخُلُهُ الدَّيْنُ بِالدَّيْنِ، وقَدْ نُهِيَ عَنِ الكالِئِ بِالكالِئِ، فَإنْ وقَعَ فِي بَيْعِهِما أجَلٌ فَإنَّهُ مَكْرُوهٌ ولا يَحِلُّ فِيهِ تَأْخِيرٌ ولا نَظِرَةٌ، ولا يَصْلُحُ إلّا بِصِفَةٍ مَعْلُومَةٍ إلى أجَلٍ مُسَمًّى، فَيَضْمَنُ ذَلِكَ البائِعُ لِلْمُبْتاعِ، ولا يُسَمّى ذَلِكَ فِي حائِطٍ بِعَيْنِهِ، ولا فِي غَنَمٍ بِأعْيانِها «وسُئِلَ مالِكٌ عَنِ الرَّجُلِ يَشْتَرِي مِنَ الرَّجُلِ الحائِطَ فِيهِ ألْوانٌ مِنَ النَّخْلِ مِنَ العَجْوَةِ والكَبِيسِ والعَذْقِ، وغَيْرِ ذَلِكَ مِن ألْوانِ التَّمْرِ، فَيَسْتَثْنِي مِنها ثَمَرَ النَّخْلَةِ أوِ النَّخَلاتِ يَخْتارُها مِن نَخْلِهِ؟ فَقالَ مالِكٌ:»ذَلِكَ لا يَصْلُحُ لِأنَّهُ إذا صَنَعَ ذَلِكَ تَرَكَ ثَمَرَ النَّخْلَةِ مِنَ العَجْوَةِ، ومَكِيلَةُ ثَمَرِها خَمْسَةَ عَشَرَ صاعًا وأخَذَ مَكانَها ثَمَرَ نَخْلَةٍ مِنَ الكَبِيسِ، ومَكِيلَةُ ثَمَرِها عَشَرَةُ أصْوُعٍ، فَإنْ أخَذَ العَجْوَةَ الَّتِي فِيها خَمْسَةَ عَشَرَ صاعًا، وتَرَكَ الَّتِي فِيها عَشْرَةُ أصْوُعٍ مِنَ الكَبِيسِ فَكَأنَّهُ اشْتَرى العَجْوَةَ بِالكَبِيسِ مُتَفاضِلًا، وذَلِكَ مِثْلُ أنْ يَقُولَ الرَّجُلُ لِلرَّجُلِ بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ صُبَرٌ مِنَ التَّمْرِ قَدْ صَبَّرَ العَجْوَةَ، فَجَعَلَها خَمْسَةَ عَشَرَ صاعًا، وجَعَلَ صُبْرَةَ الكَبِيسِ عَشَرَةَ آصُعٍ، وجَعَلَ صُبْرَةَ العَذْقِ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ صاعًا، فَأعْطى صاحِبَ التَّمْرِ دِينارًا عَلى أنَّهُ يَخْتارُ فَيَأْخُذُ أيَّ تِلْكَ الصُّبَرِ شاءَ، قالَ مالِكٌ: فَهَذا لا يَصْلُحُ «وسُئِلَ مالِكٌ عَنِ الرَّجُلِ يَشْتَرِي الرُّطَبَ مِن صاحِبِ الحائِطِ فَيُسْلِفُهُ الدِّينارَ، ماذا لَهُ إذا ذَهَبَ رُطَبُ ذَلِكَ الحائِطِ؟ قالَ مالِكٌ: «يُحاسِبُ صاحِبَ الحائِطِ ثُمَّ يَأْخُذُ ما بَقِيَ لَهُ مِن دِينارِهِ، إنْ كانَ أخَذَ بِثُلُثَيْ دِينارٍ رُطَبًا أخَذَ ثُلُثَ الدِّينارِ الَّذِي بَقِيَ لَهُ، وإنْ كانَ أخَذَ ثَلاثَةَ أرْباعِ دِينارِهِ رُطَبًا، أخَذَ الرُّبُعَ الَّذِي بَقِيَ لَهُ، أوْ يَتَراضَيانِ بَيْنَهُما، فَيَأْخُذُ بِما بَقِيَ لَهُ مِن دِينارِهِ عِنْدَ صاحِبِ الحائِطِ ما بَدا لَهُ إنْ أحَبَّ أنْ يَأْخُذَ تَمْرًا أوْ سِلْعَةً سِوى التَّمْرِ أخَذَها بِما فَضَلَ لَهُ، فَإنْ أخَذَ تَمْرًا أوْ سِلْعَةً أُخْرى فَلا يُفارِقْهُ حَتّى يَسْتَوْفِيَ ذَلِكَ مِنهُ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «وإنَّما هَذا بِمَنزِلَةِ أنْ يُكْرِيَ الرَّجُلُ الرَّجُلَ راحِلَةً بِعَيْنِها أوْ يُؤاجِرَ غُلامَهُ الخَيّاطَ أوِ النَّجّارَ أوِ العَمّالَ لِغَيْرِ ذَلِكَ مِنَ الأعْمالِ، أوْ يُكْرِيَ مَسْكَنَهُ، ويَسْتَلِفَ إجارَةَ ذَلِكَ الغُلامِ، أوْ كِراءَ ذَلِكَ المَسْكَنِ، أوْ تِلْكَ الرّاحِلَةِ، ثُمَّ يَحْدُثُ فِي ذَلِكَ حَدَثٌ بِمَوْتٍ أوْ غَيْرِ ذَلِكَ، فَيَرُدُّ رَبُّ الرّاحِلَةِ، أوِ العَبْدِ أوِ المَسْكَنِ إلى الَّذِي سَلَّفَهُ ما بَقِيَ مِن كِراءِ الرّاحِلَةِ، أوْ إجارَةِ العَبْدِ، أوْ كِراءِ المَسْكَنِ، يُحاسِبُ صاحِبَهُ بِما اسْتَوْفى مِن ذَلِكَ، إنْ كانَ اسْتَوْفى نِصْفَ حَقِّهِ رَدَّ عَلَيْهِ النِّصْفَ الباقِيَ الَّذِي لَهُ عِنْدَهُ، وإنْ كانَ أقَلَّ مِن ذَلِكَ أوْ أكْثَرَ فَبِحِسابِ ذَلِكَ يَرُدُّ إلَيْهِ ما بَقِيَ لَهُ» قالَ مالِكٌ:»ولا يَصْلُحُ التَّسْلِيفُ فِي شَيْءٍ مِن هَذا، يُسَلَّفُ فِيهِ بِعَيْنِهِ، إلّا أنْ يَقْبِضَ المُسَلِّفُ ما سَلَّفَ فِيهِ عِنْدَ دَفْعِهِ الذَّهَبَ إلى صاحِبِهِ، يَقْبِضُ العَبْدَ أوِ الرّاحِلَةَ أوِ المَسْكَنَ أوْ يَبْدَأُ فِيما اشْتَرى مِنَ الرُّطَبِ. فَيَأْخُذُ مِنهُ عِنْدَ دَفْعِهِ الذَّهَبَ إلى صاحِبِهِ، لا يَصْلُحُ أنْ يَكُونَ فِي شَيْءٍ مِن ذَلِكَ تَأْخِيرٌ ولا أجَلٌ «قالَ مالِكٌ:»وتَفْسِيرُ ما كُرِهَ مِن ذَلِكَ، أنْ يَقُولَ الرَّجُلُ لِلرَّجُلِ: أُسَلِّفُكَ فِي راحِلَتِكَ فُلانَةَ أرْكَبُها فِي الحَجِّ، وبَيْنَهُ وبَيْنَ الحَجِّ أجَلٌ مِنَ الزَّمانِ، أوْ يَقُولَ مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ فِي العَبْدِ أوِ المَسْكَنِ، فَإنَّهُ إذا صَنَعَ ذَلِكَ كانَ إنَّما يُسَلِّفُهُ ذَهَبًا، عَلى أنَّهُ إنْ وجَدَ تِلْكَ الرّاحِلَةَ صَحِيحَةً لِذَلِكَ الأجَلِ الَّذِي سَمّى لَهُ، فَهِيَ لَهُ بِذَلِكَ الكِراءِ، وإنْ حَدَثَ بِها حَدَثٌ مِن مَوْتٍ أوْ غَيْرِهِ رَدَّ عَلَيْهِ ذَهَبَهُ، وكانَتْ عَلَيْهِ عَلى وجْهِ السَّلَفِ عِنْدَهُ " قالَ مالِكٌ: «وإنَّما فَرَقَ بَيْنَ ذَلِكَ القَبْضُ مَن قَبَضَ ما اسْتَأْجَرَ أوِ اسْتَكْرى فَقَدْ خَرَجَ مِنَ الغَرَرِ والسَّلَفِ الَّذِي يُكْرَهُ، وأخَذَ أمْرًا مَعْلُومًا، وإنَّما مَثَلُ ذَلِكَ أنْ يَشْتَرِيَ الرَّجُلُ العَبْدَ أوِ الوَلِيدَةَ فَيَقْبِضَهُما، ويَنْقُدَ أثْمانَهُما، فَإنْ حَدَثَ بِهِما حَدَثٌ مِن عُهْدَةِ السَّنَةِ، أخَذَ ذَهَبَهُ مِن صاحِبِهِ الَّذِي ابْتاعَ مِنهُ، فَهَذا لا بَأْسَ بِهِ وبِهَذا مَضَتِ السُّنَّةُ فِي بَيْعِ الرَّقِيقِ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «ومَنِ اسْتَأْجَرَ عَبْدًا بِعَيْنِهِ، أوْ تَكارى راحِلَةً بِعَيْنِها إلى أجَلٍ. يَقْبِضُ العَبْدَ أوِ الرّاحِلَةَ إلى ذَلِكَ الأجَلِ. فَقَدْ عَمِلَ بِما لا يَصْلُحُ. لا هُوَ قَبَضَ ما اسْتَكْرى أوِ اسْتَأْجَرَ، ولا هُوَ سَلَّفَ فِي دَيْنٍ يَكُونُ ضامِنًا عَلى صاحِبِهِ حَتّى يَسْتَوْفِيَهُ»

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us is that some one who buys some fruit, fresh or dry, should not resell it until he gets full possession of it. He should not barter things of the same type, except hand to hand. Whatever can be made into dry fruit to be stored and eaten, should not be bartered for its own kind, except hand to hand, like for like, when it is the same kind of fruit. In the case of two different kinds of fruit, there is no harm in bartering two of one kind for one of another, hand to hand on the spot. It is not good to set delayed terms. As for produce which is not dried and stored but is eaten fresh like water melon, cucumber, melon, carrots, citron, medlars, pomegranates, and soon, which when dried no longer counts as fruit, and is not a thing which is stored up as is fruit, I think that it is quite proper to barter such things two for one of the same variety hand to hand. If no term enters into it, there is no harm in it."

قالَ مالِكٌ: «الأمْرُ المُجْتَمَعُ عَلَيْهِ عِنْدَنا، أنَّ مَنِ ابْتاعَ شَيْئًا مِنَ الفاكِهَةِ مِن رَطْبِها أوْ يابِسِها، فَإنَّهُ لا يَبِيعُهُ حَتّى يَسْتَوْفِيَهُ، ولا يُباعُ شَيْءٌ مِنها بَعْضُهُ بِبَعْضٍ، إلّا يَدًا بِيَدٍ، وما كانَ مِنها مِمّا يَيْبَسُ، فَيَصِيرُ فاكِهَةً يابِسَةً تُدَّخَرُ، وتُؤْكَلُ، فَلا يُباعُ بَعْضُهُ بِبَعْضٍ إلّا يَدًا بِيَدٍ، ومِثْلًا بِمِثْلٍ إذا كانَ مِن صِنْفٍ واحِدٍ، فَإنْ كانَ مِن صِنْفَيْنِ مُخْتَلِفَيْنِ، فَلا بَأْسَ بِأنْ يُباعَ مِنهُ اثْنانِ بِواحِدٍ يَدًا بِيَدٍ، ولا يَصْلُحُ إلى أجَلٍ، وما كانَ مِنها مِمّا لا يَيْبَسُ ولا يُدَّخَرُ، وإنَّما يُؤْكَلُ رَطْبًا كَهَيْئَةِ البِطِّيخِ والقِثّاءِ والخِرْبِزِ، والجَزَرِ والأُتْرُجِّ، والمَوْزِ والرُّمّانِ وما كانَ مِثْلَهُ، وإنْ يَبِسَ لَمْ يَكُنْ فاكِهَةً بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ، ولَيْسَ هُوَ مِمّا يُدَّخَرُ، ويَكُونُ فاكِهَةً، قالَ: فَأراهُ حَقِيقًا أنْ يُؤْخَذَ مِنهُ مِن صِنْفٍ واحِدٍ اثْنانِ بِواحِدٍ يَدًا بِيَدٍ، فَإذا لَمْ يَدْخُلْ فِيهِ شَيْءٌ مِنَ الأجَلِ فَإنَّهُ لا بَأْسَ بِهِ»

Malik said, "Another example of that is that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade the sale called muzabana and granted an indulgence in the ariya for computing the equivalent in dates. It was distinguished between them that the muzabana-sale was based on shrewdness and trade, and the ariya sale was based on a favour rendered, and there was no shrewdness in it." Malik said, "A man must not buy food for a fourth, a third, or a fraction of a dirham on the basis that he be given that food on credit. There is no harm in a man buying food for a fraction of a dirham on credit and then he gives a dirham and takes goods with what remains of his dirham because he gave the fraction he owed as silver, and took goods to make up the rest of his dirham. There is no harm in that transaction." Malik said, "There is no harm in a man placing a dirham with another man and then taking from him known goods for a fourth, third, or a known fraction. If there was not a known price on the goods and the man said, 'I will take them from you for the price of each day,' this is not halal because there is uncertainty. It might be less one time, and more another time, and they would not part with a known sale." Malik said, "If someone sells some food without measuring precisely and does not exclude any of it from the sale and then it occurs to him to buy some of it, it is not good for him to buy any of it except what it would be permitted for him to exclude from it. That is a third or less. If it is more than a third, it becomes muzabana and is disapproved. He must only purchase from what he would be permitted to exclude, and he is only permitted to exclude a third or less than that. This is the way of doing things in which there is no dispute with us."

قَالَ مَالِكٌ وَمِمَّا يُشْبِهُ ذَلِكَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ﷺ نَهَى عَنْ بَيْعِ الْمُزَابَنَةِ وَأَرْخَصَ فِي بَيْعِ الْعَرَايَا بِخَرْصِهَا مِنَ التَّمْرِ وَإِنَّمَا فُرِقَ بَيْنَ ذَلِكَ أَنَّ بَيْعَ الْمُزَابَنَةِ بَيْعٌ عَلَى وَجْهِ الْمُكَايَسَةِ وَالتِّجَارَةِ وَأَنَّ بَيْعَ الْعَرَايَا عَلَى وَجْهِ الْمَعْرُوفِ لاَ مُكَايَسَةَ فِيهِ قَالَ مَالِكٌ وَلاَ يَنْبَغِي أَنْ يَشْتَرِيَ رَجُلٌ طَعَامًا بِرُبُعٍ أَوْ ثُلُثٍ أَوْ كِسْرٍ مِنْ دِرْهَمٍ عَلَى أَنْ يُعْطَى بِذَلِكَ طَعَامًا إِلَى أَجَلٍ وَلاَ بَأْسَ أَنْ يَبْتَاعَ الرَّجُلُ طَعَامًا بِكِسْرٍ مِنْ دِرْهَمٍ إِلَى أَجَلٍ ثُمَّ يُعْطَى دِرْهَمًا وَيَأْخُذُ بِمَا بَقِيَ لَهُ مِنْ دِرْهَمِهِ سِلْعَةً مِنَ السِّلَعِ لأَنَّهُ أَعْطَى الْكِسْرَ الَّذِي عَلَيْهِ فِضَّةً وَأَخَذَ بِبَقِيَّةِ دِرْهَمِهِ سِلْعَةً فَهَذَا لاَ بَأْسَ بِهِ قَالَ مَالِكٌ وَلاَ بَأْسَ أَنْ يَضَعَ الرَّجُلُ عِنْدَ الرَّجُلِ دِرْهَمًا ثُمَّ يَأْخُذُ مِنْهُ بِرُبُعٍ أَوْ بِثُلُثٍ أَوْ بِكِسْرٍ مَعْلُومٍ سِلْعَةً مَعْلُومَةً فَإِذَا لَمْ يَكُنْ فِي ذَلِكَ سِعْرٌ مَعْلُومٌ وَقَالَ الرَّجُلُ آخُذُ مِنْكَ بِسِعْرِ كُلِّ يَوْمٍ فَهَذَا لاَ يَحِلُّ لأَنَّهُ غَرَرٌ يَقِلُّ مَرَّةً وَيَكْثُرُ مَرَّةً وَلَمْ يَفْتَرِقَا عَلَى بَيْعٍ مَعْلُومٍ قَالَ مَالِكٌ وَمَنْ بَاعَ طَعَامًا جِزَافًا وَلَمْ يَسْتَثْنِ مِنْهُ شَيْئًا ثُمَّ بَدَا لَهُ أَنْ يَشْتَرِيَ مِنْهُ شَيْئًا فَإِنَّهُ لاَ يَصْلُحُ لَهُ أَنْ يَشْتَرِيَ مِنْهُ شَيْئًا إِلاَّ مَا كَانَ يَجُوزُ لَهُ أَنْ يَسْتَثْنِيَ مِنْهُ وَذَلِكَ الثُّلُثُ فَمَا دُونَهُ فَإِنْ زَادَ عَلَى الثُّلُثِ صَارَ ذَلِكَ إِلَى الْمُزَابَنَةِ وَإِلَى مَا يُكْرَهُ فَلاَ يَنْبَغِي لَهُ أَنْ يَشْتَرِيَ مِنْهُ شَيْئًا إِلاَّ مَا كَانَ يَجُوزُ لَهُ أَنْ يَسْتَثْنِيَ مِنْهُ وَلاَ يَجُوزُ لَهُ أَنْ يَسْتَثْنِيَ مِنْهُ إِلاَّ الثُّلُثَ فَمَا دُونَهُ وَهَذَا الأَمْرُ الَّذِي لاَ اخْتِلاَفَ فِيهِ عِنْدَنَا

Malik said, "It is the generally agreed on way of doing things among us that the meat of camels, cattle, sheep and so on is not to be bartered one for one, except like for like, weight for weight, from hand to hand. There is no harm in that. If it is not weighed, then it is estimated to be like for like from hand to hand." Malik said, "There is no harm in bartering the meat of fish for the meat of camels, cattle, and sheep and so on two or more for one, from hand to hand. If delayed terms enter the transaction however, there is no good in it." Malik said, "I think that poultry is different from the meat of cattle and fish. I see no harm in selling some of it for something different, more of one than another, from hand to hand. None of that is to be sold on delayed terms."

قالَ مالِكٌ: «الأمْرُ المُجْتَمَعُ عَلَيْهِ عِنْدَنا فِي لَحْمِ الإبِلِ والبَقَرِ والغَنَمِ، وما أشْبَهَ ذَلِكَ مِنَ الوُحُوشِ، أنَّهُ لا يُشْتَرى بَعْضُهُ بِبَعْضٍ، إلّا مِثْلًا بِمِثْلٍ، وزْنًا بِوَزْنٍ، يَدًا بِيَدٍ، ولا بَأْسَ بِهِ وإنْ لَمْ يُوزَنْ، إذا تَحَرّى أنْ يَكُونَ مِثْلًا بِمِثْلٍ يَدًا بِيَدٍ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «ولا بَأْسَ بِلَحْمِ الحِيتانِ، بِلَحْمِ الإبِلِ والبَقَرِ والغَنَمِ، وما أشْبَهَ ذَلِكَ مِنَ الوُحُوشِ كُلِّها، اثْنَيْنِ بِواحِدٍ وأكْثَرَ مِن ذَلِكَ يَدًا بِيَدٍ، فَإنْ دَخَلَ ذَلِكَ الأجَلُ فَلا خَيْرَ فِيهِ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «وأرى لُحُومَ الطَّيْرِ كُلَّها مُخالِفَةً لِلُحُومِ الأنْعامِ، والحِيتانِ، فَلا أرى بَأْسًا بِأنْ يُشْتَرى بَعْضُ ذَلِكَ بِبَعْضٍ مُتَفاضِلًا يَدًا بِيَدٍ، ولا يُباعُ شَيْءٌ مِن ذَلِكَ إلى أجَلٍ»

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us about whatever is weighed but is not gold or silver, i.e. copper, brass, lead, black lead, iron, herbs, figs, cotton, and any such things that are weighed, is that there is no harm in bartering all those sorts of things two for one, hand to hand. There is no harm in taking a ritl of iron for two ritls of iron, and a ritl of brass for two ritls of brass." Malik said, "There is no good in two for one of one sort with delayed terms. There is no harm in taking two of one sort for one of another on delayed terms, if the two sorts are clearly different. If both sorts resemble each other but their names are different, like lead and black lead, brass and yellow brass, I disapprove of taking two of one sort for one of the other on delayed terms." Malik said, "When buying something of this nature, there is no harm in selling It beforetaking possession of it to some one other than the person from whom it was purchased, if the price is taken immediately and if it was bought originally by measure or weight. If it was bought without measuring, it should be sold to someone other than the person from whom it was bought, for cash or with delayed terms. That is because goods have to be guaranteed when they are bought without measuring, and they cannot be guaranteed when bought by weight until they are weighed and the deal is completed. This is the best of what I have heard about all these things. It is what people continue to do among us." Malik said, "The way of doing things among us with what is measured or weighed of things which are not eaten or drunk, like safflower, date-stones, fodder leaves, indigo dye and the like of that is that there is no harm in bartering all those sort of things two for one, hand to hand. Do not take two for one from the same variety with delayed terms. If the types are clearly different, there is no harm in taking two of one for one of the other with delayed terms. There is no harm in selling whatever is purchased of all these sorts, before taking delivery of them if the price is taken from someone other than the person from whom they were purchased." Malik said, "Anything of any variety that profits people, like gravel and gypsum, one quantity of them for two of its like with delayed terms is usury. One quantity of both of them for its equal plus any increase with delayed terms, is usury."

قالَ مالِكٌ: «الأمْرُ عِنْدَنا فِيما كانَ مِمّا يُوزَنُ مِن غَيْرِ الذَّهَبِ والفِضَّةِ: مِنَ النُّحاسِ والشَّبَهِ والرَّصاصِ والآنُكِ، والحَدِيدِ، والقَضْبِ والتِّينِ، والكُرْسُفِ وما أشْبَهَ ذَلِكَ، مِمّا يُوزَنُ، فَلا بَأْسَ بِأنْ يُؤْخَذَ مِن صِنْفٍ واحِدٍ اثْنانِ بِواحِدٍ يَدًا بِيَدٍ، ولا بَأْسَ أنْ يُؤْخَذَ رِطْلُ حَدِيدٍ بِرِطْلَيْ حَدِيدٍ ورِطْلُ صُفْرٍ بِرِطْلَيْ صُفْرٍ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «ولا خَيْرَ فِيهِ اثْنانِ بِواحِدٍ مِن صِنْفٍ واحِدٍ إلى أجَلٍ، فَإذا اخْتَلَفَ الصِّنْفانِ مِن ذَلِكَ، فَبانَ اخْتِلافُهُما، فَلا بَأْسَ بِأنْ يُؤْخَذَ مِنهُ اثْنانِ بِواحِدٍ إلى أجَلٍ، فَإنْ كانَ الصِّنْفُ مِنهُ يُشْبِهُ الصِّنْفَ الآخَرَ، وإنِ اخْتَلَفا فِي الِاسْمِ مِثْلُ الرَّصاصِ والآنُكِ والشَّبَهِ والصُّفْرِ فَإنِّي أكْرَهُ أنْ يُؤْخَذَ مِنهُ اثْنانِ بِواحِدٍ إلى أجَلٍ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «وما اشْتَرَيْتَ مِن هَذِهِ الأصْنافِ كُلِّها، فَلا بَأْسَ أنْ تَبِيعَهُ قَبْلَ أنْ تَقْبِضَهُ مِن غَيْرِ صاحِبِهِ الَّذِي اشْتَرَيْتَهُ مِنهُ، إذا قَبَضْتَ ثَمَنَهُ، إذا كُنْتَ اشْتَرَيْتَهُ كَيْلًا أوْ وزْنًا، فَإنِ اشْتَرَيْتَهُ جِزافًا فَبِعْهُ مِن غَيْرِ الَّذِي اشْتَرَيْتَهُ مِنهُ، بِنَقْدٍ أوْ إلى أجَلٍ، وذَلِكَ أنَّ ضَمانَهُ مِنكَ إذا اشْتَرَيْتَهُ جِزافًا، ولا يَكُونُ ضَمانُهُ مِنكَ إذا اشْتَرَيْتَهُ وزْنًا حَتّى تَزِنَهُ وتَسْتَوْفِيَهُ، وهَذا أحَبُّ ما سَمِعْتُ إلَيَّ فِي هَذِهِ الأشْياءِ كُلِّها، وهُوَ الَّذِي لَمْ يَزَلْ عَلَيْهِ أمْرُ النّاسِ عِنْدَنا» -[٦٦٢]- قالَ مالِكٌ: «الأمْرُ عِنْدَنا فِيما يُكالُ أوْ يُوزَنُ مِمّا لا يُؤْكَلُ ولا يُشْرَبُ مِثْلُ: العُصْفُرِ والنَّوى، والخَبَطِ والكَتَمِ وما يُشْبِهُ ذَلِكَ، أنَّهُ لا بَأْسَ بِأنْ يُؤْخَذَ مِن كُلِّ صِنْفٍ مِنهُ اثْنانِ بِواحِدٍ يَدًا بِيَدٍ، ولا يُؤْخَذُ مِن صِنْفٍ واحِدٍ مِنهُ اثْنانِ بِواحِدٍ إلى أجَلٍ، فَإنِ اخْتَلَفَ الصِّنْفانِ فَبانَ اخْتِلافُهُما، فَلا بَأْسَ بِأنْ يُؤْخَذَ مِنهُما اثْنانِ بِواحِدٍ إلى أجَلٍ، وما اشْتُرِيَ مِن هَذِهِ الأصْنافِ كُلِّها، فَلا بَأْسَ بِأنْ يُباعَ قَبْلَ أنْ يُسْتَوْفى إذا قَبَضَ ثَمَنَهُ مِن غَيْرِ صاحِبِهِ الَّذِي اشْتَراهُ مِنهُ» قالَ مالِكٌ: "وكُلُّ شَيْءٍ يَنْتَفِعُ بِهِ النّاسُ مِنَ الأصْنافِ كُلِّها، وإنْ كانَتِ الحَصْباءَ والقَصَّةَ، فَكُلُّ واحِدٍ مِنهُما بِمِثْلَيْهِ إلى أجَلٍ فَهُوَ رِبًا، وواحِدٌ مِنهُما بِمِثْلِهِ وزِيادَةُ شَيْءٍ مِنَ الأشْياءِ إلى أجَلٍ فَهُوَ رِبًا

Yahya related to me, that Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us about a man buying cloth in one city, and then taking it to another city to sell as a murabaha, is that he is not reckoned to have the wage of an agent, or any allowance for ironing, folding, straightening, expenses, or the rent of a house. As for the cost of transporting the drapery, it is included in the basic price, and no share of the profit is allocated to it unless the agent tells all of that to the investor. If they agree to share the profits accordingly after knowledge of it, there is no harm in that." Malik said, "As for bleaching, tailoring, dyeing, and such things, they are treated in the same way as drapery. The profit is reckoned in them as it is reckoned in drapery goods. So if he sells the drapery goods without clarifying the things we named as not getting profit, and if the drapery has already gone, the transport is to be reckoned, but no profit is given. If the drapery goods have not gone the transaction between them is null and void unless they make a new mutual agreement on what is to be permitted between them ." Malik spoke about an agent who bought goods for gold or silver, and the exchange rate on the day of purchase was ten dirhams to the dinar. He took them to a city to sell murabaha, or sold them where he purchased them according to the exchange rate of the day on which he sold them. If he bought them for dirhams and he sold them for dinars, or he bought them for dinars and he sold them for dirhams, and the goods had not gone then he had a choice. If he wished, he accepted to sell the goods and if he wished, he left them. If the goods had been sold, he had the price for which the salesman bought them, and the salesman was reckoned to have the profit on what they were bought for, over what the investor gained as profit. Malik said, "If a man sells goods worth one hundred dinars for one hundred and ten, and he hears after that they are worth ninety dinars, and the goods have gone, the seller has a choice. If he likes, he has the price of the goods on the day they were taken from him unless the price is more than the price for which he was obliged to sell them in the first place, and he does not have more than that - and it is one hundred and ten dinars. If he likes, it is counted as profit against ninety unless the price his goods reached was less than the value. He is given the choice between what his goods fetch and the capital plus the profit, which is ninety-nine dinars." Malik said, "If someone sells goods in murabaha and he says, 'It was valued at one hundred dinars to me.' Then he hears later on, that it was worth one hundred and twenty dinars, the customer is given the choice. If he wishes, he gives the salesman the value of the goods on the day he took them, and if he wishes, he gives the price for which he bought them according to the reckoning of what profit he gives him, as far as it goes, unless that is less than the price for which he bought them, for he should not give the owner of the goods a loss from the price for which he bought them because he was satisfied with that. The owner of the goods came to seek extra, so the buyer has no argument against the salesman in that to make a reduction from the first price for which he bought it according to the list of contents."

حَدَّثَنِي يَحْيى، قالَ مالِكٌ: الأمْرُ المُجْتَمَعُ عَلَيْهِ عِنْدَنا فِي البَزِّ يَشْتَرِيهِ الرَّجُلُ بِبَلَدٍ، ثُمَّ يَقْدَمُ بِهِ بَلَدًا آخَرَ، فَيَبِيعُهُ مُرابَحَةً إنَّهُ لا يَحْسِبُ فِيهِ أجْرَ السَّماسِرَةِ، ولا أجْرَ الطَّيِّ، ولا الشَّدِّ، ولا النَّفَقَةَ، ولا كِراءَ بَيْتٍ، فَأمّا كِراءُ البَزِّ فِي حُمْلانِهِ، فَإنَّهُ يُحْسَبُ فِي أصْلِ الثَّمَنِ، ولا يُحْسَبُ فِيهِ رِبْحٌ، إلّا أنْ يُعْلِمَ البائِعُ مَن يُساوِمُهُ بِذَلِكَ كُلِّهِ، فَإنْ رَبَّحُوهُ عَلى ذَلِكَ كُلِّهِ بَعْدَ العِلْمِ بِهِ فَلا بَأْسَ بِهِ «قالَ مالِكٌ: «فَأمّا القِصارَةُ، والخِياطَةُ، والصِّباغُ، وما أشْبَهَ ذَلِكَ، فَهُوَ بِمَنزِلَةِ البَزِّ يُحْسَبُ فِيهِ الرِّبْحُ كَما يُحْسَبُ فِي البَزِّ، فَإنْ باعَ البَزَّ، ولَمْ يُبَيِّنْ شَيْئًا مِمّا سَمَّيْتُ إنَّهُ لا يُحْسَبُ لَهُ فِيهِ رِبْحٌ، فَإنْ فاتَ البَزُّ، فَإنَّ الكِراءَ يُحْسَبُ، ولا يُحْسَبُ عَلَيْهِ رِبْحٌ، فَإنْ لَمْ يَفُتِ البَزُّ فالبَيْعُ مَفْسُوخٌ بَيْنَهُما، إلّا أنْ يَتَراضَيا عَلى شَيْءٍ مِمّا يَجُوزُ بَيْنَهُما» قالَ مالِكٌ: «فِي الرَّجُلِ يَشْتَرِي المَتاعَ بِالذَّهَبِ أوْ بِالوَرِقِ، والصَّرْفُ يَوْمَ اشْتَراهُ عَشَرَةُ دَراهِمَ بِدِينارٍ، فَيَقْدَمُ بِهِ بَلَدًا فَيَبِيعُهُ مُرابَحَةً، أوْ يَبِيعُهُ حَيْثُ اشْتَراهُ مُرابَحَةً عَلى صَرْفِ ذَلِكَ اليَوْمِ الَّذِي باعَهُ فِيهِ، فَإنَّهُ إنْ كانَ ابْتاعَهُ بِدَراهِمَ، وباعَهُ بِدَنانِيرَ، أوِ ابْتاعَهُ بِدَنانِيرَ، وباعَهُ بِدَراهِمَ، وكانَ المَتاعُ لَمْ يَفُتْ، فالمُبْتاعُ بِالخِيارِ إنْ شاءَ أخَذَهُ، وإنْ شاءَ تَرَكَهُ، فَإنْ فاتَ -[٦٦٩]- المَتاعُ كانَ لِلْمُشْتَرِي بِالثَّمَنِ الَّذِي ابْتاعَهُ بِهِ البائِعُ، ويُحْسَبُ لِلْبائِعِ الرِّبْحُ عَلى ما اشْتَراهُ بِهِ عَلى ما رَبَّحَهُ المُبْتاعُ» قالَ مالِكٌ:»وإذا باعَ رَجُلٌ سِلْعَةً قامَتْ عَلَيْهِ بِمِائَةِ دِينارٍ، لِلْعَشَرَةِ أحَدَ عَشَرَ، ثُمَّ جاءَهُ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ أنَّها قامَتْ عَلَيْهِ بِتِسْعِينَ دِينارًا، وقَدْ فاتَتِ السِّلْعَةُ خُيِّرَ البائِعُ، فَإنْ أحَبَّ فَلَهُ قِيمَةُ سِلْعَتِهِ يَوْمَ قُبِضَتْ مِنهُ، إلّا أنْ تَكُونَ القِيمَةُ أكْثَرَ مِنَ الثَّمَنِ الَّذِي وجَبَ لَهُ بِهِ البَيْعُ أوَّلَ يَوْمٍ، فَلا يَكُونُ لَهُ أكْثَرُ مِن ذَلِكَ، وذَلِكَ مِائَةُ دِينارٍ وعَشْرَةُ دَنانِيرَ، وإنْ أحَبَّ ضُرِبَ لَهُ الرِّبْحُ عَلى التِّسْعِينَ، إلّا أنْ يَكُونَ الَّذِي بَلَغَتْ سِلْعَتُهُ مِنَ الثَّمَنِ أقَلَّ مِنَ القِيمَةِ فَيُخَيَّرُ فِي الَّذِي بَلَغَتْ سِلْعَتُهُ وفِي رَأْسِ مالِهِ ورِبْحِهِ وذَلِكَ تِسْعَةٌ وتِسْعُونَ دِينارًا قالَ مالِكٌ: «وإنْ باعَ رَجُلٌ سِلْعَةً مُرابَحَةً، فَقالَ: قامَتْ عَلَيَّ بِمِائَةِ دِينارٍ. ثُمَّ جاءَهُ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ أنَّها قامَتْ بِمِائَةٍ وعِشْرِينَ دِينارًا. خُيِّرَ المُبْتاعُ. فَإنْ شاءَ أعْطى البائِعَ قِيمَةَ السِّلْعَةِ يَوْمَ قَبَضَها، وإنْ شاءَ أعْطى الثَّمَنَ الَّذِي ابْتاعَ بِهِ عَلى حِسابِ ما رَبَّحَهُ. بالِغًا ما بَلَغَ. إلّا أنْ يَكُونَ ذَلِكَ أقَلَّ مِنَ الثَّمَنِ الَّذِي ابْتاعَ بِهِ السِّلْعَةَ. فَلَيْسَ لَهُ أنْ يُنَقِّصَ رَبَّ السِّلْعَةِ مِنَ الثَّمَنِ الَّذِي ابْتاعَها بِهِ، لِأنَّهُ قَدْ كانَ رَضِيَ بِذَلِكَ، وإنَّما جاءَ رَبُّ السِّلْعَةِ يَطْلُبُ الفَضْلَ فَلَيْسَ لِلْمُبْتاعِ فِي هَذا حُجَّةٌ عَلى البائِعِ. بِأنْ يَضَعَ مِنَ الثَّمَنِ الَّذِي ابْتاعَ بِهِ عَلى البَرْنامَجِ»

Malik spoke about what was done among them in the case of a group of people who bought goods, drapery or slaves, and a man heard about it and said to one of the group, "I have heard the description and situation of the drapery goods you bought from so-and-so. Shall I give you such-and-such profit to take over your portion?" This person agreed, and the man gave him the profit and became a partner in his place. When he looked at the purchase, he saw that it was ugly and found it too expensive. Malik said, "It is obliged on him and there is no choice in it for him if he bought it according to a list of contents and the description was well-known." Malik spoke about a man who had drapery goods sent to him, and salesmen came to him and he read to them his list of contents and said, "In each bag is such-and-such a wrap from Basra and such-and-such a light wrap from Sabir. Their size is such-and-such," and he named to them types of drapery goods by their sort, and he said, "Buy them from me according to this description." They bought the bags according to what he described to them, and then they bought them and found them too expensive and regretted it. Malik said, "The sale is binding on them, if the goods agree with the list of contents on which he sold them." Malik said, "This is the way of doing things which people still use today. They permit the sale among them when the goods agree with the list of contents and are not different from it. "

قالَ مالِكٌ: «الأمْرُ عِنْدَنا فِي القَوْمِ يَشْتَرُونَ السِّلْعَةَ البَزَّ، أوِ الرَّقِيقَ. فَيَسْمَعُ بِهِ الرَّجُلُ فَيَقُولُ لِرَجُلٍ مِنهُمُ البَزُّ الَّذِي اشْتَرَيْتَ مِن فُلانٍ، قَدْ بَلَغَتْنِي صِفَتُهُ وأمْرُهُ، فَهَلْ لَكَ أنْ أُرْبِحَكَ فِي نَصِيبِكَ كَذا وكَذا، فَيَقُولُ: نَعَمْ فَيُرْبِحُهُ، ويَكُونُ شَرِيكًا لِلْقَوْمِ مَكانَهُ، فَإذا نَظَرَ إلَيْهِ رَآهُ قَبِيحًا واسْتَغْلاهُ»، قالَ مالِكٌ: «ذَلِكَ لازِمٌ لَهُ، ولا خِيارَ لَهُ فِيهِ، إذا كانَ ابْتاعَهُ عَلى بَرْنامَجٍ وصِفَةٍ مَعْلُومَةٍ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «فِي الرَّجُلِ يَقْدَمُ لَهُ أصْنافٌ مِنَ البَزِّ، ويَحْضُرُهُ السُّوّامُ، ويَقْرَأُ عَلَيْهِمْ بَرْنامَجَهُ، ويَقُولُ: فِي كُلِّ عِدْلٍ كَذا وكَذا مِلْحَفَةً بَصْرِيَّةً، وكَذا وكَذا رَيْطَةً سابِرِيَّةً ذَرْعُها كَذا وكَذا، ويُسَمِّي لَهُمْ أصْنافًا مِنَ البَزِّ بِأجْناسِهِ، ويَقُولُ: اشْتَرُوا مِنِّي عَلى هَذِهِ الصِّفَةِ، فَيَشْتَرُونَ الأعْدالَ عَلى ما وصَفَ لَهُمْ ثُمَّ يَفْتَحُونَها فَيَسْتَغْلُونَها ويَنْدَمُونَ»، قالَ مالِكٌ: «ذَلِكَ لازِمٌ لَهُمْ إذا كانَ مُوافِقًا لِلْبَرْنامَجِ الَّذِي باعَهُمْ عَلَيْهِ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «وهَذا الأمْرُ الَّذِي لَمْ يَزَلْ عَلَيْهِ النّاسُ عِنْدَنا يُجِيزُونَهُ بَيْنَهُمْ، إذا كانَ المَتاعُ مُوافِقًا لِلْبَرْنامَجِ ولَمْ يَكُنْ مُخالِفًا لَهُ»

Malik said there was no harm if a man who sold some drapery and excluded some garments by their markings, stipulated that he chose the marked ones from that. If he did not stipulate that he would choose from them when he made the exclusion, I think that he is partner in the number of drapery goods which were purchased from him. That is because two garments can be alike in marking and be greatly different in price. Malik said, "The way of doing things among us is that there is no harm in partnership, transferring responsibility to an agent, and revocation when dealing with food and other things, whether or not possession was taken, when the transaction is with cash, and there is no profit, loss, or deferment of price in it. If profit or loss or deferment of price from one of the two enters any of these transactions, it becomes sale which is made halal by what makes sale halal, and made haram by what makes sale haram, and it is not partnership, transferring responsibility to an agent, or revocation." Malik spoke about some one who bought drapery goods or slaves, and the sale was concluded, then a man asked him to be his partner and he agreed and the new partner paid the whole price to the seller and then something happened to the goods which removed them from their possession. Malik said, "The new partner takes the price from the original partner and the original partner demands from the seller the whole price unless the original partner stipulated on the new partner during the sale and before the transaction with the seller was completed that the seller was responsible to him. If the transaction has ended and the seller has gone, the pre-condition of the original partner is void, and he has the responsibility." Malik spoke about a man who asked another man to buy certain goods to share between them, and he wanted the other man to pay for him and he would sell the goods for the other man. Malik said, "That is not good. When he says, 'Pay for me and I will sell it for you,' it becomes a loan which he makes to him in order that he sell it for him and if those goods are destroyed, or pass, the man who paid the price will demand from his partner what he put in for him. This is part of the advance which brings in profit." Malik said, "If a man buys goods, and they are settled for him, and then a man says to him, 'Share half of these goods with me, and I will sell them all for you,' that is halal, there is no harm in it. The explanation of that is that this is a new sale and he sells him half of the goods provided that he sells the whole lot."

قالَ مالِكٌ: فِي الرَّجُلِ يَبِيعُ البَزَّ المُصَنَّفَ، ويَسْتَثْنِي ثِيابًا بِرُقُومِها، إنَّهُ إنِ اشْتَرَطَ أنْ يَخْتارَ مِن ذَلِكَ الرَّقْمَ، فَلا بَأْسَ بِهِ، وإنْ لَمْ يَشْتَرِطْ أنْ يَخْتارَ مِنهُ حِينَ اسْتَثْنى، فَإنِّي أراهُ شَرِيكًا فِي عَدَدِ البَزِّ الَّذِي اشْتُرِيَ مِنهُ، وذَلِكَ أنَّ الثَّوْبَيْنِ يَكُونُ رَقْمُهُما سَواءً وبَيْنَهُما تَفاوُتٌ فِي الثَّمَنِ «قالَ مالِكٌ: «الأمْرُ عِنْدَنا أنَّهُ لا بَأْسَ بِالشِّرْكِ والتَّوْلِيَةِ والإقالَةِ مِنهُ فِي الطَّعامِ وغَيْرِهِ، قَبَضَ ذَلِكَ أوْ لَمْ يَقْبِضْ، إذا كانَ ذَلِكَ بِالنَّقْدِ، ولَمْ يَكُنْ فِيهِ رِبْحٌ، ولا وضِيعَةٌ، ولا تَأْخِيرٌ لِلثَّمَنِ، فَإنْ دَخَلَ ذَلِكَ رِبْحٌ أوْ وضِيعَةٌ أوْ تَأْخِيرٌ مِن واحِدٍ مِنهُما، صارَ بَيْعًا يُحِلُّهُ ما يُحِلُّ البَيْعَ، ويُحَرِّمُهُ ما يُحَرِّمُ البَيْعَ، ولَيْسَ بِشِرْكٍ ولا تَوْلِيَةٍ ولا إقالَةٍ» قالَ مالِكٌ: مَنِ اشْتَرى سِلْعَةً بَزًّا أوْ رَقِيقًا، فَبَتَّ بِهِ، ثُمَّ سَألَهُ رَجُلٌ أنْ يُشَرِّكَهُ فَفَعَلَ، ونَقَدا الثَّمَنَ صاحِبَ السِّلْعَةِ جَمِيعًا، ثُمَّ أدْرَكَ السِّلْعَةَ شَيْءٌ يَنْتَزِعُها مِن أيْدِيهِما، فَإنَّ المُشَرَّكَ -[٦٧٧]- يَأْخُذُ مِنِ الَّذِي أشْرَكَهُ الثَّمَنَ، ويَطْلُبُ الَّذِي أشْرَكَ بَيِّعَهُ الَّذِي باعَهُ السِّلْعَةَ بِالثَّمَنِ كُلِّهِ، إلّا أنْ يَشْتَرِطَ المُشَرِّكُ عَلى الَّذِي أشْرَكَ بِحَضْرَةِ البَيْعِ، وعِنْدَ مُبايَعَةِ البائِعِ الأوَّلِ، وقَبْلَ أنْ يَتَفاوَتَ ذَلِكَ أنَّ عُهْدَتَكَ عَلى الَّذِي ابْتَعْتُ مِنهُ، وإنْ تَفاوَتَ ذَلِكَ، وفاتَ البائِعَ الأوَّلَ فَشَرْطُ الآخَرِ باطِلٌ وعَلَيْهِ العُهْدَةُ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «فِي الرَّجُلِ يَقُولُ لِلرَّجُلِ: اشْتَرِ هَذِهِ السِّلْعَةَ بَيْنِي وبَيْنَكَ، وانْقُدْ عَنِّي وأنا أبِيعُها لَكَ: إنَّ ذَلِكَ لا يَصْلُحُ. حِينَ قالَ: انْقُدْ عَنِّي وأنا أبِيعُها لَكَ. وإنَّما ذَلِكَ سَلَفٌ يُسْلِفُهُ إيّاهُ، عَلى أنْ يَبِيعَها لَهُ. ولَوْ أنَّ تِلْكَ السِّلْعَةَ هَلَكَتْ. أوْ فاتَتْ. أخَذَ ذَلِكَ الرَّجُلُ الَّذِي نَقَدَ الثَّمَنَ. مِن شَرِيكِهِ ما نَقَدَ عَنْهُ فَهَذا مِنَ السَّلَفِ الَّذِي يَجُرُّ مَنفَعَةً» قالَ مالِكٌ: «ولَوْ أنَّ رَجُلًا ابْتاعَ سِلْعَةً، فَوَجَبَتْ لَهُ، ثُمَّ قالَ لَهُ رَجُلٌ: أشْرِكْنِي بِنِصْفِ هَذِهِ السِّلْعَةِ، وأنا أبِيعُها لَكَ جَمِيعًا، كانَ ذَلِكَ حَلالًا لا بَأْسَ بِهِ، وتَفْسِيرُ ذَلِكَ أنَّ هَذا بَيْعٌ جَدِيدٌ. باعَهُ نِصْفَ السِّلْعَةِ، عَلى أنْ يَبِيعَ لَهُ النِّصْفَ الآخَرَ»

Malik said, "The recognised and permitted form of qirad is that a man take capital from an associate to use. He does not guarantee it and in travelling pays out of the capital for food and clothes and what he makes good use of, according to the amount of capital. That is, when he travels to do the work and the capital can support it. If he remains with his people, he does not have expenses or clothing from the capital." Malik said, "There is no harm in the two parties in a qirad helping each other by way of a favour when it is acceptable to them both." Malik said, "There is no harm in the investor of the capital buying some of the goods from the agent in the qirad if that is acceptable and without conditions." Malik spoke about an investor making a qirad loan to a man and his slave, to be used by both. He said, "That is permitted, and there is no harm in it because the profit is property for his slave, and the profit is not for the master until he takes it from him. It is like the rest of his earnings."

قالَ مالِكٌ: «وجْهُ القِراضِ المَعْرُوفِ الجائِزِ أنْ يَأْخُذَ الرَّجُلُ المالَ مِن صاحِبِهِ عَلى أنْ يَعْمَلَ فِيهِ، ولا ضَمانَ عَلَيْهِ، ونَفَقَةُ العامِلِ فِي المالِ، فِي سَفَرِهِ مِن طَعامِهِ وكِسْوَتِهِ، وما يُصْلِحُهُ بِالمَعْرُوفِ، بِقَدْرِ المالِ إذا شَخَصَ فِي المالِ، إذا كانَ المالُ يَحْمِلُ ذَلِكَ. فَإنْ كانَ مُقِيمًا فِي أهْلِهِ، فَلا نَفَقَةَ لَهُ مِنَ المالِ، ولا كِسْوَةَ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «ولا بَأْسَ بِأنْ يُعِينَ المُتَقارِضانِ كُلُّ واحِدٍ مِنهُما صاحِبَهُ عَلى وجْهِ المَعْرُوفِ، إذا صَحَّ ذَلِكَ مِنهُما» قالَ مالِكٌ: «ولا بَأْسَ بِأنْ يَشْتَرِيَ رَبُّ المالِ مِمَّنْ قارَضَهُ بَعْضَ ما يَشْتَرِي مِنَ السِّلَعِ إذا كانَ ذَلِكَ صَحِيحًا عَلى غَيْرِ شَرْطٍ» -[٦٨٩]- قالَ مالِكٌ: «فِيمَن دَفَعَ إلى رَجُلٍ، وإلى غُلامٍ لَهُ مالًا قِراضًا يَعْمَلانِ فِيهِ جَمِيعًا، إنَّ ذَلِكَ جائِزٌ لا بَأْسَ بِهِ، لِأنَّ الرِّبْحَ مالٌ لِغُلامِهِ، لا يَكُونُ الرِّبْحُ لِلسَّيِّدِ حَتّى يَنْتَزِعَهُ مِنهُ، وهُوَ بِمَنزِلَةِ غَيْرِهِ مِن كَسْبِهِ»

Malik said, "When a man owes money to another man and he asks him to let it stay with him as a quirad, that is disapproved of until the creditor receives his property. Then he can make it a qirad loan or keep it. That is because the debtor may be in a tight situation, and want to delay it to increase it for him." Malik spoke about an investor who made a qirad loan to a man, and some of the principal was lost before he used it, and then he used it and made a profit. The agent wanted to make the principal the remainder of the money after what was lost from it. Malik said, "His statement is not accepted, and the principal is made up to its original amount from his profit. Then they divide what remains after the principal has been repaid according to the conditions of the qirad." Malik said, "Qirad loan is only good in gold or silver coin and it is never permitted in any kind of wares or goods or articles." Malik said, "There are certain transactions which if a long span of time passes after the transaction takes place, its revocation becomes unacceptable. As for usury, there is never anything except its rejection whether it is a little or a lot. What is permitted in other than it is not permitted in it because Allah, the Blessed and the Exalted, said in His Book, 'If you repent, you have your capital back, not wronging and not wronged. ' "

قالَ مالِكٌ: «إذا كانَ لِرَجُلٍ عَلى رَجُلٍ دَيْنٌ، فَسَألَهُ أنْ يُقِرَّهُ عِنْدَهُ قِراضًا، إنَّ ذَلِكَ يُكْرَهُ حَتّى يَقْبِضَ مالَهُ، ثُمَّ يُقارِضُهُ بَعْدُ أوْ يُمْسِكُ، وإنَّما ذَلِكَ مَخافَةَ أنْ يَكُونَ أعْسَرَ بِمالِهِ، فَهُوَ يُرِيدُ أنْ يُؤَخِّرَ ذَلِكَ عَلى أنْ يَزِيدَهُ فِيهِ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «فِي رَجُلٍ دَفَعَ إلى رَجُلٍ مالًا قِراضًا فَهَلَكَ بَعْضُهُ، قَبْلَ أنْ يَعْمَلَ فِيهِ، ثُمَّ عَمِلَ فِيهِ فَرَبِحَ، فَأرادَ أنْ يَجْعَلَ رَأْسَ المالِ بَقِيَّةَ المالِ بَعْدَ الَّذِي هَلَكَ مِنهُ، قَبْلَ أنْ يَعْمَلَ فِيهِ، قالَ مالِكٌ: «لا يُقْبَلُ قَوْلُهُ، ويُجْبَرُ رَأْسُ المالِ مِن رِبْحِهِ، ثُمَّ يَقْتَسِمانِ ما بَقِيَ بَعْدَ رَأْسِ المالِ عَلى شَرْطِهِما، مِنَ القِراضِ» قالَ مالِكٌ:»لا يَصْلُحُ القِراضُ إلّا فِي العَيْنِ مِنَ الذَّهَبِ أوِ الوَرِقِ، ولا يَكُونُ فِي شَيْءٍ مِنَ العُرُوضِ، والسِّلَعِ، ومِنَ البُيُوعِ ما يَجُوزُ إذا تَفاوَتَ أمْرُهُ، وتَفاحَشَ رَدُّهُ، فَأمّا الرِّبا فَإنَّهُ لا يَكُونُ فِيهِ إلّا الرَّدُّ أبَدًا، ولا يَجُوزُ مِنهُ قَلِيلٌ، ولا كَثِيرٌ، ولا يَجُوزُ فِيهِ ما يَجُوزُ فِي غَيْرِهِ، لِأنَّ اللَّهَ تَبارَكَ وتَعالى قالَ فِي كِتابِهِ ﴿وإنْ تُبْتُمْ فَلَكُمْ رُءُوسُ أمْوالِكُمْ، لا تَظْلِمُونَ، ولا تُظْلَمُونَ﴾

Yahya said that Malik spoke about an investor who made a qirad loan and stipulated to the agent that only certain goods should be bought with his money or he forbade certain goods which he named to be bought. He said, "There is no harm in an investor making a condition on an agent in qirad not to buy a certain kind of animal or goods which he specifies. It is disapproved of for an investor to make as a condition on an agent in qirad that he only buy certain goods unless the goods which he orders him to buy are in plentiful supply and do not fail either in winter or summer. There is no harm in that case." Malik spoke about an investor who loaned qirad money and stipulated that something of the profit should be his alone without the agent sharing in it. He said, "That is not good, even if it is only one dirham unless he stipulates that half the profit is his and half the profit is the agent's or a third or a fourth or whatever. When he names a percentage, whether great or small, everything specified by that is halal. This is the qirad of the muslims." He said, "It is also not good if the investor stipulates that one dirham or more of the profit is purely his, with out the agent sharing it and then what remains of the profit is to be divided in half between them. That is not the qirad of the Muslims."

قالَ يَحْيى: قالَ مالِكٌ: فِي رَجُلٍ دَفَعَ إلى رَجُلٍ مالًا قِراضًا، وشَرَطَ عَلَيْهِ أنْ لا تَشْتَرِيَ بِمالِي إلّا سِلْعَةَ كَذا وكَذا أوْ يَنْهاهُ أنْ يَشْتَرِيَ سِلْعَةً بِاسْمِها، قالَ مالِكٌ: «مَنِ اشْتَرَطَ عَلى مَن قارَضَ أنْ لا يَشْتَرِيَ حَيَوانًا أوْ سِلْعَةً بِاسْمِها، فَلا بَأْسَ بِذَلِكَ، ومَنِ اشْتَرَطَ عَلى مَن قارَضَ أنْ لا يَشْتَرِيَ إلّا سِلْعَةَ كَذا وكَذا، فَإنَّ ذَلِكَ مَكْرُوهٌ، إلّا أنْ تَكُونَ السِّلْعَةُ الَّتِي أمَرَهُ أنْ لا يَشْتَرِيَ غَيْرَها كَثِيرَةً مَوْجُودَةً لا تُخْلِفُ فِي شِتاءٍ ولا صَيْفٍ فَلا بَأْسَ بِذَلِكَ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «فِي رَجُلٍ دَفَعَ إلى رَجُلٍ مالًا قِراضًا، واشْتَرَطَ عَلَيْهِ فِيهِ شَيْئًا مِنَ الرِّبْحِ خالِصًا دُونَ صاحِبِهِ، فَإنَّ ذَلِكَ لا يَصْلُحُ، وإنْ كانَ دِرْهَمًا واحِدًا، إلّا أنْ يَشْتَرِطَ نِصْفَ الرِّبْحِ لَهُ، ونِصْفَهُ لِصاحِبِهِ أوْ ثُلُثَهُ أوْ رُبُعَهُ أوْ أقَلَّ مِن ذَلِكَ أوْ أكْثَرَ، فَإذا سَمّى شَيْئًا مِن ذَلِكَ قَلِيلًا أوْ كَثِيرًا، فَإنَّ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ سَمّى مِن ذَلِكَ حَلالٌ وهُوَ قِراضُ المُسْلِمِينَ، قالَ: ولَكِنْ إنِ اشْتَرَطَ أنَّ لَهُ مِنَ الرِّبْحِ دِرْهَمًا واحِدًا فَما فَوْقَهُ خالِصًا لَهُ دُونَ صاحِبِهِ، وما بَقِيَ مِنَ الرِّبْحِ فَهُوَ بَيْنَهُما نِصْفَيْنِ، فَإنَّ ذَلِكَ لا يَصْلُحُ، ولَيْسَ عَلى ذَلِكَ قِراضُ المُسْلِمِينَ»

Yahya said that Malik said, "The person who puts up the principal must not stipulate that he has something of the profit alone without the agent sharing in it, nor must the agent stipulate that he has something of the profit alone without the investor sharing. In qirad, there is no sale, no rent, no work, no advance, and no convenience which one party specifies to himself without the other party sharing unless one party allows it to the other unconditionally as a favour and that is alright to both. Neither of the parties should make a condition over the other which increases him in gold or silver or food over the other party." He said, "If any of that enters the qirad, it becomes hire, and hire is only good with known and fixed terms. The agent should not stipulate when he takes the principal that he repay or commission anyone with the goods, nor that he take any of them for himself. When there is a profit, and it is time to separate the capital, then they divide the profit according to the terms of the contract. If the principal does not increase or there is a loss, the agent does not have to make up for what he spent on himself or for the loss. That falls to the investor from the principal. Qirad is permitted upon whatever terms the investor and the agent make a mutual agreement, of half the profit, or a third or a fourth or whatever." Malik said, "It is not permitted for the agent to stipulate that he use the qirad money for a certain number of years and that it not be taken from him during that time." He said, "It is not good for the investor to stipulate that the qirad money should not be returned for a certain number of years which are specified, because the qirad is not for a term. The investor loans it to an agent to use for him. If it seems proper to either of them to abandon the project and the money is coin, and nothing has been bought with it, it can be abandoned, and the investor takes his money back. If it seems proper to the investor to take the qirad loan back after goods have been purchased with it, he cannot do so until the buyer has sold the goods and they have become money. If it seems proper to the agent to return the loan, and it has been turned to goods he cannot do so until he has sold them. He returns the loan in cash as he took it." Malik said, "It is not good for the investor to stipulate that the agent pay any zakat due from his portion of the profit in particular, because the investor by stipulating that, stipulates fixed increase for himself from the profit because the portion of zakat he would be liable for by his portion of the profit, is removed from him. "It is not permitted for the investor to stipulate to the agent to only buy from so-and-so, referring to a specific man. That is not permitted because by doing so he would become his hireling for a wage." Malik spoke about an investor in qirad who stipulated a guarantee for an amount of money from the agent, "The investor is not permitted to stipulate conditions about his principal other than the conditions on which qirad is based or according to the precedent of the sunna of the Muslims. If the principal is increased by the condition of guarantee, the investor has increased his share of the profit because of the position of the guarantee. But the profit is only to be divided according to what it would have been had the loan been given without the guarantee. If the principal is destroyed, I do not think that the agent has a guarantee held against him because the stipulation of guarantees in qirad is null and void." Malik spoke about an investor who gave qirad money to a man and the man stipulated that he would only buy palms or animals with it because he sought to eat the dates or the offspring of the animals and he kept them for some time to use for himself. He said, "That is not permitted. It is not the sunna of the Muslims in qirad unless he buys it and then sells it as other goods are sold." Malik said, "There is no harm in the agent stipulating on the investor a slave to help him provided that the slave stands to gain along with him out of the investment, and when the slave only helps him with the investment, not with anything else."

قالَ يَحْيى: قالَ مالِكٌ: «لا يَنْبَغِي لِصاحِبِ المالِ أنْ يَشْتَرِطَ لِنَفْسِهِ شَيْئًا مِنَ الرِّبْحِ خالِصًا. دُونَ العامِلِ. ولا يَنْبَغِي لِلْعامِلِ أنْ يَشْتَرِطَ لِنَفْسِهِ شَيْئًا مِنَ الرِّبْحِ خالِصًا. دُونَ صاحِبِهِ. ولا يَكُونُ مَعَ القِراضِ بَيْعٌ، ولا كِراءٌ، ولا عَمَلٌ، ولا سَلَفٌ، ولا مِرْفَقٌ يَشْتَرِطُهُ أحَدُهُما لِنَفْسِهِ دُونَ صاحِبِهِ. إلّا أنْ يُعِينَ أحَدُهُما صاحِبَهُ عَلى غَيْرِ شَرْطٍ. عَلى وجْهِ المَعْرُوفِ. إذا صَحَّ ذَلِكَ مِنهُما. ولا يَنْبَغِي لِلْمُتَقارِضَيْنِ أنْ يَشْتَرِطَ أحَدُهُما عَلى صاحِبِهِ زِيادَةً، مِن ذَهَبٍ ولا فِضَّةٍ ولا طَعامٍ، ولا شَيْءٍ مِنَ الأشْياءِ. يَزْدادُهُ أحَدُهُما عَلى صاحِبِهِ. قالَ: فَإنْ دَخَلَ القِراضَ شَيْءٌ مِن ذَلِكَ، صارَ إجارَةً، ولا تَصْلُحُ الإجارَةُ إلّا بِشَيْءٍ ثابِتٍ مَعْلُومٍ، ولا يَنْبَغِي لِلَّذِي أخَذَ المالَ أنْ يَشْتَرِطَ، مَعَ أخْذِهِ المالَ، أنْ يُكافِئَ. ولا يُوَلِّيَ مِن سِلْعَتِهِ أحَدًا، ولا يَتَوَلّى مِنها شَيْئًا لِنَفْسِهِ، فَإذا وفَرَ المالُ. وحَصَلَ عَزْلُ رَأْسِ المالِ، ثُمَّ اقْتَسَما الرِّبْحَ عَلى شَرْطِهِما. فَإنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لِلْمالِ رِبْحٌ. أوْ دَخَلَتْهُ وضِيعَةٌ. لَمْ يَلْحَقِ العامِلَ مِن ذَلِكَ شَيْءٌ. لا مِمّا أنْفَقَ عَلى نَفْسِهِ. ولا مِنَ الوَضِيعَةِ، وذَلِكَ عَلى رَبِّ المالِ فِي مالِهِ، والقِراضُ جائِزٌ عَلى ما تَراضى عَلَيْهِ رَبُّ المالِ، والعامِلُ مِن نِصْفِ الرِّبْحِ أوْ ثُلُثِهِ أوْ رُبُعِهِ أوْ أقَلَّ مِن ذَلِكَ أوْ أكْثَرَ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «لا يَجُوزُ لِلَّذِي يَأْخُذُ المالَ قِراضًا أنْ يَشْتَرِطَ أنْ يَعْمَلَ فِيهِ سِنِينَ لا يُنْزَعُ مِنهُ». قالَ: «ولا يَصْلُحُ لِصاحِبِ المالِ أنْ يَشْتَرِطَ أنَّكَ لا تَرُدُّهُ إلَيَّ سِنِينَ، لِأجَلٍ يُسَمِّيانِهِ. لِأنَّ -[٦٩٢]- القِراضَ لا يَكُونُ إلى أجَلٍ. ولَكِنْ يَدْفَعُ رَبُّ المالِ مالَهُ إلى الَّذِي يَعْمَلُ لَهُ فِيهِ، فَإنْ بَدا لِأحَدِهِما أنْ يَتْرُكَ ذَلِكَ. والمالُ ناضٌّ لَمْ يَشْتَرِ بِهِ شَيْئًا، تَرَكَهُ. وأخَذَ صاحِبُ المالِ مالَهُ، وإنْ بَدا لِرَبِّ المالِ أنْ يَقْبِضَهُ، بَعْدَ أنْ يَشْتَرِيَ بِهِ سِلْعَةً. فَلَيْسَ ذَلِكَ لَهُ، حَتّى يُباعَ المَتاعُ، ويَصِيرَ عَيْنًا، فَإنْ بَدا لِلْعامِلِ أنْ يَرُدَّهُ، وهُوَ عَرْضٌ، لَمْ يَكُنْ ذَلِكَ لَهُ. حَتّى يَبِيعَهُ، فَيَرُدَّهُ عَيْنًا كَما أخَذَهُ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «ولا يَصْلُحُ لِمَن دَفَعَ إلى رَجُلٍ مالًا قِراضًا، أنْ يَشْتَرِطَ عَلَيْهِ الزَّكاةَ فِي حِصَّتِهِ مِنَ الرِّبْحِ خاصَّةً، لِأنَّ رَبَّ المالِ، إذا اشْتَرَطَ ذَلِكَ، فَقَدِ اشْتَرَطَ لِنَفْسِهِ، فَضْلًا مِنَ الرِّبْحِ ثابِتًا. فِيما سَقَطَ عَنْهُ مِن حِصَّةِ الزَّكاةِ. الَّتِي تُصِيبُهُ مِن حِصَّتِهِ. ولا يَجُوزُ لِرَجُلٍ أنْ يَشْتَرِطَ عَلى مَن قارَضَهُ، أنْ لا يَشْتَرِيَ إلّا مِن فُلانٍ. لِرَجُلٍ يُسَمِّيهِ. فَذَلِكَ غَيْرُ جائِزٍ. لِأنَّهُ يَصِيرُ لَهُ أجِيرًا بِأجْرٍ لَيْسَ بِمَعْرُوفٍ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «فِي الرَّجُلِ يَدْفَعُ إلى رَجُلٍ مالًا قِراضًا. ويَشْتَرِطُ عَلى الَّذِي دَفَعَ إلَيْهِ المالَ الضَّمانَ، قالَ: لا يَجُوزُ لِصاحِبِ المالِ أنْ يَشْتَرِطَ فِي مالِهِ غَيْرَ ما وُضِعَ القِراضُ عَلَيْهِ، وما مَضى مِن سُنَّةِ المُسْلِمِينَ فِيهِ، فَإنْ نَما المالُ عَلى شَرْطِ الضَّمانِ. كانَ قَدِ ازْدادَ فِي حَقِّهِ مِنَ الرِّبْحِ مِن أجْلِ مَوْضِعِ الضَّمانِ. وإنَّما يَقْتَسِمانِ الرِّبْحَ عَلى ما لَوْ أعْطاهُ إيّاهُ عَلى غَيْرِ ضَمانٍ. وإنْ تَلِفَ المالُ لَمْ أرَ عَلى الَّذِي أخَذَهُ ضَمانًا، لِأنَّ شَرْطَ الضَّمانِ فِي القِراضِ باطِلٌ» قالَ مالِكٌ: فِي رَجُلٍ دَفَعَ إلى رَجُلٍ مالًا قِراضًا. واشْتَرَطَ عَلَيْهِ أنْ لا يَبْتاعَ بِهِ إلّا نَخْلًا-[٦٩٣]- أوْ دَوابَّ. لِأجْلِ أنَّهُ يَطْلُبُ ثَمَرَ النَّخْلِ أوْ نَسْلَ الدَّوابِّ. ويَحْبِسُ رِقابَها، قالَ مالِكٌ: «لا يَجُوزُ هَذا، ولَيْسَ هَذا مِن سُنَّةِ المُسْلِمِينَ فِي القِراضِ. إلّا أنْ يَشْتَرِيَ ذَلِكَ. ثُمَّ يَبِيعَهُ كَما يُباعُ غَيْرُهُ مِنَ السِّلَعِ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «لا بَأْسَ أنْ يَشْتَرِطَ المُقارِضُ عَلى رَبِّ المالِ غُلامًا يُعِينُهُ بِهِ. عَلى أنْ يَقُومَ مَعَهُ الغُلامُ فِي المالِ. إذا لَمْ يَعْدُ أنْ يُعِينَهُ فِي المالِ. لا يُعِينُهُ فِي غَيْرِهِ»

Yahya said that Malik said, "No one should make a qirad loan except in coin, because the loan must not be in wares, since loaning wares can only be worked in one of two ways: Either the owner of the wares says to the borrower, 'Take these wares and sell them. Buy and sell with the capital realized according to qirad.' The investor stipulates increase for himself from the sale of his goods and what relieves him of expenses in selling it. Or else he says, 'Barter with these goods and sell. When you are through, buy for me the like of my goods which I gave you. If there is increase, it is between you and me. 'It may happen that the investor gives the goods to the agent at a time in which they are in demand and expensive, and then the agent returns them while they are cheap and he might have bought them for only a third of the original price or even less than that. The agent then has a profit of half the amount by which the price of the wares has decreased as his portion of the profit. Or he might take the wares at a time when their price is low, and make use of them until he has a lot of money. Then those wares become expensive and their price rises when he returns them, so he buys them for all that he has so that all his work and concern have been in vain. This is an uncertain transaction and is not good. If, however, that is not known until it has happened, then the wage an agent in qirad would be paid for selling that, is looked at and he is given it for his concern. Then the money is qirad from the day the money became cash and collected as coin and it is returned as a qirad like that."

قالَ يَحْيى: قالَ مالِكٌ: «لا يَنْبَغِي لِأحَدٍ أنْ يُقارِضَ أحَدًا إلّا فِي العَيْنِ لِأنَّهُ لا تَنْبَغِي المُقارَضَةُ فِي العُرُوضِ، لِأنَّ المُقارَضَةَ فِي العُرُوضِ إنَّما تَكُونُ عَلى أحَدِ وجْهَيْنِ، إمّا أنْ يَقُولَ لَهُ صاحِبُ العَرْضِ، خُذْ هَذا العَرْضَ فَبِعْهُ. فَما خَرَجَ مِن ثَمَنِهِ فاشْتَرِ بِهِ. وبِعْ عَلى وجْهِ القِراضِ. فَقَدِ اشْتَرَطَ صاحِبُ المالِ فَضْلًا لِنَفْسِهِ مِن بَيْعِ سِلْعَتِهِ، وما يَكْفِيهِ مِن مَئُونَتِها أوْ يَقُولَ: اشْتَرِ بِهَذِهِ السِّلْعَةِ وبِعْ. فَإذا فَرَغْتَ فابْتَعْ لِي مِثْلَ عَرْضِي الَّذِي دَفَعْتُ إلَيْكَ. فَإنْ فَضَلَ شَيْءٌ فَهُوَ بَيْنِي وبَيْنَكَ. ولَعَلَّ صاحِبَ العَرْضِ أنْ يَدْفَعَهُ إلى العامِلِ فِي زَمَنٍ هُوَ فِيهِ نافِقٌ. كَثِيرُ الثَّمَنِ. ثُمَّ يَرُدَّهُ العامِلُ حِينَ يَرُدُّهُ وقَدْ رَخُصَ. فَيَشْتَرِيَهُ بِثُلُثِ ثَمَنِهِ. أوْ أقَلَّ مِن ذَلِكَ. فَيَكُونُ العامِلُ قَدْ رَبِحَ نِصْفَ ما نَقَصَ مِن ثَمَنِ العَرْضِ. فِي حِصَّتِهِ مِنَ الرِّبْحِ. أوْ يَأْخُذَ العَرْضَ فِي زَمانٍ ثَمَنُهُ فِيهِ قَلِيلٌ. فَيَعْمَلُ فِيهِ حَتّى يَكْثُرَ المالُ فِي يَدَيْهِ. ثُمَّ يَغْلُو -[٦٩٤]- ذَلِكَ العَرْضُ ويَرْتَفِعُ ثَمَنُهُ حِينَ يَرُدُّهُ. فَيَشْتَرِيهِ بِكُلِّ ما فِي يَدَيْهِ. فَيَذْهَبُ عَمَلُهُ وعِلاجُهُ باطِلًا، فَهَذا غَرَرٌ لا يَصْلُحُ. فَإنْ جُهِلَ ذَلِكَ. حَتّى يَمْضِيَ نُظِرَ إلى قَدْرِ أجْرِ الَّذِي دُفِعَ إلَيْهِ القِراضُ، فِي بَيْعِهِ إيّاهُ، وعِلاجِهِ فَيُعْطاهُ. ثُمَّ يَكُونُ المالُ قِراضًا مِن يَوْمَ نَضَّ المالُ. واجْتَمَعَ عَيْنًا. ويُرَدُّ إلى قِراضٍ مِثْلِهِ»

Yahya said that Malik spoke about a man who made a qirad loan to a man and he bought wares with it and transported them to a commercial centre. It was not profitable to sell them and the agent feared a loss if he sold them, so he hired transport to take them to another city, and he sold them there and made a loss, and the cost of the hire was greater than the principal. Malik said, "If the agent can pay the cost of the hire from what the capital realized, his way is that. Whatever portion of the hire is not covered by the principal, the agent must pay it. The investor is not answerable for any of it. That is because the investor only ordered him to trade with the principal. The investor is not answerable for other than the principal. Had the investor been liable, it would have been an additional loss to him on top of the principal which he invested. The agent cannot put that on to the investor."

قالَ يَحْيى: قالَ مالِكٌ: «فِي رَجُلٍ دَفَعَ إلى رَجُلٍ مالًا قِراضًا. فاشْتَرى بِهِ مَتاعًا. فَحَمَلَهُ إلى بَلَدِ التِّجارَةِ. فَبارَ عَلَيْهِ. وخافَ النُّقْصانَ إنْ باعَهُ. فَتَكارى عَلَيْهِ إلى بَلَدٍ آخَرَ. فَباعَ بِنُقْصانٍ، فاغْتَرَقَ الكِراءُ أصْلَ المالِ كُلَّهُ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «إنْ كانَ فِيما باعَ وفاءٌ لِلْكِراءِ، فَسَبِيلُهُ ذَلِكَ، وإنْ بَقِيَ مِنَ الكِراءِ شَيْءٌ، بَعْدَ أصْلِ المالِ كانَ عَلى العامِلِ. ولَمْ يَكُنْ عَلى رَبِّ المالِ مِنهُ شَيْءٌ يُتْبَعُ بِهِ. وذَلِكَ أنَّ رَبَّ المالِ إنَّما أمَرَهُ بِالتِّجارَةِ فِي مالِهِ. فَلَيْسَ لِلْمُقارَضِ أنْ يَتْبَعَهُ بِما سِوى ذَلِكَ مِنَ المالِ. ولَوْ كانَ ذَلِكَ يُتْبَعُ بِهِ رَبُّ المالِ، لَكانَ ذَلِكَ دَيْنًا عَلَيْهِ. مِن غَيْرِ المالِ الَّذِي قارَضَهُ فِيهِ، فَلَيْسَ لِلْمُقارَضِ أنْ يَحْمِلَ ذَلِكَ عَلى رَبِّ المالِ»

Yahya said that Malik spoke about an investor who made a qirad loan to a man. He said, "When the investment is large, the travelling expenses of the agent are taken from it. He can use it to eat and clothe himself in an acceptable fashion according to the size of the investment. If it saves him trouble, he can take a wage from some of the capital, if it is large, and he cannot support himself. There are certain jobs which an agent or his like are not responsible for, amongst them are collecting debts, transporting the goods, loading up and so forth. He can hire from the capital someone to do that for him. The agent should not spend from the capital nor clothe himself from it while he resides with his family. It is only permitted for him to have expenses when he travels for the investment. The expenses are taken from the capital. If he is only trading with the property in the city in which he resides, he has no expenses from the capital and no clothing." Malik spoke about an investor who paid qirad money to a man, and the agent went out with it and with his own capital. He said, "The expenses come from the qirad and from his own capital according to their proportions."

قالَ يَحْيى: قالَ مالِكٌ: فِي رَجُلٍ دَفَعَ إلى رَجُلٍ مالًا قِراضًا إنَّهُ إذا كانَ المالُ كَثِيرًا يَحْمِلُ النَّفَقَةَ، فَإذا شَخَصَ فِيهِ العامِلُ، فَإنَّ لَهُ أنْ يَأْكُلَ مِنهُ، ويَكْتَسِيَ بِالمَعْرُوفِ مِن قَدْرِ المالِ. ويَسْتَأْجِرَ مِنَ المالِ إذا كانَ كَثِيرًا لا يَقْوى عَلَيْهِ بَعْضَ مَن يَكْفِيهِ بَعْضَ مَئُونَتِهِ. ومِنَ الأعْمالِ أعْمالٌ لا يَعْمَلُها الَّذِي يَأْخُذُ المالَ. ولَيْسَ مِثْلُهُ يَعْمَلُها. مِن ذَلِكَ تَقاضِي الدَّيْنِ، ونَقْلُ المَتاعِ، وشَدُّهُ وأشْباهُ ذَلِكَ، فَلَهُ أنْ يَسْتَأْجِرَ مِنَ المالِ مَن يَكْفِيهِ ذَلِكَ. ولَيْسَ لِلْمُقارَضِ أنْ يَسْتَنْفِقَ مِنَ المالِ. ولا يَكْتَسِيَ مِنهُ. ما كانَ مُقِيمًا فِي أهْلِهِ إنَّما يَجُوزُ لَهُ النَّفَقَةُ إذا شَخَصَ فِي المالِ. وكانَ المالُ يَحْمِلُ النَّفَقَةَ فَإنْ كانَ إنَّما يَتَّجِرُ فِي المالِ فِي البَلَدِ الَّذِي هُوَ بِهِ مُقِيمٌ، فَلا نَفَقَةَ لَهُ مِنَ المالِ ولا كِسْوَةَ " قالَ مالِكٌ: فِي رَجُلٍ دَفَعَ إلى رَجُلٍ مالًا قِراضًا. فَخَرَجَ بِهِ وبِمالِ نَفْسِهِ. قالَ: «يَجْعَلُ النَّفَقَةَ مِنَ القِراضِ، ومِن مالِهِ عَلى قَدْرِ حِصَصِ المالِ»

Yahya said that Malik spoke about an agent who had qirad money with him and he spent from it and clothed himself. He said, "He cannot give away any of it, and neither a beggar nor anyone else is to be given any of it and he does not pay anyone compensation from it. If he meets some people, and they bring out food and he brings out food, I hope that that will be permitted to him if he does not intend to bestow something on them. If he intends that or what is like that without the permission of the investor, he must get the sanction of the investor for it. If he sanctions it, there is no harm. If he refuses to sanction it, he must repay it with like if he has something which is suitable as compensation."

قالَ يَحْيى: قالَ مالِكٌ: فِي رَجُلٍ مَعَهُ مالٌ قِراضٌ فَهُوَ يَسْتَنْفِقُ مِنهُ، ويَكْتَسِي إنَّهُ لا يَهَبُ مِنهُ شَيْئًا، ولا يُعْطِي مِنهُ سائِلًا، ولا غَيْرَهُ، ولا يُكافِئُ فِيهِ أحَدًا، فَأمّا إنِ اجْتَمَعَ هُوَ وقَوْمٌ فَجاءُوا بِطَعامٍ، وجاءَ هُوَ بِطَعامٍ، فَأرْجُو أنْ يَكُونَ ذَلِكَ واسِعًا، إذا لَمْ يَتَعَمَّدْ أنْ يَتَفَضَّلَ عَلَيْهِمْ، فَإنْ تَعَمَّدَ ذَلِكَ، أوْ ما يُشْبِهُهُ بِغَيْرِ إذْنِ صاحِبِ المالِ، فَعَلَيْهِ أنْ يَتَحَلَّلَ ذَلِكَ مِن رَبِّ المالِ، فَإنْ حَلَّلَهُ ذَلِكَ. فَلا بَأْسَ بِهِ. وإنْ أبى أنْ يُحَلِّلَهُ، فَعَلَيْهِ أنْ يُكافِئَهُ بِمِثْلِ ذَلِكَ. إنْ كانَ ذَلِكَ شَيْئًا لَهُ مُكافَأةٌ۔»

Yahya said that Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us about an investor who pays qirad money to an agent to buy goods, and the agent then sells the goods for a price to be paid later, and has a profit in the transaction, then the agent dies before he has received payment, is that if his heirs want to take that money, they have their father's stipulated portion from the profit. That is theirs if they are trustworthy to take the payment. If they dislike to collect it from the debtor and they refer him to the investor, they are not obliged to collect it and there is nothing against them and nothing for them by their surrendering it to the investor. If they do collect it, they have a share of it and expenses like their father had. They are in the position of their father. If they are not trustworthy to do so, they can bring someone reliable and trustworthy to collect the money. If he collects all the capital and all the profit, they are in the position of their father." Malik spoke about an investor who paid qirad money to a man provided that he used it and was responsible for any delayed payment for which he sold it. He said, "This is obligatory on the agent. If he sells it for delayed payment, he is responsible for it."

قالَ يَحْيى: قالَ مالِكٌ: «الأمْرُ المُجْتَمَعُ عَلَيْهِ عِنْدَنا فِي رَجُلٍ دَفَعَ إلى رَجُلٍ مالًا قِراضًا فاشْتَرى بِهِ سِلْعَةً. ثُمَّ باعَ السِّلْعَةَ بِدَيْنٍ. فَرَبِحَ فِي المالِ. ثُمَّ هَلَكَ الَّذِي أخَذَ المالَ. قَبْلَ أنْ يَقْبِضَ المالَ». قالَ: «إنْ أرادَ ورَثَتُهُ أنْ يَقْبِضُوا ذَلِكَ المالَ، وهُمْ عَلى شَرْطِ أبِيهِمْ مِنَ الرِّبْحِ، فَذَلِكَ لَهُمْ. إذا كانُوا أُمَناءَ عَلى ذَلِكَ. فَإنْ كَرِهُوا أنْ يَقْتَضُوهُ، وخَلَّوْا بَيْنَ صاحِبِ المالِ وبَيْنَهُ، لَمْ يُكَلَّفُوا أنْ يَقْتَضُوهُ. ولا شَيْءَ عَلَيْهِمْ، ولا شَيْءَ لَهُمْ. إذا أسْلَمُوهُ إلى رَبِّ المالِ. فَإنِ اقْتَضَوْهُ. فَلَهُمْ فِيهِ مِنَ الشَّرْطِ والنَّفَقَةِ، مِثْلُ ما كانَ لِأبِيهِمْ فِي ذَلِكَ هُمْ فِيهِ بِمَنزِلَةِ أبِيهِمْ، -[٦٩٨]- فَإنْ لَمْ يَكُونُوا أُمَناءَ عَلى ذَلِكَ. فَإنَّ لَهُمْ أنْ يَأْتُوا بِأمِينٍ ثِقَةٍ. فَيَقْتَضِي ذَلِكَ المالَ. فَإذا اقْتَضى جَمِيعَ المالِ. وجَمِيعَ الرِّبْحِ. كانُوا فِي ذَلِكَ بِمَنزِلَةِ أبِيهِمْ» قالَ مالِكٌ: فِي رَجُلٍ دَفَعَ إلى رَجُلٍ مالًا قِراضًا عَلى أنَّهُ يَعْمَلُ فِيهِ، فَما باعَ بِهِ مِن دَيْنٍ فَهُوَ ضامِنٌ لَهُ، إنَّ ذَلِكَ لازِمٌ لَهُ إنْ باعَ بِدَيْنٍ فَقَدْ ضَمِنَهُ۔»

Yahya said that Malik spoke about an investor who gave qirad money to a man, and then the man sought a loan from the investor or the investor borrowed money from the agent, or the investor left goods with the agent to sell for him, or the investor gave the agent dinars to buy goods with. Malik said, "There is no harm if the investor leaves his goods with him knowing that if the agent did not have his money and he had asked a similar thing of him, he would have still done it because of the brotherhood between them or because it would have been no bother to him and that had the agent refused that, he would not have removed his capital from him. Or if the agent had borrowed from the investor or carried his goods for him and he knew that if the investor had not had his capital with him, he would have still done the same for him, and had he refused that to him, he would not have returned his capital to him. If that is true between both of them and it is in the way of a favour between them and it is not a condition in the terms of the qirad, it is permitted and there is no harm in it. If a condition comes into it, or it is feared that the agent is only doing it for the investor in order to safeguard the capital in his possession, or the investor is only doing it because the agent has taken his capital and will not return it to him, that is not permitted in qirad and it is part of what the people of knowledge forbid.' "

قالَ يَحْيى: قالَ مالِكٌ: فِي رَجُلٍ دَفَعَ إلى رَجُلٍ مالًا قِراضًا. واسْتَسْلَفَ مِن صاحِبِ المالِ سَلَفًا. أوِ اسْتَسْلَفَ مِنهُ صاحِبُ المالِ سَلَفًا. أوْ أبْضَعَ مَعَهُ صاحِبُ المالِ بِضاعَةً يَبِيعُها لَهُ، أوْ بِدَنانِيرَ يَشْتَرِي لَهُ بِها سِلْعَةً، قالَ مالِكٌ: «إنْ كانَ صاحِبُ المالِ إنَّما أبْضَعَ مَعَهُ، وهُوَ يَعْلَمُ أنَّهُ لَوْ لَمْ يَكُنْ مالُهُ عِنْدَهُ، ثُمَّ سَألَهُ مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ فَعَلَهُ، لِإخاءٍ بَيْنَهُما. أوْ لِيَسارَةِ مَئُونَةِ ذَلِكَ عَلَيْهِ. ولَوْ أبى ذَلِكَ عَلَيْهِ لَمْ يَنْزِعْ مالَهُ مِنهُ. أوْ كانَ العامِلُ إنَّما اسْتَسْلَفَ مِن صاحِبِ المالِ. أوْ حَمَلَ لَهُ بِضاعَتَهُ. وهُوَ يَعْلَمُ أنَّهُ لَوْ لَمْ يَكُنْ عِنْدَهُ مالُهُ فَعَلَ لَهُ مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ، ولَوْ أبى ذَلِكَ عَلَيْهِ لَمْ يَرْدُدْ عَلَيْهِ مالَهُ. فَإذا صَحَّ ذَلِكَ مِنهُما جَمِيعًا، وكانَ ذَلِكَ مِنهُما عَلى وجْهِ المَعْرُوفِ، ولَمْ يَكُنْ شَرْطًا فِي أصْلِ القِراضِ، فَذَلِكَ جائِزٌ لا بَأْسَ بِهِ. وإنْ دَخَلَ ذَلِكَ شَرْطٌ. أوْ خِيفَ أنْ يَكُونَ إنَّما صَنَعَ ذَلِكَ العامِلُ لِصاحِبِ المالِ، لِيُقِرَّ مالَهُ فِي يَدَيْهِ. أوْ إنَّما صَنَعَ ذَلِكَ صاحِبُ المالِ، لِأنْ يُمْسِكَ العامِلُ مالَهُ، ولا يَرُدَّهُ عَلَيْهِ. فَإنَّ ذَلِكَ لا يَجُوزُ فِي القِراضِ. وهُوَ مِمّا يَنْهى عَنْهُ أهْلُ العِلْمِ»

Yahya said that Malik spoke about a man who loaned another man money and then the debtor asked him to leave it with him as a qirad. Malik said, "I do not like that unless he takes his money back from him, and then pays it to him as a qirad if he wishes or if he wishes keep it." Malik spoke about an investor who paid a man qirad money and the man told him that it was collected with him and asked him to write it for him as a loan. He said, "I do not like that unless he takes his money from him and then lends it to him or keeps it as he wishes. That is only out of fear that he has lost some of it, and wants to defer it so that he can make up what has been lost of it. That is disapproved of and is not permitted and it is not good."

قالَ يَحْيى: قالَ مالِكٌ: فِي رَجُلٍ أسْلَفَ رَجُلًا مالًا، ثُمَّ سَألَهُ الَّذِي تَسَلَّفَ المالَ أنْ يُقِرَّهُ عِنْدَهُ قِراضًا قالَ مالِكٌ: «لا أُحِبُّ ذَلِكَ حَتّى يَقْبِضَ مالَهُ مِنهُ، ثُمَّ يَدْفَعَهُ إلَيْهِ قِراضًا إنْ شاءَ أوْ يُمْسِكَهُ» قالَ مالِكٌ: فِي رَجُلٍ دَفَعَ إلى رَجُلٍ مالًا قِراضًا. فَأخْبَرَهُ أنَّهُ قَدِ اجْتَمَعَ عِنْدَهُ. وسَألَهُ أنْ يَكْتُبَهُ عَلَيْهِ سَلَفًا. قالَ: لا أُحِبُّ ذَلِكَ. حَتّى يَقْبِضَ مِنهُ مالَهُ، ثُمَّ يُسَلِّفَهُ إيّاهُ إنْ شاءَ، أوْ يُمْسِكَهُ. وإنَّما ذَلِكَ مَخافَةَ أنْ يَكُونَ قَدْ نَقَصَ فِيهِ، فَهُوَ يُحِبُّ أنْ يُؤَخِّرَهُ عَنْهُ. عَلى أنْ يَزِيدَهُ فِيهِ ما نَقَصَ مِنهُ، فَذَلِكَ مَكْرُوهٌ ولا يَجُوزُ ولا يَصْلُحُ۔»

Yahya said that Malik spoke about an investor paying qirad money to an agent who made a profit and then wanted to take his share of the profit and the investor was away. He said, "He should not take any of it unless the investor is present. If he takes something from it, he is responsible for it until it is accounted for in the division of the capital." Malik said, "It is not permitted for the parties involved in a qirad to account and divide property which is away from them until the capital is present, and the investor is given the principal in full. Then they divide the profit into their agreed portions." Malik spoke about a man taking qirad money, and buying goods with it while he had a debt. His creditors sought and found him while he was in a city away from the investor, and he had profitable merchandise whose good quality was clear. They wanted him to sell the merchandise for them so that they could take his share of the profit. Malik said, "None of the profit of the qirad is taken until the investor is present. He takes his principal and then the profit is divided mutually between them." Malik spoke about an investor who put qirad money with an agent and he used it and had a profit. Then the principal was set aside and the profit divided. He took his share and added the share of the investor to his principal in the presence of witnesses he had called. Malik said, "It is not permitted to divide the profit unless the investor is present. If he has taken something here turns it until the investor has received the principal in full. Then what remains is divided into their respective portions." Malik spoke about an investor who put qirad money with an agent. The agent used it and then came to the investor and said, "This is your portion of the profit, and I have taken the like of it for myself, and I have retained your principal in full." Malik said, "I do not like that, unless all the capital is present, the principal is there and he knows that it is complete and he receives it. Then they divide the profit between them. He returns the principal to him if he wishes, or he keeps it. The presence of the principal is necessary out of fear that the agent might have lost some of it, and so may want it not to be removed from him and to keep it in his hand."

قالَ يَحْيى: قالَ مالِكٌ: فِي رَجُلٍ دَفَعَ إلى رَجُلٍ مالًا قِراضًا. فَعَمِلَ فِيهِ فَرَبِحَ. فَأرادَ أنْ يَأْخُذَ حِصَّتَهُ مِنَ الرِّبْحِ. وصاحِبُ المالِ غائِبٌ. قالَ: «لا يَنْبَغِي لَهُ أنْ يَأْخُذَ مِنهُ شَيْئًا إلّا بِحَضْرَةِ صاحِبِ المالِ، وإنْ أخَذَ شَيْئًا فَهُوَ لَهُ ضامِنٌ، حَتّى يُحْسَبَ مَعَ المالِ إذا اقْتَسَماهُ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «لا يَجُوزُ لِلْمُتَقارِضَيْنِ أنْ يَتَحاسَبا، ويَتَفاصَلا والمالُ غائِبٌ عَنْهُما، حَتّى يَحْضُرَ المالُ فَيَسْتَوْفِي صاحِبُ المالِ رَأْسَ مالِهِ، ثُمَّ يَقْتَسِمانِ الرِّبْحَ عَلى شَرْطِهِما» قالَ مالِكٌ: فِي رَجُلٍ أخَذَ مالًا قِراضًا. فاشْتَرى بِهِ سِلْعَةً. وقَدْ كانَ عَلَيْهِ دَيْنٌ. فَطَلَبَهُ -[٧٠٠]- غُرَماؤُهُ، فَأدْرَكُوهُ بِبَلَدٍ غائِبٍ عَنْ صاحِبِ المالِ. وفِي يَدَيْهِ عَرْضٌ مُرَبَّحٌ بَيِّنٌ فَضْلُهُ. فَأرادُوا أنْ يُباعَ لَهُمُ العَرْضُ فَيَأْخُذُوا حِصَّتَهُ مِنَ الرِّبْحِ، قالَ: لا يُؤْخَذُ مِن رِبْحِ القِراضِ شَيْءٌ حَتّى يَحْضُرَ صاحِبُ المالِ فَيَأْخُذَ مالَهُ، ثُمَّ يَقْتَسِمانِ الرِّبْحَ عَلى شَرْطِهِما «قالَ مالِكٌ: فِي رَجُلٍ دَفَعَ إلى رَجُلٍ مالًا قِراضًا. فَتَجَرَ فِيهِ فَرَبِحَ. ثُمَّ عَزَلَ رَأْسَ المالِ، وقَسَمَ الرِّبْحَ. فَأخَذَ حِصَّتَهُ، وطَرَحَ حِصَّةَ صاحِبِ المالِ فِي المالِ. بِحَضْرَةِ شُهَداءَ أشْهَدَهُمْ عَلى ذَلِكَ. قالَ: لا تَجُوزُ قِسْمَةُ الرِّبْحِ إلّا بِحَضْرَةِ صاحِبِ المالِ، وإنْ كانَ أخَذَ شَيْئًا رَدَّهُ حَتّى يَسْتَوْفِيَ صاحِبُ المالِ رَأْسَ مالِهِ، ثُمَّ يَقْتَسِمانِ ما بَقِيَ بَيْنَهُما عَلى شَرْطِهِما» قالَ مالِكٌ: فِي رَجُلٍ دَفَعَ إلى رَجُلٍ مالًا قِراضًا فَعَمِلَ فِيهِ، فَجاءَهُ فَقالَ لَهُ: هَذِهِ حِصَّتُكَ مِنَ الرِّبْحِ، وقَدْ أخَذْتُ لِنَفْسِي مِثْلَهُ، ورَأْسُ مالِكَ وافِرٌ عِنْدِي، قالَ مالِكٌ: «لا أُحِبُّ ذَلِكَ حَتّى يَحْضُرَ المالُ كُلُّهُ، فَيُحاسِبَهُ حَتّى يَحْصُلَ رَأْسُ المالِ. ويَعْلَمَ أنَّهُ وافِرٌ. ويَصِلَ إلَيْهِ ثُمَّ يَقْتَسِمانِ الرِّبْحَ بَيْنَهُما، ثُمَّ يَرُدُّ إلَيْهِ المالَ إنْ شاءَ، أوْ يَحْبِسُهُ. وإنَّما يَجِبُ حُضُورُ المالِ، مَخافَةَ أنْ يَكُونَ العامِلُ قَدْ نَقَصَ فِيهِ. فَهُوَ يُحِبُّ أنْ لا يُنْزَعَ مِنهُ وأنْ يُقِرَّهُ فِي يَدِهِ»

Yahya said that Malik spoke about an investor who put qirad money with an agent who bought goods with it, and the investor told him to sell them. The agent said that he did not see any way to sell at that time and they quarrelled about it. He said, "One does not look at the statement of either of them. The people of experience and insight concerning such goods are asked about these goods. If they can see anyway of selling them they are sold for them. If they think it is time to wait, they should wait." Malik spoke about a man who took qirad money from an investor and used it and when the investor asked him for his money, he said that he had it in full. When he held him to his settlement he admitted that "Such-and-such of it was lost with me," and he named an amount of money. "I told you that so that you would leave it with me." Malik said, "He does not benefit by denying it after he had confirmed that he had it all . He is answerable by his confession against himself unless he produces evidence about the loss of that property which confirms his statement. If he does not produce an acceptable reason he is answerable by his confession, and his denial does not avail him." Malik said, "Similarly, had he said, 'I have had such-and-such a profit from the capital,' and then the owner of the capital asked him to pay him the principal and his profit, and he said that he had not had any profit in it and had said that only so it might be left in his possession, it does not benefit him. He is taken to account for what he affirmed unless he brings acceptable proof of his word, so that the first statement is not binding on him." Malik spoke about an investor who put qirad money with an agent who made a profit with it. The agent said, "I took the qirad from you provided that I would have two-thirds." The owner of the capital says, "I gave you a qirad provided that you had a third." Malik said, "The word is the word of the agent, and he must take an oath on that if what he says resembles the known practice of qirad or is close to it. If he brings a matter which is unacceptable and people do not make qirads like that, he is not believed, and it is judged to be according to how a qirad like it would normally be." Malik spoke about a man who gave a man one hundred dinars as a qirad. He bought goods with it and then went to pay the one hundred dinars to the owner of the goods and found that they had been stolen. The investor says, "Sell the goods. If there is anything over, it is mine. If there is a loss, it is against you because you lost it." The agent says, "Rather you must fulfil what the seller is owed. I bought them with your capital which you gave me." Malik said, "The agent is obliged to pay the price to the seller and the investor is told, 'If you wish, pay the hundred dinars to the agent and the goods are between you. The qirad is according to what the first hundred was based on. If you wish, you are free of the goods.' If the hundred dinars are paid to the agent, it is a qirad according to the conditions of the first qirad. If he refuses, the goods belong to the agent and he must pay their price." Malik spoke about two people in a qirad who settled up and the agent still had some of the goods which he used - threadbare cloth or a waterskin or the like of that. Malik said, "Any of that which is insignificant is of no importance and belongs to the agent. I have not heard anyone give a decision calling for the return of that. Anything which has a price is returned. If it is something which has value like an animal, camel, coarse cloth or the like of that which fetches a price, I think that he should return what he has remaining of such things unless the owner overlooks it."

قالَ يَحْيى: قالَ مالِكٌ: فِي رَجُلٍ دَفَعَ إلى رَجُلٍ مالًا قِراضًا فابْتاعَ بِهِ سِلْعَةً، فَقالَ لَهُ صاحِبُ المالِ: بِعْها، وقالَ الَّذِي أخَذَ المالَ: لا أرى وجْهَ بَيْعٍ، فاخْتَلَفا فِي ذَلِكَ، قالَ: «لا يُنْظَرُ إلى قَوْلِ واحِدٍ مِنهُما، ويُسْألُ عَنْ ذَلِكَ أهْلُ المَعْرِفَةِ والبَصَرِ بِتِلْكَ السِّلْعَةِ، -[٧٠١]- فَإنْ رَأوْا وجْهَ بَيْعٍ بِيعَتْ عَلَيْهِما، وإنْ رَأوْا وجْهَ انْتِظارٍ انْتُظِرَ بِها» قالَ مالِكٌ: فِي رَجُلٍ أخَذَ مِن رَجُلٍ مالًا قِراضًا فَعَمِلَ فِيهِ، ثُمَّ سَألَهُ صاحِبُ المالِ عَنْ مالِهِ، فَقالَ: هُوَ عِنْدِي وافِرٌ، فَلَمّا آخَذَهُ بِهِ، قالَ: قَدْ هَلَكَ عِنْدِي مِنهُ كَذا وكَذا لِمالٍ يُسَمِّيهِ، وإنَّما قُلْتُ لَكَ ذَلِكَ لِكَيْ تَتْرُكَهُ عِنْدِي، قالَ: لا يَنْتَفِعُ بِإنْكارِهِ بَعْدَ إقْرارِهِ أنَّهُ عِنْدَهُ، ويُؤْخَذُ بِإقْرارِهِ عَلى نَفْسِهِ، إلّا أنْ يَأْتِيَ فِي هَلاكِ ذَلِكَ المالِ بِأمْرٍ يُعْرَفُ بِهِ قَوْلُهُ، فَإنْ لَمْ يَأْتِ بِأمْرٍ مَعْرُوفٍ أُخِذَ بِإقْرارِهِ، ولَمْ يَنْفَعْهُ إنْكارُهُ «قالَ مالِكٌ: وكَذَلِكَ أيْضًا لَوْ قالَ: رَبِحْتُ فِي المالِ كَذا وكَذا، فَسَألَهُ رَبُّ المالِ: أنْ يَدْفَعَ إلَيْهِ مالَهُ ورِبْحَهُ، فَقالَ: ما رَبِحْتُ فِيهِ شَيْئًا؟ وما قُلْتُ ذَلِكَ إلّا لِأنْ تُقِرَّهُ فِي يَدِي، فَذَلِكَ لا يَنْفَعُهُ، ويُؤْخَذُ بِما أقَرَّ بِهِ، إلّا أنْ يَأْتِيَ بِأمْرٍ يُعْرَفُ بِهِ قَوْلُهُ وصِدْقُهُ، فَلا يَلْزَمُهُ ذَلِكَ» قالَ مالِكٌ: فِي رَجُلٍ دَفَعَ إلى رَجُلٍ مالًا قِراضًا فَرَبِحَ فِيهِ رِبْحًا، فَقالَ العامِلُ: قارَضْتُكَ عَلى أنَّ لِي الثُّلُثَيْنِ، وقالَ صاحِبُ المالِ: قارَضْتُكَ عَلى أنَّ لَكَ الثُّلُثَ، قالَ مالِكٌ: «القَوْلُ قَوْلُ العامِلِ، وعَلَيْهِ فِي ذَلِكَ، اليَمِينُ. إذا كانَ ما قالَ يُشْبِهُ قِراضَ مِثْلِهِ. وكانَ ذَلِكَ نَحْوًا مِمّا يَتَقارَضُ عَلَيْهِ النّاسُ. وإنْ جاءَ بِأمْرٍ يُسْتَنْكَرُ، لَيْسَ عَلى مِثْلِهِ يَتَقارَضُ النّاسُ، لَمْ يُصَدَّقْ ورُدَّ إلى قِراضِ مِثْلِهِ» قالَ مالِكٌ: فِي رَجُلٍ أعْطى رَجُلًا مِائَةَ دِينارٍ قِراضًا فاشْتَرى بِها سِلْعَةً. ثُمَّ ذَهَبَ لِيَدْفَعَ إلى رَبِّ السِّلْعَةِ المِائَةَ دِينارٍ. فَوَجَدَها قَدْ سُرِقَتْ. فَقالَ رَبُّ المالِ: بِعِ السِّلْعَةَ. فَإنْ كانَ فِيها فَضْلٌ كانَ لِي، وإنْ كانَ فِيها نُقْصانٌ كانَ عَلَيْكَ. لِأنَّكَ أنْتَ ضَيَّعْتَ. وقالَ المُقارَضُ:-[٧٠٢]- بَلْ عَلَيْكَ وفاءُ حَقِّ هَذا، إنَّما اشْتَرَيْتُها بِمالِكَ الَّذِي أعْطَيْتَنِي، قالَ مالِكٌ: «يَلْزَمُ العامِلَ المُشْتَرِيَ أداءُ ثَمَنِها إلى البائِعِ، ويُقالُ لِصاحِبِ المالِ القِراضِ: إنْ شِئْتَ فَأدِّ المِائَةَ الدِّينارِ إلى المُقارَضِ، والسِّلْعَةُ بَيْنَكُما. وتَكُونُ قِراضًا عَلى ما كانَتْ عَلَيْهِ المِائَةُ الأُولى. وإنْ شِئْتَ فابْرَأْ مِنَ السِّلْعَةِ، فَإنْ دَفَعَ المِائَةَ دِينارٍ إلى العامِلِ كانَتْ قِراضًا عَلى سُنَّةِ القِراضِ الأوَّلِ. وإنْ أبى كانَتِ السِّلْعَةُ لِلْعامِلِ وكانَ عَلَيْهِ ثَمَنُها» قالَ مالِكٌ: فِي المُتَقارِضَيْنِ إذا تَفاصَلا فَبَقِيَ بِيَدِ العامِلِ مِنَ المَتاعِ الَّذِي يَعْمَلُ فِيهِ خَلَقُ القِرْبَةِ أوْ خَلَقُ الثَّوْبِ أوْ ما أشْبَهَ ذَلِكَ. قالَ مالِكٌ: كُلُّ شَيْءٍ مِن ذَلِكَ كانَ تافِهًا، لا خَطْبَ لَهُ، فَهُوَ لِلْعامِلِ. ولَمْ أسْمَعْ أحَدًا أفْتى بِرَدِّ ذَلِكَ. وإنَّما يُرَدُّ، مِن ذَلِكَ الشَّيْءُ الَّذِي لَهُ ثَمَنٌ، وإنْ كانَ شَيْئًا لَهُ اسْمٌ مِثْلُ الدّابَّةِ أوِ الجَمَلِ أوِ الشّاذَكُونَةِ. أوْ أشْباهِ ذَلِكَ مِمّا لَهُ ثَمَنٌ. فَإنِّي أرى أنْ يَرُدَّ ما بَقِيَ عِنْدَهُ مِن هَذا. إلّا أنْ يَتَحَلَّلَ صاحِبَهُ مِن ذَلِكَ۔»

Malik said, "That is the sunna about which there is no dispute among us."

قالَ مالِكٌ: «وعَلى ذَلِكَ السُّنَّةُ الَّتِي لا اخْتِلافَ فِيها عِنْدَنا»

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

قالَ يَحْيى: قالَ مالِكٌ فِي «الرَّجُلِ يَهْلِكُ ولَهُ دَيْنٌ، عَلَيْهِ شاهِدٌ واحِدٌ، وعَلَيْهِ دَيْنٌ لِلنّاسِ، لَهُمْ فِيهِ شاهِدٌ واحِدٌ. فَيَأْبى ورَثَتُهُ أنْ يَحْلِفُوا عَلى حُقُوقِهِمْ مَعَ شاهِدِهِمْ. قالَ: فَإنَّ الغُرَماءَ يَحْلِفُونَ ويَأْخُذُونَ حُقُوقَهُمْ، فَإنْ فَضَلَ فَضْلٌ لَمْ يَكُنْ لِلْوَرَثَةِ مِنهُ شَيْءٌ، وذَلِكَ أنَّ الأيْمانَ عُرِضَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ قَبْلُ، فَتَرَكُوها. إلّا أنْ يَقُولُوا لَمْ نَعْلَمْ لِصاحِبِنا فَضْلًا، ويُعْلَمُ أنَّهُمْ إنَّما تَرَكُوا الأيْمانَ مِن أجْلِ ذَلِكَ. فَإنِّي أرى أنْ يَحْلِفُوا ويَأْخُذُوا ما بَقِيَ بَعْدَ دَيْنِهِ»

Yahya said, "I heard Malik say that if a man pledges his garden for a stated period and the fruits of that garden are ready before the end of that period, the fruits are not included in the pledge with the real estate, unless it is stipulated by the pledger in his pledge. However, if a man receives a slave-girl as a pledge and she is pregnant or she becomes pregnant after his taking her as a pledge, her child is included with her. "A distinction is made between the fruit and the child of the slave-girl. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, 'If someone sells a palm which has been pollinated, the fruit belongs to the seller unless the buyer stipulates its inclusion.' The undisputed way of doing things in our community is that if a man sells a slave-girl or an animal with a foetus in its womb, the foetus belongs to the buyer, whether or not the buyer stipulates it. The palm is not like the animal. Fruit is not like the foetus in its mother's womb. Part of what clarifies that is also that it is the usage of people to have a man pawn the fruit of the palm apart from the palm. No one pawns the foetus in its mother's womb whether of slaves or animals."

قالَ يَحْيى: سَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ، فِيمَن رَهَنَ حائِطًا لَهُ إلى أجَلٍ مُسَمًّى، فَيَكُونُ ثَمَرُ ذَلِكَ الحائِطِ قَبْلَ ذَلِكَ الأجَلِ: إنَّ الثَّمَرَ لَيْسَ بِرَهْنٍ مَعَ الأصْلِ، إلّا أنْ يَكُونَ اشْتَرَطَ ذَلِكَ، المُرْتَهِنُ فِي رَهْنِهِ. وإنَّ الرَّجُلَ إذا ارْتَهَنَ جارِيَةً وهِيَ حامِلٌ، أوْ حَمَلَتْ بَعْدَ ارْتِهانِهِ إيّاها: إنَّ ولَدَها مَعَها «قالَ مالِكٌ:»وفُرِقَ بَيْنَ الثَّمَرِ وبَيْنَ ولَدِ الجارِيَةِ. أنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ﷺ قالَ: «مَن باعَ نَخْلًا قَدْ أُبِّرَتْ فَثَمَرُها لِلْبائِعِ، إلّا أنْ يَشْتَرِطَهُ المُبْتاعُ»، قالَ: والأمْرُ الَّذِي لا اخْتِلافَ فِيهِ عِنْدَنا، أنَّ مَن باعَ ولِيدَةً، أوْ شَيْئًا مِنَ الحَيَوانِ، وفِي بَطْنِها جَنِينٌ، أنَّ ذَلِكَ الجَنِينَ لِلْمُشْتَرِي، اشْتَرَطَهُ المُشْتَرِي أوْ لَمْ يَشْتَرِطْهُ، فَلَيْسَتِ النَّخْلُ مِثْلَ الحَيَوانِ، ولَيْسَ الثَّمَرُ مِثْلَ الجَنِينِ فِي بَطْنِ أُمِّهِ «-[٧٣٠]- قالَ مالِكٌ:»ومِمّا يُبَيِّنُ ذَلِكَ أيْضًا: أنَّ مِن أمْرِ النّاسِ أنْ يَرْهَنَ الرَّجُلُ ثَمَرَ النَّخْلِ، ولا يَرْهَنُ النَّخْلَ، ولَيْسَ يَرْهَنُ أحَدٌ مِنَ النّاسِ جَنِينًا فِي بَطْنِ أُمِّهِ مِنَ الرَّقِيقِ، ولا مِنَ الدَّوابِّ۔»

Yahya said that he had heard Malik say, "The undisputed way of doing things in our community concerning pledges is that in cases where land or a house or an animal are known to have been destroyed whilst in the possession of the broker of the pledge, and the circumstances of the loss are known, the loss is against the pledger. There is no deduction made from what is due to the broker at all. Any pledge which perishes in the possession of the broker and the circumstances of its loss are only known by his word, the loss is against the broker and he is liable for its value. He is asked to describe whatever was destroyed and then he is made to take an oath about that description and what he loaned on security for it. "Then people of discernment evaluate the description. If the pledge was worth more than what the broker loaned, the pledger takes the extra. If the assessed value of the pledge is less than what he was loaned, the pledger is made to take an oath as to what the broker loaned and he does not have to pay the extra which the broker loaned above the assessed value of the pledge. If the pledger refuses to take an oath, he has to give the broker the extra above the assessed value of the pledge. If the broker says that he doesn't know the value of the pledge, the pledger is made to take an oath on the description of the pledge and that is his if he brings a matter which is not disapproved of." Malik said, "All this applies when the broker takes the pledge and does not put it in the hands of another."

قالَ يَحْيى: سَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ: «الأمْرُ الَّذِي لا اخْتِلافَ فِيهِ عِنْدَنا فِي الرَّهْنِ، أنَّ ما كانَ مِن أمْرٍ يُعْرَفُ هَلاكُهُ مِن أرْضٍ، أوْ دارٍ أوْ حَيَوانٍ، فَهَلَكَ فِي يَدِ المُرْتَهِنِ، وعُلِمَ هَلاكُهُ فَهُوَ مِنَ الرّاهِنِ، وإنَّ ذَلِكَ لا يَنْقُصُ مِن حَقِّ المُرْتَهِنِ شَيْئًا، وما كانَ مِن رَهْنٍ يَهْلِكُ فِي يَدِ المُرْتَهِنِ، فَلا يُعْلَمُ هَلاكُهُ إلّا بِقَوْلِهِ، فَهُوَ مِنَ المُرْتَهِنِ. وهُوَ لِقِيمَتِهِ ضامِنٌ. يُقالُ لَهُ: صِفْهُ. فَإذا وصَفَهُ، أُحْلِفَ عَلى صِفَتِهِ، وتَسْمِيَةِ مالِهِ فِيهِ، ثُمَّ يُقَوِّمُهُ أهْلُ البَصَرِ بِذَلِكَ، فَإنْ كانَ فِيهِ فَضْلٌ عَمّا سَمّى فِيهِ المُرْتَهِنُ، أخَذَهُ الرّاهِنُ. وإنْ كانَ أقَلَّ مِمّا سَمّى، أُحْلِفَ الرّاهِنُ عَلى ما سَمّى المُرْتَهِنُ، وبَطَلَ عَنْهُ الفَضْلُ الَّذِي سَمّى المُرْتَهِنُ، فَوْقَ قِيمَةِ الرَّهْنِ. وإنْ أبى الرّاهِنُ أنْ يَحْلِفَ، أُعْطِيَ المُرْتَهِنُ ما فَضَلَ بَعْدَ قِيمَةِ الرَّهْنِ. فَإنْ قالَ المُرْتَهِنُ: لا عِلْمَ لِي بِقِيمَةِ الرَّهْنِ. حُلِّفَ الرّاهِنُ عَلى صِفَةِ الرَّهْنِ، وكانَ ذَلِكَ لَهُ، إذا جاءَ بِالأمْرِ الَّذِي لا يُسْتَنْكَرُ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «وذَلِكَ إذا قَبَضَ المُرْتَهِنُ الرَّهْنَ. ولَمْ يَضَعْهُ عَلى يَدَيْ غَيْرِهِ»

Yahya said that he heard Malik speak about two men who had a pledge between them. One of them undertook to sell his pledge, and the other one had asked him to wait a year for his due. He said, "If it is possible to divide the pledge, and the due of the one who asked him to wait will not be decreased, half the pledge which is between them is sold for him and he is given his due. If it is feared that his right will be decreased, all the pledge is sold, and the one who undertook to sell his pledge is given his due from that. If the one who asked him to wait for his due is pleased in himself, half of the price is paid to the pledger. If not, the pledgee is made to take an oath that he only asked him to wait so that he could transfer my pledge to me in its form.' Then he is given his due immediately." Yahya said that he heard Malik say about a slave whose master had pledged him and the slave had property of his own, "The property of the slave is not part of the pledge unless the broker stipulates that."

قالَ يَحْيى، سَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ: وفِي الرَّجُلَيْنِ يَكُونُ لَهُما رَهْنٌ بَيْنَهُما. فَيَقُومُ أحَدُهُما بِبَيْعِ رَهْنِهِ. وقَدْ كانَ الآخَرُ أنْظَرَهُ بحَقِّهِ سَنَةً. قالَ: «إنْ كانَ يَقْدِرُ عَلى أنْ يُقْسَمَ الرَّهْنُ. ولا يَنْقُصَ حَقُّ الَّذِي أنْظَرَهُ بِحَقِّهِ، بِيعَ لَهُ نِصْفُ الرَّهْنِ الَّذِي كانَ بَيْنَهُما. فَأُوفِيَ حَقَّهُ. وإنْ خِيفَ أنْ يَنْقُصَ حَقُّهُ. بِيعَ الرَّهْنُ كُلُّهُ. فَأُعْطِيَ الَّذِي قامَ بِبَيْعِ رَهْنِهِ، حَقَّهُ مِن ذَلِكَ. فَإنْ طابَتْ نَفْسُ الَّذِي أنْظَرَهُ بِحَقِّهِ، أنْ يَدْفَعَ نِصْفَ الثَّمَنِ إلى الرّاهِنِ. وإلّا حُلِّفَ المُرْتَهِنُ، أنَّهُ ما أنْظَرَهُ إلّا لِيُوقِفَ لِي رَهْنِي عَلى هَيْئَتِهِ. ثُمَّ أُعْطِيَ حَقَّهُ عاجِلًا» قالَ: وسَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ، فِي العَبْدِ يَرْهَنُهُ سَيِّدُهُ، ولِلْعَبْدِ مالٌ: «إنَّ مالَ العَبْدِ لَيْسَ بِرَهْنٍ. إلّا أنْ يَشْتَرِطَهُ المُرْتَهِنُ»

Yahya said that he heard Malik speak about someone who pledged goods as security for a loan, and they perished with the broker. The one who took out the loan confirmed its specification. They agreed on the amount of the loan, but challenged each other about the value of the pledge, the pledger saying that it had been worth twenty dinars, whilst the broker said that it had been worth only ten, and that the amount loaned on security was twenty dinars. Malik said, "It is said to the one in whose hand the pledge is, 'describe it.' If he describes it he is made to take an oath on it and then the people of experience evaluate that description. If the value is more than what was loaned on security for it, it is said to the broker, 'Return the rest of his due to the pledger.' If the value is less than what was loaned on security for it, the broker takes the rest of his due from the pledger. If the value is the exact amount of the loan, the pledge is compensated for by the loan." Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about two men who have a dispute about an amount of money loaned on the security of a pledge - the pledger claiming that he pledged it for ten dinars and the broker insisting that he took the pledge as security for twenty dinars, and the pledge is clearly in the possession of the broker - is that the broker is made to take an oath when the value of the pledge is fully known. If the value of the pledge is exactly what he swore that he had loaned on security for it, the broker takes the pledge as his right. He is more entitled to take precedence with an oath since he has possession of the pledge. If the owner of the pledge wants to give him the amount which he swore that he was owed, he can take the pledge back. If the pledge is worth less than the twenty dinars he loaned, then it is said to the pledger, 'Either you give him what he has sworn to and take your pledge back, or you swear to what you said you pledged it for.' If the pledger takes the oath, then what the broker has increased over the value of the pledge will become invalid. If the pledger does not take an oath, he must pay what the broker swore to." Malik said, "If a pledge given on security for a loan perishes, and both parties deny each other's rights, with the broker who is owed the loan saying that he gave twenty dinars, and the pledger who owes the loan saying that he was given only ten, and with the broker who is owed the loan saying the pledge was worth ten dinars, and the broker who owes the loan saying it was worth twenty, then the broker who is owed the loan is asked to describe the pledge. If he describes it, he must take an oath on its description. Then people with experience of it evaluate that description. If the value of the pledge is estimated to be more than what the broker claims it was, he takes an oath as to what he claimed, and the pledger is given what is over from the value of the pledge. If its value is less than what the broker claims of it, he is made to take an oath as to what he claims is his. Then he demands settlement according to the actual value of the pledge. The one who owes the loan is then made to take an oath on the extra amount which remains owing against him to the claimant after the price of the pledge is reached. That is because the broker becomes a claimant against the pledger. If he takes an oath, the rest of what the broker swore to of what he claimed above the value of the pledge is invalidated. If he draws back, he is bound to pay what remains due to the broker after the value of the pledge."

قالَ يَحْيى: سَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ، فِيمَنِ ارْتَهَنَ مَتاعًا فَهَلَكَ المَتاعُ عِنْدَ المُرْتَهِنِ. وأقَرَّ الَّذِي عَلَيْهِ الحَقُّ بِتَسْمِيَةِ الحَقِّ. واجْتَمَعا عَلى التَّسْمِيَةِ. وتَداعَيا فِي الرَّهْنِ. فَقالَ الرّاهِنُ: قِيمَتُهُ عِشْرُونَ دِينارًا. وقالَ المُرْتَهِنُ: قِيمَتُهُ عَشَرَةُ دَنانِيرَ، والحَقُّ الَّذِي لِلرَّجُلِ فِيهِ عِشْرُونَ دِينارًا قالَ مالِكٌ: «يُقالُ لِلَّذِي بِيَدِهِ الرَّهْنُ: صِفْهُ. فَإذا وصَفَهُ، أُحْلِفَ عَلَيْهِ. ثُمَّ أقامَ تِلْكَ الصِّفَةَ أهْلُ المَعْرِفَةِ بِها. فَإنْ كانَتِ القِيمَةُ أكْثَرَ مِمّا رُهِنَ بِهِ. قِيلَ لِلْمُرْتَهِنِ: ارْدُدْ إلى الرّاهِنِ بَقِيَّةَ حَقِّهِ، وإنْ كانَتِ القِيمَةُ أقَلَّ مِمّا رُهِنَ بِهِ، أخَذَ المُرْتَهِنُ بَقِيَّةَ حَقِّهِ مِنَ الرّاهِنِ، وإنْ كانَتِ القِيمَةُ بِقَدْرِ حَقِّهِ، فالرَّهْنُ بِما فِيهِ» قالَ يَحْيى: وسَمِعْتُ مالِكًا: يَقُولُ: «الأمْرُ عِنْدَنا فِي الرَّجُلَيْنِ يَخْتَلِفانِ فِي الرَّهْنِ. يَرْهَنُهُ أحَدُهُما صاحِبَهُ، فَيَقُولُ الرّاهِنُ: أرْهَنْتُكَهُ بِعَشَرَةِ دَنانِيرَ، ويَقُولُ المُرْتَهِنُ: ارْتَهَنْتُهُ مِنكَ بِعِشْرِينَ دِينارًا. والرَّهْنُ ظاهِرٌ بِيَدِ المُرْتَهِنِ. قالَ: يُحَلَّفُ المُرْتَهِنُ حَتّى يُحِيطَ بِقِيمَةِ الرَّهْنِ. فَإنْ كانَ ذَلِكَ. لا زِيادَةَ فِيهِ ولا نُقْصانَ عَمّا حُلِّفَ أنَّ لَهُ فِيهِ، أخَذَهُ المُرْتَهِنُ بِحَقِّهِ. وكانَ أوْلى بِالتَّبْدِئَةِ بِاليَمِينِ. لِقَبْضِهِ الرَّهْنَ وحِيازَتِهِ إيّاهُ، إلّا أنْ يَشاءَ رَبُّ الرَّهْنِ أنْ يُعْطِيَهُ حَقَّهُ الَّذِي حُلِّفَ عَلَيْهِ. ويَأْخُذَ رَهْنَهُ» قالَ: «وإنْ كانَ الرَّهْنُ أقَلَّ مِنَ العِشْرِينَ الَّتِي سَمّى، أُحْلِفَ المُرْتَهِنُ عَلى العِشْرِينَ الَّتِي سَمّى، ثُمَّ يُقالُ لِلرّاهِنِ: إمّا أنْ تُعْطِيَهُ الَّذِي حَلَفَ عَلَيْهِ، وتَأْخُذَ رَهْنَكَ، وإمّا أنْ تَحْلِفَ عَلى الَّذِي قُلْتَ أنَّكَ رَهَنْتَهُ بِهِ، ويَبْطُلُ عَنْكَ ما زادَ المُرْتَهِنُ عَلى قِيمَةِ الرَّهْنِ، فَإنْ حَلَفَ الرّاهِنُ بَطَلَ ذَلِكَ عَنْهُ، وإنْ لَمْ يَحْلِفْ لَزِمَهُ غُرْمُ ما حَلَفَ عَلَيْهِ المُرْتَهِنُ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «فَإنْ هَلَكَ الرَّهْنُ، وتَناكَرا الحَقَّ، فَقالَ الَّذِي لَهُ الحَقُّ: كانَتْ لِي فِيهِ عِشْرُونَ دِينارًا. وقالَ الَّذِي عَلَيْهِ الحَقُّ: لَمْ يَكُنْ لَكَ فِيهِ إلّا عَشَرَةُ دَنانِيرَ. وقالَ الَّذِي لَهُ الحَقُّ: قِيمَةُ الرَّهْنِ عَشَرَةُ دَنانِيرَ. وقالَ الَّذِي عَلَيْهِ الحَقُّ: قِيمَتُهُ عِشْرُونَ دِينارًا، قِيلَ لِلَّذِي لَهُ الحَقُّ: صِفْهُ. فَإذا وصَفَهُ أُحْلِفَ عَلى صِفَتِهِ، ثُمَّ أقامَ تِلْكَ الصِّفَةَ أهْلُ المَعْرِفَةِ بِها، فَإنْ كانَتْ قِيمَةُ -[٧٣٣]- الرَّهْنِ أكْثَرَ مِمّا ادَّعى فِيهِ المُرْتَهِنُ، أُحْلِفَ عَلى ما ادَّعى، ثُمَّ يُعْطى الرّاهِنُ ما فَضَلَ مِن قِيمَةِ الرَّهْنِ، وإنْ كانَتْ قِيمَتُهُ أقَلَّ مِمّا يَدَّعِي فِيهِ المُرْتَهِنُ، أُحْلِفَ عَلى الَّذِي زَعَمَ أنَّهُ لَهُ فِيهِ، ثُمَّ قاصَّهُ بِما بَلَغَ الرَّهْنُ، ثُمَّ أُحْلِفَ الَّذِي عَلَيْهِ الحَقُّ عَلى الفَضْلِ الَّذِي بَقِيَ لِلْمُدَّعى عَلَيْهِ، بَعْدَ مَبْلَغِ ثَمَنِ الرَّهْنِ، وذَلِكَ أنَّ الَّذِي بِيَدِهِ الرَّهْنُ صارَ مُدَّعِيًا عَلى الرّاهِنِ، فَإنْ حَلَفَ بَطَلَ عَنْهُ بَقِيَّةُ ما حَلَفَ عَلَيْهِ المُرْتَهِنُ مِمّا ادَّعى فَوْقَ قِيمَةِ الرَّهْنِ، وإنْ نَكَلَ لَزِمَهُ ما بَقِيَ مِن حَقِّ المُرْتَهِنِ بَعْدَ قِيمَةِ الرَّهْنِ»

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about a man who rents an animal for a journey to a specified place and then he goes beyond that place and further, is that the owner of the animal has a choice. If he wants to take extra rent for his animal to cover the distance overstepped, he is given that on top of the first rent and the animal is returned. If the owner of the animal likes to sell the animal from the place where he over-steps, he has the price of the animal on top of the rent. If, however, the hirer rented the animal to go and return and then he overstepped when he reached the city to which he rented him, the owner of the animal only has half the first rent. That is because half of the rent is going, and half of it is returning. If he oversteps with the animal, only half of the first rent is obliged for him. Had the animal died when he reached the city to which it was rented, the hirer would not be liable and the renter would only have half the rent." Malik said, "That is what is done with people who overstep and dispute about what they took the animal for." Malik said, "It is also like that with some one who takes qirad-money from his companion. The owner of the property says to him, 'Do not buy such-and-such animals or such- and-such goods.' He names them and forbids them and disapproves of his money being invested in them. The one who takes the money then buys what he was forbidden. By that, he intends to be liable for the money and take the profit of his companion. When he does that, the owner of the money has an option. If he wants to enter with him in the goods according to the original stipulations between them about the profit, he does so. If he likes, he has his capital guaranteed against the one who took the capital and over stepped the mark." Malik said, "It is also like that with a man with whom another man invests some goods. The owner of the property orders him to buy certain goods for him which he names. He differs, and buys with the goods something other than what he was ordered to buy. He exceeded his orders. The owner of the goods has an option. If he wants to take what was bought with his property, he takes it. If he wants the partner to be liable for his capital he has that."

قالَ يَحْيى: سَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ: «الأمْرُ عِنْدَنا فِي الرَّجُلِ يَسْتَكْرِي الدّابَّةَ إلى المَكانِ المُسَمّى. ثُمَّ يَتَعَدّى ذَلِكَ المَكانَ ويَتَقَدَّمُ: إنَّ رَبَّ الدّابَّةِ يُخَيَّرُ، فَإنْ أحَبَّ أنْ يَأْخُذَ كِراءَ دابَّتِهِ إلى المَكانِ الَّذِي تُعُدِّيَ بِها إلَيْهِ، أُعْطِيَ ذَلِكَ. ويَقْبِضُ دابَّتَهُ. ولَهُ الكِراءُ الأوَّلُ. وإنْ أحَبَّ رَبُّ الدّابَّةِ، فَلَهُ قِيمَةُ دابَّتِهِ مِنَ المَكانِ الَّذِي تَعَدّى مِنهُ المُسْتَكْرِي، ولَهُ الكِراءُ الأوَّلُ. إنْ كانَ اسْتَكْرى الدّابَّةَ البَدْأةَ. فَإنْ كانَ اسْتَكْراها ذاهِبًا وراجِعًا، ثُمَّ تَعَدّى حِينَ بَلَغَ البَلَدَ الَّذِي اسْتَكْرى إلَيْهِ، فَإنَّما لِرَبِّ الدّابَّةِ نِصْفُ الكِراءِ الأوَّلِ، وذَلِكَ أنَّ الكِراءَ نِصْفُهُ فِي البَدْأةِ، ونِصْفُهُ فِي الرَّجْعَةِ. فَتَعَدّى المُتَعَدِّي بِالدّابَّةِ، ولَمْ يَجِبْ عَلَيْهِ -[٧٣٤]- إلّا نِصْفُ الكِراءِ الأوَّلِ. ولَوْ أنَّ الدّابَّةَ هَلَكَتْ حِينَ بَلَغَ بِها البَلَدَ الَّذِي اسْتَكْرى إلَيْهِ. لَمْ يَكُنْ عَلى المُسْتَكْرِي ضَمانٌ. ولَمْ يَكُنْ لِلْمُكْرِي، إلّا نِصْفُ الكِراءِ». قالَ: «وعَلى ذَلِكَ أمْرُ أهْلِ التَّعَدِّي والخِلافِ، لِما أخَذُوا الدّابَّةَ عَلَيْهِ» قالَ: «وكَذَلِكَ أيْضًا مَن أخَذَ مالًا قِراضًا مِن صاحِبِهِ، فَقالَ لَهُ رَبُّ المالِ: لا تَشْتَرِ بِهِ حَيَوانًا ولا سِلَعًا كَذا وكَذا لِسِلَعٍ يُسَمِّيها، ويَنْهاهُ عَنْها، ويَكْرَهُ أنْ يَضَعَ مالَهُ فِيها، فَيَشْتَرِي الَّذِي أخَذَ المالَ الَّذِي نُهِيَ عَنْهُ، يُرِيدُ بِذَلِكَ أنْ يَضْمَنَ المالَ، ويَذْهَبَ بِرِبْحِ صاحِبِهِ، فَإذا صَنَعَ ذَلِكَ فَرَبُّ المالِ بِالخِيارِ، إنْ أحَبَّ أنْ يَدْخُلَ مَعَهُ فِي السِّلْعَةِ عَلى ما شَرَطا بَيْنَهُما مِنَ الرِّبْحِ، فَعَلَ. وإنْ أحَبَّ، فَلَهُ رَأْسُ مالِهِ ضامِنًا عَلى الَّذِي أخَذَ المالَ وتَعَدّى» قالَ: «وكَذَلِكَ أيْضًا، الرَّجُلُ يُبْضِعُ مَعَهُ الرَّجُلُ بِضاعَةً، فَيَأْمُرُهُ صاحِبُ المالِ أنْ يَشْتَرِيَ لَهُ سِلْعَةً بِاسْمِها. فَيُخالِفُ فَيَشْتَرِي بِبِضاعَتِهِ غَيْرَ ما أمَرَهُ بِهِ، ويَتَعَدّى ذَلِكَ. فَإنَّ صاحِبَ البِضاعَةِ عَلَيْهِ بِالخِيارِ. إنْ أحَبَّ أنْ يَأْخُذَ ما اشْتُرِيَ بِمالِهِ، أخَذَهُ. وإنْ أحَبَّ أنْ يَكُونَ المُبْضِعُ مَعَهُ ضامِنًا لِرَأْسِ مالِهِ، فَذَلِكَ لَهُ»

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about someone who consumed an animal without the permission of its owner, is that he must pay its price on the day he consumed it. He is not obliged to replace it with a similar animal nor does he compensate the owner with any kind of animal. He must pay its price on the day it was consumed, and giving the value is more equitable in compensation for animals and goods." Yahya said that he heard Malik say about someone who consumes some food without the permission of its owner, "He returns to the owner a like weight of the same kind of food. Food is in the position of gold and silver. Gold and silver are returned with gold and silver. The animal is not in the position of gold in that. What distinguishes between them is the sunna and the behaviour which is in force. Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "If a man is entrusted with some wealth and then trades with it for himself and makes a profit, the profit is his because he is responsible for the property until he returns it to its owner. "

قالَ يَحْيى: سَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ: «الأمْرُ عِنْدَنا فِيمَنِ اسْتَهْلَكَ شَيْئًا مِنَ الحَيَوانِ بِغَيْرِ إذْنِ صاحِبِهِ، أنَّ عَلَيْهِ قِيمَتَهُ يَوْمَ اسْتَهْلَكَهُ، لَيْسَ عَلَيْهِ أنْ يُؤْخَذَ بِمِثْلِهِ مِنَ الحَيَوانِ، ولا يَكُونُ لَهُ أنْ يُعْطِيَ صاحِبَهُ، فِيما اسْتَهْلَكَ شَيْئًا مِنَ الحَيَوانِ، ولَكِنْ عَلَيْهِ قِيمَتُهُ يَوْمَ اسْتَهْلَكَهُ، القِيمَةُ أعْدَلُ ذَلِكَ فِيما بَيْنَهُما فِي الحَيَوانِ والعُرُوضِ» قالَ: وسَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ: فِيمَنِ اسْتَهْلَكَ شَيْئًا مِنَ الطَّعامِ بِغَيْرِ إذْنِ صاحِبِهِ فَإنَّما «يَرُدُّ عَلى صاحِبِهِ، مِثْلَ طَعامِهِ بِمَكِيلَتِهِ مِن صِنْفِهِ، وإنَّما الطَّعامُ بِمَنزِلَةِ الذَّهَبِ والفِضَّةِ، إنَّما يَرُدُّ مِنَ الذَّهَبِ الذَّهَبَ، ومِنَ الفِضَّةِ الفِضَّةَ، ولَيْسَ الحَيَوانُ بِمَنزِلَةِ الذَّهَبِ فِي ذَلِكَ. فَرَقَ بَيْنَ ذَلِكَ السُّنَّةُ، والعَمَلُ المَعْمُولُ بِهِ» قالَ يَحْيى، وسَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ: «إذا اسْتُودِعَ الرَّجُلُ مالًا فابْتاعَ بِهِ لِنَفْسِهِ ورَبِحَ فِيهِ. فَإنَّ ذَلِكَ الرِّبْحَ لَهُ، لِأنَّهُ ضامِنٌ لِلْمالِ. حَتّى يُؤَدِّيَهُ إلى صاحِبِهِ»

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "The way of doing things generally agreed upon in our community in the case of a man who dies and has sons and one of them claims, 'My father confirmed that so-and- so was his son,' is that the relationship is not established by the testimony of one man, and the confirmation of the one who confirmed it is only permitted as regards his own share in the division of his father's property. The one testified for is only given his due from the share of the testifier." Malik said, "An example of this is that a man dies leaving two sons, and 600 dinars. Each of them takes 300 dinars. Then one of them testifies that his deceased father confirmed that so-and-so was his son. The one who testifies is obliged to give 100 dinars to the one thus connected. This is half of the inheritance of the one thought to be related, had he been related. If the other confirms him, he takes the other 100 and so he completes his right and his relationship is established. His position is similar to that of a woman who confirms a debt against her father or her husband and the other heirs deny it. She must pay to the person whose debt she confirms, the amount according to her share of the full debt, had it been confirmed against all the heirs. If the woman inherits an eighth, she pays the creditor an eighth of his debt. If a daughter inherits a half, she pays the creditor half of his debt. Whichever women confirm him, pay him according to this. Malik said, "If a man's testimony is in agreement with what the woman testified to, that so- and-so had a debt against his father, the creditor is made to take an oath with one witness and he is given all his due. This is not the position with women because a man's testimony is allowed and the creditor must take an oath with the testimony of his witness, and take all his due. If he does not take an oath, he only takes from the inheritance of the one who confirmed him according to his share of the debt, because he confirmed his right and the other heirs denied it. It is permitted for him to confirm it."

قالَ يَحْيى: سَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ: «الأمْرُ المُجْتَمَعُ عَلَيْهِ عِنْدَنا، فِي الرَّجُلِ يَهْلِكُ ولَهُ بَنُونَ. فَيَقُولُ أحَدُهُمْ: قَدْ أقَرَّ أبِي أنَّ فُلانًا ابْنُهُ: إنَّ ذَلِكَ النَّسَبَ لا يَثْبُتُ بِشَهادَةِ إنْسانٍ واحِدٍ. ولا يَجُوزُ إقْرارُ الَّذِي أقَرَّ إلّا عَلى نَفْسِهِ فِي حِصَّتِهِ مِن مالِ أبِيهِ. يُعْطى الَّذِي شَهِدَ لَهُ قَدْرَ ما يُصِيبُهُ مِنَ المالِ الَّذِي بِيَدِهِ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «وتَفْسِيرُ ذَلِكَ أنْ يَهْلِكَ الرَّجُلُ، ويَتْرُكَ ابْنَيْنِ لَهُ، ويَتْرُكَ سِتَّمِائَةِ دِينارٍ، فَيَأْخُذُ كُلُّ واحِدٍ مِنهُما ثَلاثَمِائَةِ دِينارٍ، ثُمَّ يَشْهَدُ أحَدُهُما أنَّ أباهُ الهالِكَ أقَرَّ أنَّ فُلانًا ابْنُهُ. فَيَكُونُ عَلى الَّذِي شَهِدَ لِلَّذِي اسْتُلْحِقَ، مِائَةُ دِينارٍ. وذَلِكَ نِصْفُ مِيراثِ المُسْتَلْحَقِ، لَوْ لَحِقَ. ولَوْ أقَرَّ لَهُ الآخَرُ أخَذَ المِائَةَ الأُخْرى. فاسْتَكْمَلَ حَقَّهُ وثَبَتَ نَسَبُهُ. وهُوَ أيْضًا بِمَنزِلَةِ -[٧٤٢]- المَرْأةِ تُقِرُّ بِالدَّيْنِ عَلى أبِيها أوْ عَلى زَوْجِها. ويُنْكِرُ ذَلِكَ الوَرَثَةُ، فَعَلَيْها أنْ تَدْفَعَ إلى الَّذِي أقَرَّتْ لَهُ بِالدَّيْنِ قَدْرَ الَّذِي يُصِيبُها مِن ذَلِكَ الدَّيْنِ. لَوْ ثَبَتَ عَلى الوَرَثَةِ كُلِّهِمْ. إنْ كانَتِ امْرَأةً ورِثَتِ الثُّمُنَ، دَفَعَتْ إلى الغَرِيمِ ثُمُنَ دَيْنِهِ، وإنْ كانَتِ ابْنَةً ورِثَتِ النِّصْفَ، دَفَعَتْ إلى الغَرِيمِ نِصْفَ دَيْنِهِ. عَلى حِسابِ هَذا يَدْفَعُ إلَيْهِ مَن أقَرَّ لَهُ مِنَ النِّساءِ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «وإنْ شَهِدَ رَجُلٌ عَلى مِثْلِ ما شَهِدَتْ بِهِ المَرْأةُ أنَّ لِفُلانٍ عَلى أبِيهِ دَيْنًا. أُحْلِفَ صاحِبُ الدَّيْنِ مَعَ شَهادَةِ شاهِدِهِ. وأُعْطِيَ الغَرِيمُ حَقَّهُ كُلَّهُ. ولَيْسَ هَذا بِمَنزِلَةِ المَرْأةِ. لِأنَّ الرَّجُلَ تَجُوزُ شَهادَتُهُ. ويَكُونُ عَلى صاحِبِ الدَّيْنِ، مَعَ شَهادَةِ شاهِدِهِ، أنْ يَحْلِفَ. ويَأْخُذَ حَقَّهُ كُلَّهُ. فَإنْ لَمْ يَحْلِفْ أخَذَ مِن مِيراثِ الَّذِي أقَرَّ لَهُ، قَدْرَ ما يُصِيبُهُ مِن ذَلِكَ الدَّيْنِ. لِأنَّهُ أقَرَّ بِحَقِّهِ. وأنْكَرَ الوَرَثَةُ. وجازَ عَلَيْهِ إقْرارُهُ»

Yahya said that he heard Malik speak about a man who died and left properties in Aliya and Safila (outlying districts of Madina). He said, "Unirrigated naturally watered land is not in the same category as irrigated land unless the family are satisfied with that. Unirrigated land is only in the same category as land with a spring when it resembles it. When the properties are in one land, and are close together, each individual property is evaluated and then divided between the heirs. Dwellings and houses are in the same position."

قَالَ يَحْيَى سَمِعْتُ مَالِكًا يَقُولُ فِيمَنْ هَلَكَ وَتَرَكَ أَمْوَالاً بِالْعَالِيَةِ وَالسَّافِلَةِ إِنَّ الْبَعْلَ لاَ يُقْسَمُ مَعَ النَّضْحِ إِلاَّ أَنْ يَرْضَى أَهْلُهُ بِذَلِكَ وَإِنَّ الْبَعْلَ يُقْسَمُ مَعَ الْعَيْنِ إِذَا كَانَ يُشْبِهُهَا وَأَنَّ الأَمْوَالَ إِذَا كَانَتْ بِأَرْضٍ وَاحِدَةٍ الَّذِي بَيْنَهُمَا مُتَقَارِبٌ أَنَّهُ يُقَامُ كُلُّ مَالٍ مِنْهَا ثُمَّ يُقْسَمُ بَيْنَهُمْ وَالْمَسَاكِنُ وَالدُّورُ بِهَذِهِ الْمَنْزِلَةِ

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about injury to a domestic animal, is that the one who injures it must pay the amount by which he has diminished the animal's price." Yahya said that he heard Malik speak about a camel who attacked a man and he feared for himself and killed it or hamstrung it. He said, "If he has a clear proof that it was heading for him and had attacked him, there are no damages against him. If there is no clear proof except his word, he is responsible for the camel."

قالَ يَحْيى: سَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ: «الأمْرُ عِنْدَنا فِيمَن أصابَ شَيْئًا مِنَ البَهائِمِ، إنَّ عَلى الَّذِي أصابَها قَدْرَ ما نَقَصَ مِن ثَمَنِها» -[٧٤٩]- قالَ يَحْيى: وسَمِعْتُ مالِكًا: يَقُولُ فِي الجَمَلِ يَصُولُ عَلى الرَّجُلِ، فَيَخافُهُ عَلى نَفْسِهِ، فَيَقْتُلُهُ أوْ يَعْقِرُهُ، فَإنَّهُ: «إنْ كانَتْ لَهُ بَيِّنَةٌ عَلى أنَّهُ أرادَهُ، وصالَ عَلَيْهِ، فَلا غُرْمَ عَلَيْهِ، وإنْ لَمْ تَقُمْ لَهُ بَيِّنَةٌ إلّا مَقالَتُهُ. فَهُوَ ضامِنٌ لِلْجَمَلِ»

Yahya related that he heard Malik say that if a man gave a washer a garment to dye and he dyed it, and then the owner of the garment said, "I did not order you to use this dye," and the washer protested that he had done so, then the washer was to be believed. It was the same with the tailor and the gold-smith. They took an oath about it unless they produced something they would not normally have been employed to do. In that situation their statement was not allowed and the owner of the garment had to take an oath . If he rejected it and refused to swear, then the dyer was made to take an oath. Yahya said, "I heard Malik speak about a dyer who was given a garment and he made a mistake and gave it to another man and the one to whom he gave it wore it. He said, 'The one who wore it has no damages against him, and the washer pays damages to the owner of the garment. That is when the man wears the garment which was given him without recognizing that it is not his. If he wears it knowing that it is not his garment, he is responsible for it.' "

قالَ يَحْيى: سَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ: «فِيمَن دَفَعَ إلى الغَسّالِ ثَوْبًا يَصْبُغُهُ، فَصَبَغَهُ، فَقالَ صاحِبُ الثَّوْبِ: لَمْ آمُرْكَ بِهَذا الصِّبْغِ؟ وقالَ الغَسّالُ: بَلْ أنْتَ أمَرْتَنِي بِذَلِكَ، فَإنَّ الغَسّالَ مُصَدَّقٌ فِي ذَلِكَ، والخَيّاطُ مِثْلُ ذَلِكَ، والصّائِغُ مِثْلُ ذَلِكَ، ويَحْلِفُونَ عَلى ذَلِكَ، إلّا أنْ يَأْتُوا بِأمْرٍ لا يُسْتَعْمَلُونَ فِي مِثْلِهِ، فَلا يَجُوزُ قَوْلُهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ، ولْيَحْلِفْ صاحِبُ الثَّوْبِ، فَإنْ رَدَّها، وأبى أنْ يَحْلِفَ. حُلِّفَ الصَّبّاغُ» قالَ وسَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ: فِي الصَّبّاغِ يُدْفَعُ إلَيْهِ الثَّوْبُ فَيُخْطِئُ بِهِ، فَيَدْفَعُهُ إلى رَجُلٍ آخَرَ حَتّى يَلْبَسَهُ الَّذِي أعْطاهُ إيّاهُ: «إنَّهُ لا غُرْمَ عَلى الَّذِي لَبِسَهُ، ويَغْرَمُ الغَسّالُ لِصاحِبِ الثَّوْبِ، وذَلِكَ إذا لَبِسَ الثَّوْبَ الَّذِي دُفِعَ إلَيْهِ عَلى غَيْرِ مَعْرِفَةٍ، بِأنَّهُ لَيْسَ لَهُ، فَإنْ لَبِسَهُ وهُوَ يَعْرِفُ أنَّهُ لَيْسَ ثَوْبَهُ فَهُوَ ضامِنٌ لَهُ»

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about a man who refers a creditor to another man for the debt he owes him is that if the one referred to goes bankrupt or dies, and does not leave enough to pay the debt, then the creditor has nothing against the one who referred him and the debt does not return to the first party." Malik said, "This is the way of doing things about which there is no dispute in our community." Malik said, "If a man has his debt to somebody taken on for him by another man and then the man who took it on dies or goes bankrupt, then whatever was taken on by him returns to the first debtor."

قالَ يَحْيى: سَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ: «الأمْرُ عِنْدَنا فِي الرَّجُلِ يُحِيلُ الرَّجُلَ عَلى الرَّجُلِ بِدَيْنٍ لَهُ عَلَيْهِ، أنَّهُ إنْ أفْلَسَ الَّذِي أُحِيلَ عَلَيْهِ، أوْ ماتَ فَلَمْ يَدَعْ وفاءً، فَلَيْسَ لِلْمُحْتالِ عَلى الَّذِي أحالَهُ شَيْءٌ، وأنَّهُ لا يَرْجِعُ عَلى صاحِبِهِ الأوَّلِ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «وهَذا الأمْرُ الَّذِي لا اخْتِلافَ فِيهِ عِنْدَنا» قالَ مالِكٌ: «فَأمّا الرَّجُلُ يَتَحَمَّلُ لَهُ الرَّجُلُ بِدَيْنٍ لَهُ عَلى رَجُلٍ آخَرَ. ثُمَّ يَهْلِكُ المُتَحَمِّلُ. أوْ يُفْلِسُ. فَإنَّ الَّذِي تُحُمِّلَ لَهُ، يَرْجِعُ عَلى غَرِيمِهِ الأوَّلِ»