Hadith Search Engine

I heard the Prophet (SAW) saying, "Once a man died and was asked, 'What did you use to say (or do) (in your life time)?' He replied, 'I was a business-man and used to give time to the rich to repay his debt and (used to) deduct part of the debt of the poor.' So he was forgiven (his sins.)" Abu Masud said, "I heard the same (Hadith) from the Prophet (SAW)."
Report Mistake | Permalink

if a believer died at the time of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and he had debts, the Messenger of Allah (saw) would ask: "Did he leave anything with which to off his debt?" If they said yes, then he would offer the funeral prayer for him, but if they said no, then he would say: "Pray for your companion." When Allah granted his Prophet (saw) the conquests, he said: "I am nearer to the believers than their own selves. Whoever dies owing a debt, I will pay it off for him, and whoever leaves behind wealth, it will be for his heirs." sahih
Report Mistake | Permalink

"I heard Abdullah bin Abu Qatadah narrate from his father that a corpse was brought to the Prophet (saw) for him to offer the funeral prayer, and he said: 'Pray for your companion, for he owes a debt.' Abu Qatadah said: 'I will stand surely for him?' The Prophet (saw) said: 'In full?' He said: 'In full." And the debt he owed was eighteen or nineteen Dirham." Sahih
Report Mistake | Permalink

Allah's Apostle (SAW) owed a man some debt (and that man demanded it very harshly). The companions of the Prophet (SAW) wanted to harm him, but the Prophet (SAW) said to them, "Leave him, as the creditor has the right to speak harshly." He then added, "Buy (a camel) of the same age and give it to him." They said, "We cannot get except a camel of an older age than that of his." He said, "Buy it and give it to him, as the best amongst you is he who pays back his debt in the most handsome way.'
Report Mistake | Permalink

Malik related to me that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a judgement about the mudabbar who did an injury. He said, "The master must surrender what he owns of him to the injured person. He is made to serve the injured person and recompense (in the form of service) is taken from him as the blood-money of the injury. If he completes that before his master dies, he reverts to his master." Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community about a mudabbar who does an injury and then his master dies and the master has no property except him is that the third (allowed to be bequeathed) is freed, and then the blood-money for the in jury is divided into thirds. A third of the blood-money is against the third of him which was set free, and two-thirds are against the two-thirds which the heirs have. If they wish, they surrender what they have of him to the party with the injury, and if they wish, they give the injured person two-thirds of the blood-money and keep their portion of the slave. That is because that injury is a criminal action by the slave and it is not a debt against the master by which whatever setting free and tadbir the master had done would be abrogated. If there were a debt to people held against the master of the slave, as well as the criminal action of the slave, part of the mudabbar would be sold in proportion to the blood-money of the injury and according to the debt. Then one would begin with the blood-money which was for the criminal action of the slave and it would be paid from the price of the slave. Then the debt of his master would be paid, and then one would look at what remained after that of the slave. His third would b be set free, and two-thirds of him would belong to the heirs. That is because the criminal action of the slave is more important than the debt of his master. That is because, if the man dies and leaves a mudabbar slave whose value is one hundred and fifty dinars, and the slave strikes a free man on the head with a blow that lays open the skull, and the blood-money is fifty dinars, and the master of the slave has a debt of fifty dinars, one begins with the fifty dinars which are the blood-money of the head wound, and it is paid from the price of the slave. Then the debt of the master is paid. Then one looks at what remains of the slave, and a third of him is set free and two-thirds of him remain for the heirs. The blood-money is more pressing against his person than the debt of his master. The debt of his master is more pressing than the tadbir which is a bequest from the third of the property of the deceased. None of the tadbir is permitted while the master of the mudabbar has a debt which is not paid. It is a bequest. That is because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said, 'After any bequest that is made or any debt.' " (Sura 4 ayat 10) Malik said, "If there is enough in the third property that the deceased can bequeath to free all the mudabbar, he is freed and the blood-money due from his criminal action is held as a debt against him which follows him after he is set free even if that blood-money is the full blood-money. It is not a debt on the master." Malik spoke about a mudabbar who injured a man and his master surrendered him to the injured party, and then the master died and had a debt and did not leave any property other than the mudabbar, and the heirs said, "We surrender the mudabbar to the party," whilst the creditor said, "My debt exceeds that." Malik said that if the creditor's debt did exceed that at all , he was more entitled to it and it was taken from the one who owed the debt, according to what the creditor was owed in excess of the blood-money of the injury. If his debt did not exceed it at all, he did not take the slave. Malik spoke about a mudabbar who did an injury and had property, and his master refused to ransom him. He said, "The injured party takes the property of the mudabbar for the blood-money of his injury. If there is enough to pay it, the injured party is paid in full for the blood-money of his injury and the mudabbar is returned to his master. If there is not enough to pay it, he takes it from the blood-money and uses the mudabbar for what remains of the blood-money."
Report Mistake | Permalink

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."
Report Mistake | Permalink

A dead person was brought to the Prophet (SAW) so that he might lead the funeral prayer for him. He asked, "Is he in debt?" When the people replied in the negative, he led the funeral prayer. Another dead person was brought and he asked, "Is he in debt?" They said, "Yes." He (refused to lead the prayer and) said, "Lead the prayer of your friend." Abu Qatada said, "O Allah's Apostle (SAW)! I undertake to pay his debt." Allah's Apostle (SAW) then led his funeral prayer.
Report Mistake | Permalink

In the mosque l asked Ibn Abi Hadrad to pay the debts which he owed to me and our voices grew louder. Allah's Apostle heard that while he was in his house. So he came to us raising the curtain of his room and said, "O Ka'b!" I replied, "Labaik, O Allah's Apostle!" He said, "O Ka'b! reduce your debt to one half," gesturing with his hand. I said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have done so." Then Allah's Apostle said (to Ibn Abi Hadrad), "Get up and pay the debt to him."
Report Mistake | Permalink

that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "A debt will be settled on the Day of Resurrection if the one who owes it dies, apart from three: A man who lost his strength fighting in the cause of Allah (SWT), so he borrows in order to become strong again to fighting in the cause of Allah (SWT) and his enemy. A man who sees a Muslims die and he cannot find anything with which to shroud him except by taking a loan. A man who fears Allah (SWT) if he stays single, so he gets married for fear of (losing) his religious commitment. Allah will pay off the debt for these people on the Day of Resurrection." Daif
Report Mistake | Permalink

Malik related to me that Zayd ibn Aslam said, "Usury in the Jahiliyya was that a man would give a loan to a man for a set term. When the term was due, he would say, 'Will you pay it off or increase me?' If the man paid, he took it. If not, he increased him in his debt and lengthened the term for him ." Malik said, "The disapproved of way of doing things about which there is no dispute among us, is that a man should give a loan to a man for a term, and then the demander reduce it and the one from whom it is demanded pay it in advance. To us that is like someone who delays repaying his debt after it is due to his creditor and his creditor increases his debt." Malik said, "This is nothing else but usury. No doubt about it." Malik spoke about a man who loaned one hundred dinars to a man for two terms. When it was due, the person who owed the debt said to him, "Sell me some goods, whose price is one hundred dinars in cash for one hundred and fifty on credit." Malik said, "This transaction is not good, and the people of knowledge still forbid it." Malik said, "This is disapproved of because the creditor himself gives the debtor the price of what the man sells him, and he defers repayment of the hundred of the first transaction for the debtor for the term which is mentioned to him in the second transaction, and the debtor increases him with fifty dinars for his deferring him. That is disapproved of and it is not good. It also resembles the hadith of Zayd ibn Aslam about the transactions of the people of the Jahiliyya. When their debts were due, they said to the person with the debt, 'Either you pay in full or you increase it.' If they paid, they took it, and if not they increased debtors in their debts, and extended the term for them."
Report Mistake | Permalink