Yahya said that he heard Malik say that there was no harm in washing the mouth and cleaning the nose with only one handful of water.

سَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ فِي الرَّجُلِ يَتَمَضْمَضُ ويَسْتَنْثِرُ مِن غَرْفَةٍ واحِدَةٍ: إنَّهُ لاَ بَأْسَ بِذلِكَ.

Malik said, "Someone who has a nosebleed on the day of jumua while the imam is giving the khutba and he leaves and does not come back until the imam has finished the prayer, should pray four rakas.''

Malik said that someone who prayed a raka with the imam on the day of jumua, then had a nosebleed and left and came back and the imam had prayed both rakas, should complete the prayer with another raka as long as he had not spoken.

Malik said, "If some one has a nosebleed, or something happens to him and he has no alternative but to leave, he does not have to ask permission of the imam if he wants to leave on the day of jumua."

قالَ يَحْيى، قالَ مالِكٌ: مَن رَعَفَ يَوْمَ الجُمُعَةِ، والإمامُ يَخْطُبُ، فَخَرَجَ فَلَمْ يَرْجِعْ، حَتّى فَرَغَ الإمامُ مِن صَلاَتِهِ. فَإنَّهُ يُصَلِّي أرْبَعًا.

قالَ يَحْيى، قالَ مالِكٌ، فِي الَّذِي يَرْكَعُ رَكْعَةً مَعَ الإمامِ يَوْمَ الجُمُعَةِ، ثُمَّ يَرْعُفُ فَيَخْرُجُ، فَيَأْتِي وقَدْ صَلّى الإمامُ الرَّكْعَتَيْنِ كِلْتَيْهِمِا: أنَّهُ يَبْنِي بِرَكْعَةٍ أُخْرى ما لَمْ يَتَكَلَّمْ.

قالَ مالِكٌ: لَيْسَ عَلى مَن رَعَفَ، أوْ أصابَهُ أمْرٌ لاَ بُدَّ لَهُ مِنَ الخُرُوجِ، أنْ يَسْتَأْذِنَ الإمامَ يَوْمَ الجُمُعَةِ، إذا أرادَ أنْ يَخْرُجَ.

Malik said, "If the imam stops off on a journey in a town where jumua is obligatory and he gives a khutba and takes the jumua prayer for them, then the people of the town and any other people present do the jumua prayer with him."

Malik said, "If the imam gathers people for prayer while he is travelling in a town where the jumua prayer is not obligatory, then there is no jumua for him, nor for the people of the town, nor for anyone else who joins them for the prayer in congregation, and the people of the town and anyone else who is not travelling should complete the prayer."

Malik added, "A traveller does not have to do jumua "

قالَ يَحْيى: قالَ مالِكٌ: وإذا نَزَلَ الإمامُ بِقَرْيَةٍ تَجِبُ فِيها الجُمُعَةُ، والإمامُ مُسافِرٌ. فَخَطَبَ وجَمَّعَ بِهِمْ، فَإنَّ أهْلَ تِلْكَ القَرْيَةِ وغَيْرَهُمْ يُجَمِّعُونَ مَعَهُ.

وقالَ مالِكٌ: وإنْ جَمَّعَ الإمامُ وهُوَ مُسافِرٌ، بِقَرْيَةٍ لاَ تَجِبُ فِيها الجُمُعَةُ، فَلاَ جُمُعَةَ لَهُ، ولاَ لِأهْلِ تِلْكَ القَرْيَةِ. ولاَ لِمَن جَمَّعَ مَعَهُمْ مِن غَيْرِهِمْ. ولْيُتْمِمْ أهْلُ تِلْكَ القَرْيَةِ وغَيْرُهُمْ، مِمَّنْ لَيْسَ بِمُسافِرٍ، الصَّلاَةَ.

قالَ يَحْيى، قالَ مالِكٌ: ولاَ جُمُعَةَ عَلى مُسافِرٍ.

(with regards to above) Malik said, "I believe that was during rain."

قالَ يَحْيى، قالَ مالِكٌ: أُرى ذلِكَ كانَ فِي مَطَرٍ.

Yahya related to me that Malik said, "The sunna concerning the time of prayer on the ids of Fitr and Adha - and there is no disagreement amongst us about it - is that the imam leaves his house and as soon as he has reached the place of prayer the prayer falls due."

Yahya said that Malik was asked whether a man who prayed with the imam could leave before the khutba, and he said, "He should not leave until the imam leaves."

قالَ يَحْيى، قالَ مالِكٌ: مَضَتِ السُّنَّةُ الَّتِي لاَ اخْتِلاَفَ فِيها عِنْدَنا، فِي وقْتِ الفِطْرِ والأضْحى، أنَّ الإمامَ يَخْرُجُ مِن مَنزِلِهِ قَدْرَ ما يَبْلُغُ مُصَلاَّهُ، وقَدْ حَلَّتِ الصَّلاَةُ.

قالَ يَحْيى: وسُئِلَ مالِكٌ عَنْ رَجُلٍ صَلّى مَعَ الإمامِ يَوْمَ الفِطْرِ، هَلْ لَهُ أنْ يَنْصَرِفَ قَبْلَ أنْ يَسْمَعَ الخُطْبَةَ؟ فَقالَ: لاَ يَنْصَرِفُ حَتّى يَنْصَرِفَ الإمامُ.

Malik said that Nafi said, "I do not believe that Abdullah ibn Umar related it from anyone other than the Messenger of Allah ﷺ."

قالَ يَحْيى، قالَ مالِكٌ: قالَ نافِعٌ: لاَ أُرى عَبْدَ اللهِ (٣) حَدَّثَهُ إلاَّ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ.

Malik said that he meant someone who, when he prostrated, kept his body close to the ground.

قالَ: يَعْنِي الَّذِي يَسْجُدُ ولاَ يَرْتَفِعُ عَنِ الأرْضِ يَسْجُدُ وهُوَ لاَصِقٌ بِالأرْضِ.

Yahya related to me from Malik that what he preferred of what he had heard from the people of knowledge about a man or woman who vowed to walk to the House of Allah, was that they fulfilled the oath when performing umra, by walking until they had done say between Safa and Marwa. When they had done say it was finished. If they vowed to walk in the hajj, they walked until they came to Makka, then they walked until they had finished all the rites. Malik said, "Walking is only for hajj or umra."

مَالِكٌ؛ أَنَّ أَحْسَنَ مَا سَمِعْتُ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ، فِي الرَّجُلِ يَحْلِفُ بِالْمَشْيِ إِلَى بَيْتِ اللهِ، أَوِ الْمَرْأَةِ. فَيَحْنَثُ، أَوْ تَحْنَثُ. أَنَّهُ إِنْ مَشَى الْحَانِثُ مِنْهُمَا فِي عُمْرَةٍ، فَإِنَّهُ يَمْشِي، حَتَّى يَسْعَى بَيْنَ الصَّفَا وَالْمَرْوَةِ. فَإِذَا سَعَى، فَقَدْ فَرَغَ. وَأَنَّهُ إِنْ جَعَلَ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ مَشْيًا فِي الْحَجِّ، فَإِنَّهُ يَمْشِي، حَتَّى يَأْتِيَ مَكَّةَ، ثُمَّ يَمْشِي، حَتَّى يَفْرُغَ مِنَ الْمَنَاسِكِ كُلِّهَا، وَلَا يَزَالُ مَاشِيًا حَتَّى يُفِيضَ. قَالَ يَحْيَى: قَالَ مَالِكٌ: وَلَا يَكُونُ مَشْيٌ إِلَاّ فِي حَجٍّ، أَوْ عُمْرَةٍ.

Malik said that a man who had committed fornication with a woman and the hadd-punishment had been applied to him for it, could marry that woman's daughter and his son could marry the woman herself if he wished. That was because he had haram relations with her, and the relations Allah had made haram were from the relations made in a halal manner or in a manner resembling marriage. Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said, "Do not marry the women your fathers have married. " (Sura 4 ayat 21) Malik said, "If a man were to marry a woman in her idda-period in a halal marriage and have relations with her, it would be haram for his son to marry the woman. That is because the father married her in a halal manner, and the hadd-punishment would not have been applied to him. Any child who was born to him would be attached to him as the father. Just as it would be haram for the son to marry a woman whom his father had married in her idda-period and had relations with, so the woman's daughter would be haram for the father if he had had sexual relations with her."

قَالَ مَالِكٌ؛ فِي الرَّجُلِ يَزْنِي بِالْمَرْأَةِ، فَيُقَامُ عَلَيْهِ الْحَدُّ فِيهَا: إِنَّهُ يَنْكِحُ ابْنَتَهَا، وَيَنْكِحُهَا ابْنُهُ، إِنْ شَاءَ. وَذلِكَ أَنَّهُ أَصَابَهَا حَرَامًا. وَإِنَّمَا الَّذِي حَرَّمَ اللهُ مَا أُصِيبَ بِالْحَلَالِ، عَلَى وَجْهِ الشُّبْهَةِ بِالنِّكَاحِ. قَالَ مَالِكٌ: قَالَ اللهُ :﴿وَلا تَنكِحُوا مَا نَكَحَ آبَاؤُكُم، مِنَ النِّسِاءِ﴾ [النساء ٤: ٢٢] قَالَ مَالِكٌ: فَلَوْ أَنَّ رَجُلًا نَكَحَ امْرَأَةً فِي عِدَّتِهَا نِكَاحًا حَلَالًا، فَأَصَابَهَا؛ حَرُمَتْ عَلَى ابْنِهِ أَنْ يَتَزَوَّجَهَا. وَذلِكَ أَنَّ أَبَاهُ نَكَحَهَا عَلَى وَجْهِ الْحَلَالِ. لَا يُقَامُ عَلَيْهِ فِيهِ الْحَدُّ، وَيُلْحَقُ بِهِ الْوَلَدُ، الَّذِي يُولَدُ فِيهِ، بِأَبِيهِ. وَكَمَا حَرُمَتْ عَلَى ابْنِهِ أَنْ يَتَزَوَّجَهَا، وَذلِكَ أَنَّ أَبَاهُ أَنْكَحَهَا عَلَى وَجْهِ الْحَلَالِ، لَا يُقَامُ عَلَيْهِ فِيهِ الْحَدُّ، وَيُلْحَقُ بِهِ الْوَلَدُ الَّذِي يُولَدُ فِيهِ بِأَبِيهِ، وَكَمَا حَرُمَتْ عَلَى ابْنِهِ أَنْ يَتَزَوَّجَهَا حِينَ تَزَوَّجَهَا أَبُوهُ فِي عِدَّتِهَا، وَأَصَابَهَا. فَكَذلِكَ تَحْرُمُ عَلَى الْأَبِ ابْنَتُهَا، إِذَا هُوَ أَصَابَ أُمَّهَا.

Malik said, "It is not halal to marry a christian or jewish slave-girl because Allah the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'Believing women who are muhsanat and women of those who were given the Book before you who are muhsanat', (sura 5 ayat 6) and they are free women from the Christians and Jews. Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'If you are not affluent enough to marry believing women who are muhsanat, take believing slave-girls whom your right hands own.' " (Sura 4 ayat 24) Malik said, "In our opinion, Allah made marriage to believing slave-girls halal, and He did not make halal marriage to christian and jewish slave-girls from the People of the Book." Malik said, "The christian and jewish slave-girl are halal for their master by right of possession, but intercourse with a magian slave-girl is not halal by the right of possession."

قَالَ مَالِكٌ: لَا يَحِلُّ نِكَاحُ أَمَةٍ يَهُودِيَّةٍ، وَلَا نَصْرَانِيَّةٍ. لِأَنَّ اللهَ، يَقُولُ فِي كِتَابِهِ: ﴿وَالمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ المُؤمِنَاتِ والمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الكِتَابَ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ﴾ [المائدة ٥: ٥]. فَهُنَّ الْحَرَائِرُ مِنَ الْيَهُودِيَّاتِ، وَالنَّصْرَانِيَّاتِ. وَقَالَ اللهُ، : ﴿وَمَن لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلًا أَن يَنكِحَ المُحْصَنَاتِ المُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ المُؤْمِنَاتِ﴾ [النساء ٤: ٢٥]. فَهُنَّ الْإِمَاءُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتُ. قَالَ مَالِكٌ: فَإِنَّمَا أَحَلَّ اللهُ فِيمَا نُرَى، نِكَاحَ الْإِمَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ، وَلَمْ يُحْلِلْ نِكَاحَ إِمَاءِ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ. الْيَهُودِيَّةِ، وَالنَّصْرَانِيَّةِ. قَالَ مَالِكٌ: وَالْأَمَةُ الْيَهُودِيَّةُ، وَالنَّصْرَانِيَّةُ، تَحِلُّ لِسَيِّدِهَا بِمِلْكِ الْيَمِينِ.

Malik said that if a slave-girl, who was the wife of a slave, was set free before he had consummated the marriage, and she chose herself, then she had no bride-price and it was a pronouncement of divorce. That was what was done among them.

قَالَ مَالِكٌ فِي الأَمَةِ تَكُونُ تَحْتَ الْعَبْدِ ثُمَّ تَعْتِقُ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَدْخُلَ بِهَا أَوْ يَمَسَّهَا إِنَّهَا إِنِ اخْتَارَتْ نَفْسَهَا فَلاَ صَدَاقَ لَهَا وَهِيَ تَطْلِيقَةٌ وَذَلِكَ الأَمْرُ عِنْدَنَا

Malik said, "What is done among us when a slave divorces a slave- girl when she is a slave and then she is set free, is that her idda is the idda of a slave-girl, and her being set free does not change her idda whether or not he can still return to her. Her idda is not altered." Malik added, "The hadd-punishment which a slave incurs is the same as this. When he is freed after he has incurred but before the punishment has been executed, his hadd is the hadd of the slave." Malik said, "When a free man divorces a slave-girl three times, her idda is two periods. When a slave divorces a free woman twice, her idda is three periods." Malik said about a man who had a slave-girl as a wife, and he bought her and set her free, ''Her idda is the idda of a slave-girl, i.e. two periods, as long as he has not had intercourse with her. If he has had intercourse with her after buying her and before he set her free, she only has to wait until one period has passed . "

قَالَ يَحْيَى، قَالَ مَالِكٌ: الْأَمْرُ عِنْدَنَا فِي طَلَاقِ الْعَبْدِ الْأَمَةَ. إِذَا طَلَّقَهَا، وَهِيَ أَمَةٌ، ثُمَّ عَتَقَتْ بَعْدُ. فَعِدَّتُهَا عِدَّةُ الْأَمَةِ. لَا يُغَيِّرُ عِتْقُهَا عِدَّتَهَا. كَانَتْ لَهُ عَلَيْهَا رَجْعَةٌ، أَوْ لَمْ تَكُنْ لَهُ عَلَيْهَا رَجْعَةٌ. لَا تَنْتَقِلُ عِدَّتُهَا قَالَ مَالِكٌ: وَمِثْلُ ذلِكَ، الْحَدُّ. يَقَعُ عَلَى الْعَبْدِ. ثُمَّ يَعْتِقُ بَعْدَ أَنْ يَقَعَ الْحَدُّ عَلَيْهِ. فَإِنَّمَا حَدُّهُ، حَدُّ عَبْدٍ. قَالَ مَالِكٌ: وَالْحُرُّ يُطَلِّقُ الْأَمَةَ، ثَلَاثًا. وَتَعْتَدُّ حَيْضَتَيْنِ. وَالْعَبْدُ يُطَلِّقُ الْحُرَّةَ تَطْلِيقَتَيْنِ، وَتَعْتَدُّ ثَلَاثَةَ قُرُوءٍ. قَالَ مَالِكٌ، فِي الرَّجُلِ تَكُونُ تَحْتَهُ الْأَمَةُ، ثُمَّ يَبْتَاعُهَا، فَيَعْتِقُهَا: إِنَّهَا تَعْتَدُّ عِدَّةَ الْأَمَةِ، حَيْضَتَيْنِ، مَا لَمْ يُصِبْهَا، فَإِنْ أَصَابَهَا بَعْدَ مِلْكِهِ إِيَّاهَا، قَبْلَ عِتَاقَتِهَا، لَمْ يَكُنْ عَلَيْهَا إِلَاّ الِاسْتِبْرَاءُ بِحَيْضَةٍ.

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»

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»

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about some one who gives a gift not intending a reward is that he calls witnesses to it. It is affirmed for the one to whom it has been given unless the giver dies before the one to whom it was given receives the gift." He said, "If the giver wants to keep the gift after he has had it witnessed, he cannot. If the recipient claims it from him, he takes it." Malik said, "If some one gives a gift and then withdraws it and the recipient brings a witness to testify for him that he was given the gift, be it goods, gold, silver or animals, the recipient is made to take an oath. If he refuses, the giver is made to take an oath. If he also refuses to take an oath, he gives to the recipient what he claims from him if he has at least one witness. If he does not have a witness, he has nothing . " Malik said, "If someone gives a gift not expecting anything in return and then the recipient dies, the heirs are in his place. If the giver dies before the recipient has received his gift, the recipient has nothing. That is because he was given a gift which he did not take possession of. If the giver wants to keep it, and he has called witnesses to the gift, he cannot do that. If the recipient claims his right he takes it."

قالَ يَحْيى: سَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ: «الأمْرُ عِنْدَنا فِيمَن أعْطى أحَدًا عَطِيَّةً لا يُرِيدُ ثَوابَها، فَأشْهَدَ عَلَيْها. فَإنَّها ثابِتَةٌ لِلَّذِي أُعْطِيَها. إلّا أنْ يَمُوتَ المُعْطِي قَبْلَ أنْ يَقْبِضَها الَّذِي أُعْطِيَها» قالَ: «وإنْ أرادَ المُعْطِي إمْساكَها بَعْدَ أنْ أشْهَدَ عَلَيْها. فَلَيْسَ ذَلِكَ لَهُ. إذا قامَ عَلَيْهِ بِها صاحِبُها، أخَذَها» قالَ مالِكٌ: «ومَن أعْطى عَطِيَّةً. ثُمَّ نَكَلَ الَّذِي أعْطاها. فَجاءَ الَّذِي أُعْطِيَها بِشاهِدٍ يَشْهَدُ لَهُ أنَّهُ أعْطاهُ ذَلِكَ. عَرْضًا كانَ أوْ ذَهَبًا أوْ ورِقًا أوْ حَيَوانًا. أُحْلِفَ الَّذِي أُعْطِيَ مَعَ شَهادَةِ شاهِدِهِ. فَإنْ أبى الَّذِي أُعْطِيَ أنْ يَحْلِفَ، حُلِّفَ المُعْطِي. وإنْ أبى أنْ يَحْلِفَ أيْضًا، أدّى إلى المُعْطى ما ادَّعى عَلَيْهِ. إذا كانَ لَهُ شاهِدٌ واحِدٌ. فَإنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ شاهِدٌ، فَلا شَيْءَ لَهُ» قالَ مالِكٌ: «مَن أعْطى عَطِيَّةً لا يُرِيدُ ثَوابَها ثُمَّ ماتَ المُعْطى، فَوَرَثَتُهُ بِمَنزِلَتِهِ، وإنْ -[٧٥٤]- ماتَ المُعْطِي، قَبْلَ أنْ يَقْبِضَ المُعْطى عَطِيَّتَهُ، فَلا شَيْءَ لَهُ. وذَلِكَ أنَّهُ أُعْطِيَ عَطاءً لَمْ يَقْبِضْهُ. فَإنْ أرادَ المُعْطِي أنْ يُمْسِكَها، وقَدْ أشْهَدَ عَلَيْها حِينَ أعْطاها، فَلَيْسَ ذَلِكَ لَهُ، إذا قامَ صاحِبُها أخَذَها»

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "The way of doing things in our community about which there is no dispute, is that if a man gives sadaqa to his son - sadaqa which the son takes possession of or which is in the father's keeping and the father has had his sadaqa witnessed, he cannot take back any of it because he cannot reclaim any sadaqa." Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "The generally agreed-on way of doing things in our community in the case of someone who gives his son a gift or grants him a gift which is not sadaqa is that he can take it back as long as the child does not start a debt, which people claim from him, and which they trust him for on the strength of the gift his father has given him. The father cannot take back anything from the gift after debts are started against it. "If a man gives his son or daughter something and a woman marries the man, and she only marries him for the wealth and the property which his father has given him and so the father wants to take that back, or, if a man marries a woman whose father has given her a gift and he marries her with an increased bride-price because of the wealth and property that her father has given, then the father says, 'I will take that back,' then the father cannot take back any of that from the son or daughter if it is as I have described to you."

قالَ يَحْيى: سَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ: «الأمْرُ عِنْدَنا الَّذِي لا اخْتِلافَ فِيهِ، أنَّ كُلَّ مَن تَصَدَّقَ عَلى ابْنِهِ بِصَدَقَةٍ قَبَضَها الِابْنُ. أوْ كانَ فِي حَجْرِ أبِيهِ فَأشْهَدَ لَهُ عَلى صَدَقَتِهِ. فَلَيْسَ لَهُ أنْ يَعْتَصِرَ شَيْئًا مِن ذَلِكَ. لِأنَّهُ لا يَرْجِعُ فِي شَيْءٍ مِنَ الصَّدَقَةِ» قالَ وسَمِعْتُ مالِكًا: «يَقُولُ الأمْرُ المُجْتَمَعُ عَلَيْهِ عِنْدَنا فِيمَن نَحَلَ ولَدَهُ نُحْلًا، أوْ أعْطاهُ عَطاءً لَيْسَ بِصَدَقَةٍ. إنَّ لَهُ أنْ يَعْتَصِرَ ذَلِكَ. ما لَمْ يَسْتَحْدِثِ الوَلَدُ دَيْنًا يُدايِنُهُ النّاسُ بِهِ. ويَأْمَنُونَهُ عَلَيْهِ. مِن أجْلِ ذَلِكَ العَطاءِ الَّذِي أعْطاهُ أبُوهُ. فَلَيْسَ لِأبِيهِ أنْ يَعْتَصِرَ مِن ذَلِكَ شَيْئًا، بَعْدَ أنْ تَكُونَ عَلَيْهِ الدُّيُونُ. أوْ يُعْطِي الرَّجُلُ ابْنَهُ أوِ ابْنَتَهُ. فَتَنْكِحُ المَرْأةُ الرَّجُلَ. وإنَّما تَنْكِحُهُ لِغِناهُ. ولِلْمالِ الَّذِي أعْطاهُ أبُوهُ. فَيُرِيدُ أنْ يَعْتَصِرَ ذَلِكَ الأبُ. أوْ يَتَزَوَّجُ الرَّجُلُ المَرْأةَ قَدْ نَحَلَها أبُوها النُّحْلَ. إنَّما يَتَزَوَّجُها ويَرْفَعُ فِي صِداقِها لِغِناها ومالِها. وما أعْطاها أبُوها. ثُمَّ يَقُولُ الأبُ: أنا أعْتَصِرُ ذَلِكَ. فَلَيْسَ لَهُ أنْ يَعْتَصِرَ مِنِ ابْنِهِ ولا مِنِ ابْنَتِهِ شَيْئًا مِن ذَلِكَ. إذا كانَ عَلى ما وصَفْتُ لَكَ»

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

قالَ يَحْيى: سَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ: «الأمْرُ عِنْدَنا فِي العَبْدِ يَجِدُ اللُّقَطَةَ فَيَسْتَهْلِكُها، قَبْلَ أنْ تَبْلُغَ الأجَلَ الَّذِي أُجِّلَ فِي اللُّقَطَةِ وذَلِكَ سَنَةٌ، أنَّها فِي رَقَبَتِهِ، إمّا أنْ يُعْطِيَ سَيِّدُهُ ثَمَنَ ما اسْتَهْلَكَ غُلامُهُ، وإمّا أنْ يُسَلِّمَ إلَيْهِمْ غُلامَهُ، وإنْ أمْسَكَها حَتّى يَأْتِيَ الأجَلُ الَّذِي أُجِّلَ فِي اللُّقَطَةِ ثُمَّ اسْتَهْلَكَها، كانَتْ دَيْنًا عَلَيْهِ. يُتْبَعُ بِهِ، ولَمْ تَكُنْ فِي رَقَبَتِهِ، ولَمْ يَكُنْ عَلى سَيِّدِهِ فِيها شَيْءٌ»

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "The best of what I have heard about the testament of a pregnant woman and about what settlements she is permitted in her property is that the pregnant woman is like the sick person. When the illness is light, and one does not fear for the sick person, he does with his property what he likes. If the illness is such that his life is feared for, he can only dispose of a third of his estate." He said, "It is the same with a woman who is pregnant. The beginning of pregnancy is good news and joy. It is not illness and no fear because Allah the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'We gave her good news of Ishaq and after Ishaq, Yaqub.' (Sura ll ayat 71). And He said, 'She bore a light burden and passed by with it, but when she became heavy, they called upon Allah, their Lord, "If you give us a good-doing son, we will be among the thankful." '(Sura 7 ayat 189). "When a pregnant woman becomes heavy, she is only permitted to dispose of a third of her estate. The beginning of this restriction is after six months. Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'Mothers suckle their children for two complete years.' And He said, 'his bearing and weaning are thirty months.' (Sura 2 ayat 233). "When six months have passed for the pregnant woman from the day she conceived, she is only permitted to dispose of a third of her property." Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "A man who is advancing in the row for battle, can only dispose of a third of his property. He is in the same position as a pregnant woman or an ill person who is feared for, as long as he is in that situation."

قالَ يَحْيى: سَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ: أحْسَنُ ما سَمِعْتُ فِي وصِيَّةِ الحامِلِ وفِي قَضاياها فِي مالِها وما يَجُوزُ لَها. «أنَّ الحامِلَ كالمَرِيضِ. فَإذا كانَ المَرَضُ الخَفِيفُ، غَيْرُ المَخُوفِ عَلى صاحِبِهِ، فَإنَّ صاحِبَهُ يَصْنَعُ فِي مالِهِ ما يَشاءُ. وإذا كانَ المَرَضُ المَخُوفُ عَلَيْهِ، لَمْ يَجُزْ لِصاحِبِهِ شَيْءٌ إلّا فِي ثُلُثِهِ» قالَ: «وكَذَلِكَ المَرْأةُ الحامِلُ أوَّلُ. حَمْلِها بِشْرٌ وسُرُورٌ. ولَيْسَ بِمَرَضٍ ولا خَوْفٍ. لِأنَّ اللَّهَ تَبارَكَ وتَعالى قالَ فِي كِتابِهِ: ﴿فَبَشَّرْناها بِإسْحاقَ ومِن وراءِ إسْحاقَ يَعْقُوبَ﴾ وقالَ: -[٧٦٥]- ﴿حَمَلَتْ حَمْلًا خَفِيفًا فَمَرَّتْ بِهِ فَلَمّا أثْقَلَتْ دَعَوا اللَّهَ رَبَّهُما لَئِنْ آتَيْتَنا صالِحًا لَنَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الشّاكِرِينَ﴾ [الأعراف ١٨٩] فالمَرْأةُ الحامِلُ إذا أثْقَلَتْ لَمْ يَجُزْ لَها قَضاءٌ إلّا فِي ثُلُثِها فَأوَّلُ الإتْمامِ سِتَّةُ أشْهُرٍ. قالَ اللَّهُ تَبارَكَ وتَعالى فِي كِتابِهِ: ﴿والوالِداتُ يُرْضِعْنَ أوْلادَهُنَّ حَوْلَيْنِ كامِلَيْنِ﴾ [البقرة ٢٣٣] وقالَ: ﴿وحَمْلُهُ وفِصالُهُ ثَلاثُونَ شَهْرًا﴾ [الأحقاف ١٥] فَإذا مَضَتْ لِلْحامِلِ سِتَّةُ أشْهُرٍ مِن يَوْمَ حَمَلَتْ لَمْ يَجُزْ لَها قَضاءٌ فِي مالِها إلّا فِي الثُّلُثِ». قالَ: وسَمِعْتُ مالِكًا يَقُولُ فِي الرَّجُلِ يَحْضُرُ القِتالَ: «إنَّهُ إذا زَحَفَ فِي الصَّفِّ لِلْقِتالِ، لَمْ يَجُزْ لَهُ أنْ يَقْضِيَ فِي مالِهِ شَيْئًا. إلّا فِي الثُّلُثِ. وإنَّهُ بِمَنزِلَةِ الحامِلِ والمَرِيضِ المَخُوفِ عَلَيْهِ ما كانَ بِتِلْكَ الحالِ»

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.

Yahya said that Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community is that retaliation is taken from someone who breaks someone's hand or foot intentionally and not blood-money." Malik said, "Retaliation is not inflicted on anyone until the wound of the injured party has healed. Then retaliation is inflicted on him. If the wound of the person on whom the retaliation has been inflicted is like the first person's wound when it heals, it is retaliation. If the wound of the one on whom the retaliation has been inflicted becomes worse or he dies, there is nothing held against the one who has taken retaliation. If the wound of the person on whom the retaliation has been inflicted heals and the injured party is paralysed or his injury has healed but he has a scar, defect, or blemish, the person on whom the retaliation has been inflicted does not have his hand broken again and further retaliation is not taken for his injury." He said, "But there is blood-money from him according to what he has impaired or maimed of the hand of the injured party. The bodily injury is also like that." Malik said, "When a man intentionally goes to his wife and gouges out her eye or breaks her hand or cuts off her finger or such like, and does it intentionally, retaliation is inflicted on him. As for a man who strikes his wife with a rope or a whip and hits what he did not mean to hit or does what he did not intend to do, he pays blood-money for what he has struck according to this principle, and retaliation is not inflicted on him." Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Abu Bakr ibn Muhammd ibn Amr ibn Hazm took retaliation for the breaking of a leg.

قالَ يَحْيى: قالَ مالِكٌ: الأمْرُ المُجْتَمَعُ عَلَيْهِ عِنْدَنا: أنَّهُ مَن كَسَرَ يَدًا أوْ رِجْلًا عَمْدًا، أنَّهُ يُقادُ مِنهُ ولاَ يُعْقَلُ. قالَ مالِكٌ: ولاَ يُقادُ مِن أحَدٍ حَتّى تَبْرَأ جِراحُ صاحِبِهِ، فَيُقادُ مِنهُ.

فَإنْ جاءَ جُرْحُ المُسْتَقادِ مِنهُ مِثْلَ جُرْحِ الأوَّلِ حِينَ يَصِحُّ، فَهُوَ القَوَدُ. وإنْ زادَ جُرْحُ المُسْتَقادِ مِنهُ أوْ ماتَ مِنهُ، فَلَيْسَ عَلى المَجْرُوحِ الأوَّلِ المُسْتَقِيدِ شَيْءٌ. وإنْ بَرَأ جُرْحُ المُسْتَقادِ مِنهُ، وشَلَّ المَجْرُوحُ الأوَّلُ، أوْ بَرَأتْ جِراحُهُ وبِها عَيْبٌ أوْ نَقْصٌ أوْ عَثَلٌ. فَإنَّ المُسْتَقادَ مِنهُ لاَ يَكْسِرُ الثّانِيَةَ. ولاَ يُقادُ بِجُرْحِهِ. قالَ: ولَكِنَّهُ يُعْقَلُ لَهُ بِقَدْرِ ما نَقَصَ مِن يَدِ الأوَّلِ. أوْ فَسَدَ مِنها. والجِراحُ فِي الجَسَدِ عَلى مِثْلِ ذلِكَ. قالَ مالِكٌ: وإذا عَمَدَ الرَّجُلُ إلى امْرَأتِهِ فَفَقَأ عَيْنَها. أوْ كَسَرَ يَدَها، أوْ قَطَعَ إصْبَعَها، أوْ أشْباهَ ذلِكَ، مُتَعَمِّدًا لِذلِكَ، فَإنَّها تُقادُ مِنهُ. وأمّا الرَّجُلُ يَضْرِبُ امْرَأتَهُ بِالحَبْلِ. أوْ بِالسَّوْطِ، فَيُصِيبُها مِن ضَرْبِهِ ما لَمْ يُرِدْ ولَمْ يَتَعَمَّدْ، فَإنَّهُ يُعْقَلُ ما أصابَ مِنها عَلى هذا الوَجْهِ. ولاَ يُقادُ مِنهُ. مالِكٌ؛ أنَّهُ بَلَغَهُ: أنَّ أبا بَكْرِ بْنَ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَمْرِو بْنِ حَزْمٍ أقادَ مِن كَسْرِ الفَخِذِ.

Yahya said that Malik was asked, "Can a woman eat with other than her relative or slave?" Malik said, "There is no harm in that if it is in a manner which is accepted for a woman to eat with men." Malik said, "A woman sometimes eats with her husband and with others he dines with or with her brother in the same way. It is disapproved of for a woman to be alone with a man when there is no relationship between them by blood, marriage or suckling that would prevent him marrying her."

قَالَ يَحْيَى سُئِلَ مَالِكٌ هَلْ تَأْكُلُ الْمَرْأَةُ مَعَ غَيْرِ ذِي مَحْرَمٍ مِنْهَا أَوْ مَعَ غُلاَمِهَا فَقَالَ مَالِكٌ لَيْسَ بِذَلِكَ بَأْسٌ إِذَا كَانَ ذَلِكَ عَلَى وَجْهِ مَا يُعْرَفُ لِلْمَرْأَةِ أَنْ تَأْكُلَ مَعَهُ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ قَالَ وَقَدْ تَأْكُلُ الْمَرْأَةُ مَعَ زَوْجِهَا وَمَعَ غَيْرِهِ مِمَّنْ يُؤَاكِلُهُ أَوْ مَعَ أَخِيهَا عَلَى مِثْلِ ذَلِكَ وَيُكْرَهُ لِلْمَرْأَةِ أَنْ تَخْلُوَ مَعَ الرَّجُلِ لَيْسَ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَهَا حُرْمَةٌ