Filtered Results

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Marwan ibn al-Hakam wrote to Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan that a madman was brought to him who had killed a man. Muawiya wrote to him, "Tie him up and do not inflict any retaliation on him. There is no retaliation against a madman." Malik said about an adult and a child when they murder a man together, "The adult is killed and the child pays half the full blood-money." Malik said, "It is like that with a freeman and a slave when they murder a slave. The slave is killed and the freeman pays half of his value."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Umar ibn Husayn, the mawla of Aisha bint Qudama, that Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan imposed retaliation against a man who killed a mawla with a stick and so the mawla's patron killed the man with a stick. Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community about which there is no dispute is that when a man strikes another man with a stick or hits him with a rock or intentionally strikes him causing his death, that is an intentional injury and there is retaliation for it." Malik said, "Intentional murder with us is that a man intentionally goes to a man and strikes him until his life goes. Part of intentional injury also is that a man strikes a man in a quarrel between them. He leaves him while he is alive, and he bleeds to death and so dies. There is retaliation for that." Malik said, "What is done in our community is that a group of free men are killed for the intentional murder of one free man, and a group of women for one woman, and a group of slaves for one slave."

Yahya said that Malik said, "The way of doing things in our community about which there is no dispute is that women do not swear in the swearing for the intentional act. If the murdered man only has female relatives, the women have no right to swear for blood and no pardon in murder." Yahya said that Malik said about a man who is murdered, "If the paternal relatives of the murdered man or his mawali say, 'We swear and we demand our companion's blood,' that is their right." Malik said, "If the women want to pardon him, they cannot do that. The paternal relatives and mawali are entitled to do that more than them because they are the ones who demand blood and swear for it." Malik said, "If the paternal relatives or mawali pardon after they demand blood and the women refuse and say, 'We will not abandon our right against the murderer of our companion,' the women are more entitled to that because whoever takes retaliation is more entitled than the one who leaves it among the women and paternal relatives when the murder is established and killing obliged." Malik said, "At least two claimants must swear in murder. The oaths are repeated by them until they swear fifty oaths, then they have the right to blood. That is how things are done in our community." Malik said, "When people beat a man and he dies in their hands, they are all slain for him. If he dies after their beating, there is swearing. If there is swearing, it is only against one man and only he is slain. We have never known the swearing to be against more than one man." Malik spoke about a slave who had his hand or foot broken and then the break mended . He said, "The one who injured him is not obliged to pay anything. If that break causes him loss or scar, the one who injured him must pay according to what he diminished of the value of the slave." Malik said, "What is done in our community about retaliation between slaves is that it is like retaliation between freemen. The life of the slave-girl for the life of the slave, and her injury for his injury. When a slave intentionally kills a slave, the master of the murdered slave has a choice. If he wishes, he kills him, and if he wishes, he takes the blood-money. If he takes the blood-money, he takes the value of his slave. If the owner of the slave who killed wishes to give the value of the murdered slave, he does it. If he wishes, he surrenders his slave. If he surrenders him, he is not obliged to do anything other than that. When the owner of the murdered slave takes the slave who murdered and is satisifed with him, he must not kill him. All retaliations between slaves for cutting off of the hand and foot and such things are dealt with in the same way as in the murder." Malik said about a muslim slave who injures a jew or christian, "If the master of the slave wishes to pay blood-money for him according to the injury, he does it. Or else he surrenders him and he is sold, and the jew or christian is given the blood-money of the injury or all the price of the slave if the blood-money is greater than his price. The jew or christian is not given a muslim slave."

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."

Yahya related to me from Malik that Ibn Shihab said, "The full blood-money for murder when it is accepted is twenty-five yearlings, twenty-five two-year-olds, twenty-five four-year-olds, and twenty-five five-year-olds."

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

Yahya said 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."