Filtered Results

8 ahadith found, page 1 of 1

Hadith No: 3
Narrated/Authority of
From: Imam Malik's Muwatta. Chapter 49, The Description of the Prophet, may Allah Bless Him and Grant Him Peace
Yahya related to me from Malik from Said ibn Abi Said al-Maqburi from his father that Abu Hurayra said, "There are five things from the fitra: cutting the nails, trimming the moustache, removing the hair from the armpit, shaving the pubic region and circumcision."
Hadith No: 53
Narrated/Authority of
From: Imam Malik's Muwatta. Chapter 16, Burials
Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu'z Zinad from al-Araj from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Every child is born on the fitra and it is his parents who make him a jew or a christian. Just as a camel is born whole - do you perceive any defect?" They said, "Messenger of Allah, what happens to people who die when they are (very) young?" He said, "Allah knows best what they used to do."
Hadith No: 16
Narrated/Authority of Malik
From: Imam Malik's Muwatta. Chapter 56, Speech
Malik related to me that he heard that Abdullah ibn Masud used to say, "You must tell the truth. Truthfulness leads to right action. Right action leads to the Garden. Beware of lying. Lying leads to corruption, and corruption leads to the Fire. Don't you see that it is said, 'He speaks the truth and acts rightly,' and, 'He lies and is corrupt.' "
Hadith No: 3
Narrated/Authority of
From: Imam Malik's Muwatta. Chapter 19, Itikaf in Ramadan
Yahya related to me from Malik that he had asked Ibn Shihab whether someone doing itikaf could go into a house to relieve himself, and he said, "Yes, there is no harm in that." Malik said, "The situation that we are all agreed upon here is that there is no disapproval of anyone doing itikaf in a mosque where jumua is held. The only reason I see for disapproving of doing itikaf in a mosque where jumua is not held is that the man doing itikaf would have to leave the mosque where he was doing itikaf in order to go to jumua, or else not go there at all. If, however, he is doing itikaf in a mosque where jumua is not held, and he does not have to go to jumua in any other mosque, then I see no harm in him doing itikaf there, because Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, says, 'While you are doing itikaf in mosques,' and refers to all mosques in general, without specifying any particular kind." Malik continued, "Accordingly, it is permissiblefor a man to do itikaf in a mosque where jumua is not held if he does not have to leave it to go to a mosque where jumua is held." Malik said, "A person doing itikaf should spend the night only in the mosque where he is doing itikaf, except if his tent is in one of the courtyards of the mosque. I have never heard that someone doing itikaf can put up a shelter anywhere except in the mosque itself or in one of the courtyards of the mosque. Part of what shows that he must spend the night in the mosque is the saying of A'isha, 'When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was doing itikaf, he would only go into the house to relieve himself.' Nor should he do itikaf on the roof of the mosque or in the minaret." Malik said, "The person who is going to do itikaf should enter the place where he wishes to do itikaf before the sun sets on the night when he wishes to begin his itikaf, so that he is ready to begin the itikaf at the beginning of the night when he is going to start his itikaf. A person doing itikaf should be occupied with his itikaf, and not turn his attention to other things which might occupy him, such as trading or whatever. There is no harm, however, if some one doing itikaf tells some one to do something for him regarding his estate, or the affairs of his family, or tells someone to sell some property of his, or something else that does not occupy him directly. There is no harm in him arranging for someone else to do that for him if it is a simple matter." Malik said, "I have never heard any of the people of knowledge mentioning any modification as far as how to do itikaf is concerned. Itikaf is an act of ibada like the prayer, fasting, the hajj, and such like acts, whether they are obligatory or voluntary. Anyone who begins doing any of these acts should do them according to what has come down in the sunna. He should not start doing anything in them that the muslims have not done, whether it is a modification that he imposes on others, or one that he begins doing himself. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, practised itikaf, and the muslims know what the sunna of itikaf is." Malik said, "Itikaf and jiwar are the same, and Itikaf is the same for a village-dweller as it is for a nomad."
Hadith No: 35
Narrated/Authority of
From: Imam Malik's Muwatta. Chapter 29, Divorce
Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafic from Abdullah ibn Umar that a man cursed his wife in the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and disowned her child. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, separated them and gave the child to the woman. Malik said, "Allah the Blessed, the Exalted, said, 'The testimony of men who accuse their wives but do not have any witnesses except themselves is to testify by Allah four times that he is being truthful, and a fifth time, that the curse of Allah will be upon him, if he should be a liar. She will avoid punishment if she testifies by Allah four times that he is a liar, and a fifth time, that the wrath of Allah shall be upon her, if he should be telling the truth. ' "(Sura 24 ayat 6). Malik said, "The sunna with us is that those who curse each other are never to be remarried. If the man calls himself a liar, (i.e. takes back his accusation), he is flogged with the hadd-punishment, and the child is given to him, and his wife can never return to him. There is no doubt or dispute about this sunna among us. " Malik said, "If a man separates from his wife by an irrevocable divorce by which he cannot return to her, and then he denies the paternity of the child she is carrying, whilst she claims that he is the father, and it is possible by the timing, that he be so, he must curse her, and the child is not recognised as his." Malik said, "That is what is done among us, and it is what I have heard from the people of knowledge." Malik said that a man who accused his wife after he had divorced her trebly while she was pregnant, and he had at first accepted being the father but then claimed that he had seen her committing adultery before he separated from her, was flogged with the hadd-punishment, and did not curse her. If he denied the paternity of her child after he had divorced her trebly, and he had not previously accepted it, then he cursed her. Malik said, "This is what I have heard." Malik said, "The slave is in the same position as the free man as regards making accusations and invoking mutual curses (lian). He acts in the lian as the free man acts although there is no hadd applied for slandering a female-slave." Malik said, "The muslim slave-girl and the christian and jewish free woman also do lian when a free muslim marries one of them and has intercourse with her. That is because Allah - may He be blessed and Exalted, said in His Book, 'As for those who accuse their wives,' and they are their wives. This is what is done among us. Malik said that a man who did the lian with his wife, and then stopped and called himself a liar after one or two oaths and he had not cursed himself in the fifth one, had to be flogged with the hadd-punishment, but they did not have to be separated. Malik said that if a man divorced his wife and then after three months the woman said, "I am pregnant," and he denied paternity, then he had to do lian. Malik said that the husband of a female slave who pronounced the lian on her and then bought her, was not to have intercourse with her, even if he owned her. The sunna which had been handed down about a couple who mutually cursed each other in the lian was that they were never to return to each other. Malik said that when a man pronounced the lian against his wife before he had consummated the marriage, she only had half of the bride price.
Hadith No: 14
Narrated/Authority of
From: Imam Malik's Muwatta. Chapter 5, Jumua
Yahya related to me from Malik that he had asked Ibn Shihab about the word of Allah, the Majestic, the Mighty, "O you who accept, when the call is made for the prayer on the day of jumua, make haste to the remembrance of Allah."(Sura 62 ayat 9). Ibn Shihab said, ''Umar ibn al-Khattab used to recite, 'When the call is made for the prayer on the day of jumua, go to the remembrance of Allah.' " Malik said, "Making haste in the Book of Allah is only deed and action. Allah the Blessed, the Exalted, says 'and when he turns away, he acts in the land' (Sura 2 ayat 205), and He, the Exalted, said, 'and as for the one who comes to you acting with fear' (Sura 80 ayat 8), and He said, 'then he turned his back, and acted' (Sura 79 ayat 22),and He said, 'Your deeds are diverse' " (Sura 92 ayat 4). Malik said, "Thus making haste which Allah mentions in His Book is not running on the feet or exertion. It only means deed and actions."
Hadith No: 8
Narrated/Authority of Hisham bin Urwa
From: Imam Malik's Muwatta. Chapter 43, Blood Money
Yahya related to me from Malik from Hisham ibn Urwa that his father said, "The tribe is not obliged to pay blood-money for intentional murder. They pay blood-money for accidental killing." Yahya related to me from Malik that Ibn Shihab said, "The precedent of the sunna is that the tribe are not liable for any blood-money of an intentional killing unless they wish that." Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said the same as that. Malik said that Ibn Shihab said, "The precedent of the sunna in the intentional murder is that when the relatives of the murdered person relinquish retaliation, the blood-money is owed by the murderer from his own property unless the tribe helps him with it willingly." Malik said, "What is done in our community is that the blood-money is not obliged against the tribe until it has reached a third of the full amount and upwards. Whatever reaches a third is against the tribe, and whatever is below a third, is against the property of the one who did the injury." Malik said, "The way of doing things about which there is no dispute among us, in the case of someone who has the blood-money accepted from him in intentional murder or in any injury in which there is retaliation, is that that blood-money is not due from the tribe unless they wish it. The blood-money for that is from the property of the murderer or the injurer if he has property. If he does not have any property, it is a debt against him, and none of it is owed by the tribe unless they wish." Malik said, "The tribe does not pay blood-money to anyone who injures himself, intentionally or accidentally. This is the opinion of the people of fiqh in our community. I have not heard that anyone has made the tribe liable for any blood-money incurred by intentional acts. Part of what is well-known of that is that Allah, the Blessed, and the Exalted, said in His Book, 'Whoever has something pardoned him by his brother, should follow it with what is accepted and pay it with good will' (Sura 2 ayat 178) The commentary on that - in our view - and Allah knows best, is that whoever gives his brother something of the blood-money, should follow it with what is accepted and pay him with good will." Malik spoke about a child who had no property and a woman who had no property. He said, "When one of them causes an injury below a third of the blood-money, it is taken on behalf of the child and woman from their personal property, if they have property from which it may be taken. If not, the injury which each of them has caused is a debt against them. The tribe does not have to pay any of it and the father of a child is not liable for the blood-money of an injury caused by the child and he is not responsible for it." Malik said, "The way of doing things in our community about which there is no dispute, is that when a slave is killed, the value for him is that of the day on which he was killed. The tribe of the murderer is not liable for any of the value of the slave, great or small. That is the responsibility of the one who struck him from his own personal property as far as it covers. If the value of the slave is the blood-money or more, that is against him in his property. That is because the slave is a certain type of goods."
Hadith No: 2
Narrated/Authority of Yahya bin Said
From: Imam Malik's Muwatta. Chapter 44, The Oath of Qasama
Yahya said from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Bushayr ibn Yasar informed him that Abdullah ibn Sahl al-Ansari and Muhayyisa ibn Masud went out to Khaybar, and they separated on their various businesses and Abdullah ibn Sahl was killed. Muhayyisa, and his brother Huwayyisa and Abd ar-Rahman ibn Sahl went to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and Abd ar-Rahman began to speak before his brother. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "The older first, the older first. Therefore Huwayyisa and then Muhayyisa spoke and mentioned the affair of Abdullah ibn Sahl. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to them, "Do you swear with fifty oaths and claim the blood-money of your companion or the life of the murderer?" They said, "Messenger of Allah, we did not see it and we were not present." The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Will you acquit the jews for fifty oaths?' They said, "Messenger of Allah, how can we accept the oaths of a people who are kafirun?" Yahya ibn Said said, "Bushayr ibn Yasar claimed that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, paid the blood-money from his own property." Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community and that which I heard from whoever I am content with, concerning the oath of qasama, and upon which the past and present imams agree, is that those who claim revenge begin with the oaths and swear. The oath for revenge is only obligatory in two situations. Either the slain person says, 'My blood is against so-and-so,' or the relatives entitled to the blood bring a partial proof of it that is not irrefutable against the one who is the object of the blood-claim. This obliges taking an oath on the part of those who claim the blood against those who are the object of the blood-claim. With us, swearing is only obliged in these two situations." Malik said, "That is the sunna in which there is no dispute with us and which is still the behaviour of the people. The people who claim blood begin the swearings, whether it is an intentional killing or an accident." Malik said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, began with Banu Harith in the case of the killing of their kinsman murdered at Khaybar." Malik said, "If those who make the claim swear, they deserve the blood of their kinsman and whoever they swear against is slain. Only one man can be killed in the qasama. Two cannot be killed in it. Fifty men from the blood-relatives must swear fifty oaths. If their number is less or some of them draw back, they can repeat their oaths, unless one of the relatives of the murdered man who deserves blood and who is permitted to pardon it, draws back. If one of these draws back, there is no way to revenge." Yahya said that Malik said, "The oaths can be made by those of them who remain if one of them draws back who is not permitted to pardon. If one of the blood-relatives draws back who is permitted to pardon, even if he is only one, more oaths can not be made after that by the blood-relatives. If that occurs, the oaths can be on behalf of the one against whom the claim is made. So fifty of the men of his people swear fifty oaths. If there are not fifty men, more oaths can be made by those of them who already swore. If there is only the defendant, he swears fifty oaths and is acquitted." Yahya said that Malik said, "One distinguishes between swearing for blood and oaths for one's rights. When a man has a money-claim against another man, he seeks to verify his due. When a man wants to kill another man, he does not kill him in the midst of people. He keeps to a place away from people. Had there only been swearing in cases where there is a clear proof and had one acted in it as one acts about one's rights (i.e. needing witnesses), the right of blood retribution would have been lost and people would have been swift to take advantage of it when they learned of the decision on it. However, the relatives of the murdered man were allowed to initiate swearing so that people might restrain themselves from blood and the murderer might beware lest he was put into a situation like that (i.e. qasama) by the statement of the murdered man.' " Yahya said, "Malik said about a people of whom a certain number are suspected of murder and the relatives of the murdered man ask them to take oaths and they are numerous, so they ask that each man swears fifty oaths on his own behalf. The oaths are not divided out between them according to their number and they are not acquitted unless each man among them swears fifty oaths on his own behalf." Malik said, "This is the best I have heard about the matter." He said, "Swearing goes to the paternal relatives of the slain. They are the blood-relatives who swear against the killer and by whose swearing he is killed."