Hadith Search Engine

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."
Report Mistake | Permalink

"We went out with the Messenger of Allah (saw) until, when we were in 'Arj, we stopped to camp. The Messenger of Allah (saw) sat, with Aisha by his side, and I was sitting beside Abu Bakr. Our mount* and the mount of Abu Bakr was one, under the care of the slave of Abu Bakr. The slave looked and his camel was not with him, so he said to him: 'Where is your camel?' He said: 'I lost it yesterday.' He said: 'You have one camel with you and you lost it?' He started to beat him, and the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: 'Look at what this Muhrim is doing!'"
Report Mistake | Permalink

that the Prophet (saw) said: "The divorce of a slave woman is twice, and her (waiting) period is two menstrual cycles." Abu Asim said: "I mentioned this to Muzahir and said: 'Tell me what you told Ibn Juraij.' So he told me, narrating from Qasim from Aishah, that the Prophet (saw) said: 'The divorce of a slave woman is twice, and her (waiting) period is two menstrual cycles."'
Report Mistake | Permalink

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar would say, "A man should not have intercourse with a slave girl except one whom, if he wished, he could sell, if he wished, he could give away, if he wished, he could keep, if he wished, he could do with her what he wanted ." Malik said that a man who bought a slave-girl on condition that he did not sell her, give her away, or do something of that nature, was not to have intercourse with her. That was because he was not permitted to sell her or to give her away, so if he did not own that from her, he did not have complete ownership of her because an exception had been made concerning her by the hand of someone else. If that sort of condition entered into it, it was a messy situation, and the sale was not recommended.
Report Mistake | Permalink

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar used to pay the zakat al-fitr for those slaves of his that were at Wadi'l-Qura and Khaybar. Yahya related to me that Malik said, "The best that I have heard about the zakat al-fitr is that a man has to pay for every person that he is responsible for supporting and whom he must support. He has to pay forall his mukatabs, his mudabbars, and his ordinary slaves, whether they are present or absent, as long as they are muslim, and whether or not they are fortrade. However, he does not have to pay zakat on any of them that are not muslim." Malik said, concerning a runaway slave, "I think that his master should pay the zakat fo rhim whether or not he knows where he is, if it has not been long since the slave ran away and his master hopes that he is still alive and will return. If it has been a long time since he ran away and his master has despaired of him returning then I do not think that he should pay zakat for him.' Malik said, "The zakat al-fitr has to be paid by people living in the desert (i.e. nomadic people) just as it has to be paid by people living in villages (i.e. settled people), because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, made the zakat al-fitr at the end of Ramadan obligatory on every muslim, whether freeman or slave, male or female."
Report Mistake | Permalink

Yahya related to me from Malik from a reliable source from Amr ibn Shuayb from his father from his father's father that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade transactions in which nonrefundable deposits were paid. Malik said, "That is, in our opinion, but Allah knows best, that for instance, a man buys a slave or slave-girl or rents an animal and then says to the person from whom he bought the slave or leased the animal, 'I will give you a dinar or a dirham or whatever on the condition that if I actually take the goods or ride what I have rented from you, then what I have given you already goes towards payment of the goods or hire of the animal. If I do not purchase the goods or hire the animal, then what I have given you is yours without liability on your part.' " Malik said, "According to the way of doing things with us there is nothing wrong in bartering an arabic speaking merchant slave for abyssinian slaves or any other type that are not his equal in eloquence, trading, shrewdness, and know-how. There is nothing wrong in bartering one slave like this for two or more other slaves with a stated delay in the terms if he is clearly different. If there is no appreciable difference between the slaves, two should not be bartered for one with a stated delay in the terms even if their racial type is different." Malik said, "There is nothing wrong in selling what has been bought in such a transaction before taking possession of all of it as long as you receive the price for it from some one other than the original owner." Malik said, "An addition to the price must not be made for a foetus in the womb of its mother when she is sold because that is gharar (an uncertain transaction). It is not known whether the child will be male or female, good-looking or ugly, normal or handicapped, alive or dead. All these things will affect the price." Malik said that in a transaction where a slave or slave-girl was bought for one hundred dinars with a stated credit period that if the seller regretted the sale there was nothing wrong in him asking the buyer to revoke it for ten dinars which he would pay him immediately or after a period and he would forgo his right to the hundred dinars which he was owed. Malik said, "However, if the buyer regrets and asks the seller to revoke the sale of a slave or slave-girl in consideration of which he will pay an extra ten dinars immediately or on credit terms, extended beyond the original term, that should not be done. It is disapproved of because it is as if, for instance, the seller is buying the one hundred dinars which is not yet due on a year's credit term before the year expires for a slave-girl and ten dinars to be paid immediately or on credit term longer than the year. This falls into the category of selling gold for gold when delayed terms enter into it." Malik said that it was not proper for a man to sell a slave-girl to another man for one hundred dinars on credit and then to buy her back for more than the original price or on a credit term longer than the original term for which he sold her. To understand why that was disapproved of in that case, the example of a man who sold a slave-girl on credit and then bought her back on a credit term longer than the original term was looked at. He might have sold her for thirty dinars with a month to pay and then buy her back for sixty dinars with a year or half a year to pay. The outcome would only be that his goods would have returned to him just like they were and the other party would have given him thirty dinars on a month's credit against sixty dinars on a year or half a year's credit. That was not to be done.
Report Mistake | Permalink

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had asked Ibn Shihab about a man who had a slave-girl as a wife, and then he bought her, and divorced her once. He said, "She is halal for him by the possession of the right hand as long as he does not make his divorce irrevocable. If he irrevocably divorces her, she is not halal for him by the possession of the right hand until she has married another husband." Malik said that if a man rnarried a female slave and then she had a child by him, and then he bought her, she was not an umm walad for him because of the child born to him while she belonged to another, until she had had a child by him while she was in his possession after he had purchased her. Malik said, "If he buys her and she is pregnant by him and she then gives birth while she belongs to him, she is his umm walad by that pregnancy, according to what we think, and Allah knows best."
Report Mistake | Permalink

Malik related to me that he heard that Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, made a settlement with her mukatab for an agreed amount of gold and silver. Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us in the case of a mukatab who is shared by two partners, is that one of them cannot make a settlement with him for an agreed price according to his portion without the consent of his partner. That is because the slave and his property are owned by both of them, and so one of them is not permitted to take any of the property except with the consent of his partner. If one of them settled with the mukatab and his partner did not, and he took the agreed price, and then the mukatab died while he had property or was unable to pay, the one who settled would not have anything of the mukatab's property and he could not return that for which he made settlement so that his right to the slave's person would return to him. However, when someone settles with a mukatab with the permission of his partner and then the mukatab is unable to pay, it is preferable that the one who broke with him return what he has taken from the mukatab for the severance and he can have back his portion of the mukatab. He can do that. If the mukatab dies and leaves property, the partner who has kept hold of the kitaba is paid in full the amount of the kitaba which remains to him against the mukatab from the mukatab's property. Then what remains of property of the mukatab is between the partner who broke with him and his partner, according to their shares in the mukatab. If one of the partners breaks off with him and the other keeps the kitaba, and the mukatab is unable to pay, it is said to the partner who settled with him, 'If you wish to give your partner half of what you took so the slave is divided between you, then do so. If you refuse, then all of the slave belongs to the one who held on to possession of the slave.' " Malik spoke about a mukatab who was shared between two men and one of them made a settlement with him with the permission of his partner. Then the one who retained possession of the slave demanded the like of that for which his partner had settled or more than that and the mukatab could not pay it. He said, "The mukatab is shared between them because the man has only demanded what is owed to him. If he demands less than what the one who settled with him took and the mukatab can not manage that, and the one who settled with him prefers to return to his partner half of what he took so the slave is divided in halves between them, he can do that. If he refuses then all of the slave belongs to the one who did not settle with him. If the mukatab dies and leaves property, and the one who settled with him prefers to return to his companion half of what he has taken so the inheritance is divided between them, he can do that. If the one who has kept the kitaba takes the like of what the one who has settled with him took, or more, the inheritance is between them according to their shares in the slave because he is only taking his right." Malik spoke about a mukatab who was shared between two men and one of them made a settlement with him for half of what was due to him with the permission of his partner, and then the one who retained possession of the slave took less than what his partner settled with him for and the mukatab was unable to pay. He said, "If the one who made a settlement with the slave prefers to return half of what he was awarded to his partner, the slave is divided between them. If he refuses to return it, the one who retained possession has the portion of the share for which his partner made a settlement with the mukatab." Malik said, "The explanation of that is that the slave is divided in two halves between them. They write him a kitaba together and then one of them makes a settlement with the mukatab for half his due with the permission of his partner. That is a fourth of all the slave. Then the mukatab is unable to continue, so it is said to the one who settled with him, 'If you wish, return to your partner half of what you were awarded and the slave is divided equally between you.' If he refuses, the one who held to the kitaba takes in full the fourth of his partner for which he made settlement with the mukatab. He had half the slave, so that now gives him three-fourths of the slave. The one who broke off has a fourth of the slave because he refused to return the equivalent of the fourth share for which he settled." Malik spoke about a mukatab whose master made a settlement with him and set him free and what remained of his severance was written against him as debt, then the mukatab died and people had debts against him. He said, "His master does not share with the creditors because of what he is owed from the severance. The creditors begin first." Malik said, "A mukatab cannot break with his master when he owes debts to people. He would be set free and have nothing because the people who hold the debts are more entitled to his property than his master. That is not permitted for him." Malik said, "According to the way things are done among us, there is no harm if a man gives a kitaba to his slave and settles with him for gold and reduces what he is owed of the kitaba provided that only the gold is paid immediately. Whoever disapproves of that does so because he puts it in the category of a debt which a man has against another man for a set term. He gives him a reduction and he pays it immediately. This is not like that debt. The breaking of the mukatab with his master is dependent on his giving money to speed up the setting free. Inheritance, testimony and the hudud are obliged for him and the inviolability of being set free is established for him. He is not buying dirhams for dirhams or gold for gold. Rather it is like a man who having said to his slave, 'Bring me such-and-such an amount of dinars and you are free', then reduces that for him, saying, 'If you bring me less than that, you are free.' That is not a fixed debt. Had it been a fixed debt, the master would have shared with the creditors of the mukatab when he died or went bankrupt. His claim on the property of the mukatab would join theirs."
Report Mistake | Permalink

Allah's Apostle said, "When (Allah's) slave is put in his grave and his companions return and he even hears their footsteps, two angels come to him and make him sit and ask, 'What did you use to say about this man (i.e. Muhammad)?' The faithful Believer will say, 'I testify that he is Allah's slave and His Apostle.' Then they will say to him, 'Look at your place in the Hell Fire; Allah has given you a place in Paradise instead of it.' So he will see both his places." (Qatada said, "We were informed that his grave would be made spacious." Then Qatada went back to the narration of Anas who said;) Whereas a hypocrite or a non-believer will be asked, "What did you use to say about this man." He will reply, "I do not know; but I used to say what the people used to say." So they will say to him, "Neither did you know nor did you take the guidance (by reciting the Quran)." Then he will be hit with iron hammers once, that he will send such a cry as everything near to him will hear, except Jinns and human beings. (See Hadith No. 422).
Report Mistake | Permalink

Yahya related to me from Malik from Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Hazim that Amra bint Abd ar-Rahman said, "Aisha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went out to Makka and she had two girl mawlas of hers and a slave belonging to the sons of Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr as-Siddiq . She sent a figured cloak with the two mawlas which was sewn up in a piece of green cloth." Amra continued, "The slave took it and unstitched it and took out the cloak. In its place, he put some felt or skin and sewed it up again. When the mawla girls came to Madina, they gave it to his people. When they opened it, they found felt in it and did not find the cloak. They spoke to the two women and they spoke to A'isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or they wrote to her and suspected the slave. The slave was asked about it and confessed. A'isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave the order and his hand was cut off. Aisha said, 'A thief's hand is cut off for a quarter of a dinar and upwards.' " Malik said, "The limit I prefer above which cutting off the hand is obliged is three dirhams, whether the exchange is high or low. That is because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, cut off the hand of a thief for a shield whose value was three dirhams, and Uthman ibn Affan cut off the hand of a thief for a citron which was estimated at three dirhams. This is what I prefer of what I have heard on the matter."
Report Mistake | Permalink