Hadith Search Engine

When Abdullah (my father) died, he left behind children and debts. I asked the lenders to put down some of his debt, but they refused, so I went to the Prophet (SAW) to intercede with them, yet they refused. The Prophet (SAW) said (to me), "Classify your dates into their different kinds: Adhq bin Zaid (inferior dates), Layyin and Ajwa (excellent dates), each kind separately and call all the creditors and wait till I come to you." I did so and the Prophet (SAW) came and sat beside the dates and started measuring to each his due till he paid them fully, and the amount of dates remained as it was before, as if he had not touched them. (On another occasion) I took part in one of Ghazawat among with the Prophet and I was riding one of our camels. The camel got tired and was lagging behind the others. The Prophet hit it on its back. He said, "Sell it to me, and you have the right to ride it till Medina.'' When we approached Medina, I took the permission from the Prophet to go to my house, saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have newly married." The Prophet asked, "Have you married a virgin or a matron (a widow or divorcee)?" I said, "I have married a matron, as 'Abdullah (my father) died and left behind daughters small in their ages, so I married a matron who may teach them and bring them up with good manners." The Prophet then said (to me), "Go to your family." When I went there and told my maternal uncle about the selling of the camel, he admonished me for it. On that I told him about its slowness and exhaustion and about what the Prophet had done to the camel and his hitting it. When the Prophet arrived, I went to him with the camel in the morning and he gave me its price, the camel itself, and my share from the war booty as he gave the other people.
Report Mistake | Permalink

The Prophet (saw) said to Abu Talha, "Choose one boy from your boys to serve me till the expedition to Khaibar." Abu Talha took me letting me ride behind him while I was a boy nearing the age of puberty. I used to serve Allah's Apostle (SAW) when he stopped to rest. Very often I used to hear him saying, "O Allah! I seek refuge with You from distress and sorrow, from helplessness and laziness, from miserliness and cowardice, from being heavily in debt and from being overcome by (other) men." Then we reached Khaibar; and when Allah enabled him to conquer the Fort (of Khaibar), the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab was described to him. Her husband had been killed while she was a bride. So Allah's Apostle (SAW) selected her for himself and took her along with him till we reached a place called Sad As-Sahba, where she was clean from her menses, he took her for his wife. Hais (a kind of dish) was served on a small leather sheet. Then Allah's Messenger told me to call those who were around me. So, that was the marriage banquet of Allah's Messenger and Safiya. Then we left for Al-Madina. I saw Allah's Messenger folding a cloak round the hump of the camel so as to make a wide space for Safiya (to sit on behind him). He sat beside his camel letting his knees for Safiya to put her feet on so as to mount the camel. Then, we proceeded till we approached Al-Madina; he looked at Uhud (mountain) and said, "This is a mountain which loves us and is loved by us." Then he looked at Al-Al-Madina and said, "O Allah! I make the area between its (i.e. Al-Madina's) two mountains a sanctuary as Ibraham made Makkah a sanctuary. O Allah! Bless them (i.e. the people of Al-Al-Madina) in their Mudd and Sa (i.e. units of measuring)."
Report Mistake | Permalink

Yahya related to me from Malik that Yahya ibn Said said that Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Hazm informed him that he had taken a Nabatean who had stolen some iron rings and jailed him in order to cut off his hand. Amra bint Abd ar-Rahman sent a girl mawla to him called Umayya. Abu Bakr said that she had come to him while he was among the people and said that his aunt Amra sent word to him saying, "Son of my brother! You have taken a Nabatean for something insignificant which was mentioned to me. Do you want to cut off his hand?" He had said, "Yes." She said, "Amra says to you not to cut off the hand except for a quarter of a dinar and upwards." Abu Bakr added, "So I let the Nabatean go." Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us about the confession of slaves is that if a slave confesses something against himself, the hadd and punishment for it is inflicted on his body. His confession is accepted from him and one does not suspect that he would inflict something on himself." Malik said, "As for the one of them who confesses to a matter which will incur damages agains this master, his confession is not accepted against his master." Malik said, "One does not cut off the hand of a hireling or a man who is with some people to serve them, if he robs them, because his state is not the state of a thief. His state is the state of a treacherous one. The treacherous one does not have his hand cut off." Malik said about a person who borrows something and then denies it, "His hand is not cut off. He is like a man who owes a debt to another man and denies it. He does not have his hand cut off for what he has denied." Malik said, "The generally agreed-on way of dealing among us, with the thief who is found in a house and has gathered up goods and has not taken them out, is that his hand is not cut off. That is like the man who places wine before him to drink it and does not do it. The hadd is not imposed on him. That is like a man who sits with a woman and desires to have haram intercourse with her and does not do it and he does not reach her. There is no hadd against that either." Malik said, "The generally agreed-on way of doing things among us is that there is no cutting off the hand for what is taken by chance, openly and in haste, whether or not its price reaches that for which the hand is cut off."
Report Mistake | Permalink

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Malik ibn Aus ibn al-Hadathan an-Nasri that one time he asked to exchange 100 dinars. He said, "Talha ibn Ubaydullah called me over and we made a mutual agreement that he would make an exchange for me. He took the gold and turned it about in his hand, and then said, 'I can't do it until my treasurer brings the money to me from al-Ghaba.' Umar ibn al-Khattab was listening and Umar said, 'By Allah! Do not leave him until you have taken it from him!' Then he said, 'The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Gold for silver is usury except hand to hand. Wheat for wheat is usury except hand to hand. Dates for dates is usury except hand to hand. Barley for barley is usury except hand to hand." "' Malik said, "When a man buys dirhams with dinars and then finds a bad dirham among them and wants to return it, the exchange of the dinars breaks down, and he returns the silver and takes back his dinars. The explanation of what is disapproved of in that is that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'Gold for silver is usury except hand to hand.' and Umar ibn al-Khattab said, 'If someone asks you to wait to be paid until he has gone back to his house, do not leave him.' When he returns a dirham to him from the exchange after he has left him, it is like a debt or something deferred. For that reason, it is disapproved of, and the exchange collapses. Umar ibn al-Khattab wanted that all gold, silver and food should not be sold for goods to be paid later. He did not want there to be any delay or deferment in any such sale, whether it involved one commodity or different sorts of commodities."
Report Mistake | Permalink

Yahya said that Malik spoke about an investor paying qirad money to an agent who made a profit and then wanted to take his share of the profit and the investor was away. He said, "He should not take any of it unless the investor is present. If he takes something from it, he is responsible for it until it is accounted for in the division of the capital." Malik said, "It is not permitted for the parties involved in a qirad to account and divide property which is away from them until the capital is present, and the investor is given the principal in full. Then they divide the profit into their agreed portions." Malik spoke about a man taking qirad money, and buying goods with it while he had a debt. His creditors sought and found him while he was in a city away from the investor, and he had profitable merchandise whose good quality was clear. They wanted him to sell the merchandise for them so that they could take his share of the profit. Malik said, "None of the profit of the qirad is taken until the investor is present. He takes his principal and then the profit is divided mutually between them." Malik spoke about an investor who put qirad money with an agent and he used it and had a profit. Then the principal was set aside and the profit divided. He took his share and added the share of the investor to his principal in the presence of witnesses he had called. Malik said, "It is not permitted to divide the profit unless the investor is present. If he has taken something here turns it until the investor has received the principal in full. Then what remains is divided into their respective portions." Malik spoke about an investor who put qirad money with an agent. The agent used it and then came to the investor and said, "This is your portion of the profit, and I have taken the like of it for myself, and I have retained your principal in full." Malik said, "I do not like that, unless all the capital is present, the principal is there and he knows that it is complete and he receives it. Then they divide the profit between them. He returns the principal to him if he wishes, or he keeps it. The presence of the principal is necessary out of fear that the agent might have lost some of it, and so may want it not to be removed from him and to keep it in his hand."
Report Mistake | Permalink

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Irak ibn Malik and Sulayman ibn Yasar that a man of the Banu Sad ibn Layth was running a horse and it trod on the finger of a man from the Juhayna tribe. It bled profusely, and he died. Umar ibn al-Khattab said to those against whom the claim was made. "Do you swear by Allah with fifty oaths that he did not die of it?" They refused and stopped themselves from doing it. He said to the others, "Will you take an oath?" They refused, so Umar ibn al-Khattab gave a judgement that the Banu Sad had to pay half the full blood-money. Malik said, "One does not act on this." Yahya related to me from Malik that Ibn Shihab, Sulayman ibn Yasar, and Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman said, "The blood-money of manslaughter is twenty yearlings, twenty two-year-olds, twenty male two-year-olds, twenty four-year-olds, and twenty five-year-olds." Malik said, "The generally agreed on way with us is that there is no retaliation against children. Their intention is accidental. The hudud are not obliged for them if they have not yet reached puberty. If a child kills someone it is only accidentally. Had a child and an adult killed a free man accidentally, each of them pays half the full blood-money." Malik said, "A person who kills someone accidentally pays blood-money with his property and there is no retaliation against him. That money is like anything else from the dead man's property and his debt is paid with it and he is allowed to make a bequest from it. If he has a total property of which the blood-money is a third and then the blood-money is relinquished, that is permitted to him. If all the property he has is his blood-money, he is permitted to relinquish a third of it and to make that a bequest."
Report Mistake | Permalink

The Prophet (SAW) said, "An Israeli man asked another Israeli to lend him one thousand Dinars. The second man required witnesses. The former replied, 'Allah is sufficient as a witness.' The second said, 'I want a surety.' The former replied, 'Allah is sufficient as a surety.' The second said, 'You are right,' and lent him the money for a certain period. The debtor went across the sea. When he finished his job, he searched for a conveyance so that he might reach in time for the repayment of the debt, but he could not find any. So, he took a piece of wood and made a hole in it, inserted in it one thousand Dinars and a letter to the lender and then closed (i.e. sealed) the hole tightly. He took the piece of wood to the sea and said. 'O Allah! You know well that I took a loan of one thousand Dinars from so-and-so. He demanded a surety from me but I told him that Allah's Guarantee was sufficient and he accepted Your guarantee. He then asked for a witness and I told him that Allah was sufficient as a Witness, and he accepted You as a Witness. No doubt, I tried hard to find a conveyance so that I could pay his money but could not find, so I hand over this money to You.' Saying that, he threw the piece of wood into the sea till it went out far into it, and then he went away. Meanwhile he started searching for a conveyance in order to reach the creditor's country. One day the lender came out of his house to see whether a ship had arrived bringing his money, and all of a sudden he saw the piece of wood in which his money had been deposited. He took it home to use for fire. When he sawed it, he found his money and the letter inside it. Shortly after that, the debtor came bringing one thousand Dinars to him and said, 'By Allah, I had been trying hard to get a boat so that I could bring you your money, but failed to get one before the one I have come by.' The lender asked, 'Have you sent something to me?' The debtor replied, 'I have told you I could not get a boat other than the one I have come by.' The lender said, 'Allah has delivered on your behalf the money you sent in the piece of wood. So, you may keep your one thousand Dinars and depart guided on the right path.' "
Report Mistake | Permalink

Malik related to me that he heard that Abu Salama ibn Abd ar-Rahman and Sulayman ibn Yasar were both asked, "Does one pronounce judgement on the basis of an oath with one witness?" They both said, "Yes." Malik said, "The precedent of the sunna in judging by an oath with one witness is that if the plaintiff takes an oath with his witness, he is confirmed in his right. If he draws back and refuses to take an oath, the defendant is made to take an oath. If he takes an oath, the claim against him is dropped. If he refuses to take an oath, the claim is confirmed against him." Malik said, "This procedure pertains to property cases in particular. It does not occur in any of the hadd-punishments, nor in marriage, divorce, freeing slaves, theft or slander. If some one says, 'Freeing slaves comes under property,' he has erred. It is not as he said. Had it been as he said, a slave could take an oath with one witness, if he could find one, that his master had freed him. "However, when a slave lays claim to a piece of property, he can take an oath with one witness and demand his right as the freeman demands his right." Malik said, "The sunna with us is that when a slave brings somebody who witnesses that he has been set free, his master is made to take an oath that he has not freed him, and the slave's claim is dropped." Malik said, "The sunna about divorce is also like that with us. When a woman brings somebody who witnesses that her husband has divorced her, the husband is made to take an oath that he has not divorced her. If he takes the oath, the divorce does not proceed . " Malik said, "There is only one sunna of bringing a witness in cases of divorce and freeing a slave. The right to make an oath only belongs to the husband of the woman, and the master of the slave. Freeing is a hadd matter, and the testimony of women is not permitted in it because when a slave is freed, his inviolability is affirmed and the hadd punishments are applied for and against him. If he commits fornication and he is a muhsan, he is stoned. If he kills a slave, he is killed for it. Inheritance is established for him, between him and whoever inherits from him. If somebody disputes this, arguing that if a man frees his slave and then a man comes to demand from the master of the slave payment of a debt, and a man and two women testify to his right, that establishes the right against the master of the slave so that his freeing him is cancelled if he only has the slave as property, inferring by this case that the testimony of women is permitted in cases of setting free. The case is not as he suggests (i.e. it is a case of property not freeing). It is like a man who frees his slave, and then the claimant of a debt comes to the master and takes an oath with one witness, demanding his right. By that, the freeing of the slave would be cancelled. Or else a man comes who has frequent dealings and transactions with the master of the slave. He claims that he is owed money by the master of the slave. Someone says to the master of the slave, 'Take an oath that you don't owe what he claims'. If he draws back and refuses to take an oath, the one making the claim takes an oath and his right against the master of the slave is confirmed. That would cancel the freeing of the slave if it is confirmed that property is owed by the master." Malik said, "It is the same case with a man who marries a slave-girl and then the master of the slave-girl comes to the man who has married her and claims, 'You and so-and-so have bought my slave-girl from me for such an amount of dinars. The husband of the slave-girl denies that. The master of the slave-girl brings a man and two women and they testify to what he has said. The sale is confirmed and his claim is considered true. So the slave-girl is haram for her husband and they have to separate, even though the testimony of women is not accepted in divorce." Malik said, "It is also the same case with a man who accuses a free man, so the hadd falls on him. A man and two women come and testify that the one accused is a slave. That would remove the hadd from the accused after it had befallen him, even though the testimony of women is not accepted in accusations involving hadd punishments." Malik said, "Another similar case in which judgement appears to go against the precedent of the sunna is that two women testify that a child is born alive and so it is necessary for him to inherit if a situation arises where he is entitled to inherit, and the child's property goes to those who inherit from him, if he dies, and it is not necessary that the two women witnesses should be accompanied by a man or an oath even though it may involve vast properties of gold, silver, live-stock, gardens and slaves and other properties. However, had two women testified to one dirham or more or less than that in a property case, their testimony would not affect anything and would not be permitted unless there was a witness or an oath with them." Malik said, "There are people who say that an oath is not acceptable with only one witness and they argue by the word of Allah the Blessed, the Exalted, and His word is the Truth, 'And call in to witness two witnesses, men; or if the two be not men, then one man and two women, such witnesses as you approve of.' (Sura 2 ayat 282). Such people argue that if he does not bring one man and two women, he has no claim and he is not allowed to take an oath with one witness." Malik said, "Part of the proof against those who argue this, is to reply to them, 'Do you think that if a man claimed property from a man, the one claimed from would not swear that the claim was false?' If he swears, the claim against him is dropped. If he refuses to take an oath, the claimant is made to take an oath that his claim is true, and his right against his companion is established. There is no dispute about this with any of the people nor in any country. By what does he take this? In what place in the Book of Allah does he find it? So if he confirms this, let him confirm the oath with one witness, even if it is not in the Book of Allah, the Mighty, the Majestic! It is enough that this is the precedent of the sunna. However, man wants to recognise the proper course of action and the location of the proof. In this there is a clarification for what is obscure about that, if Allah ta'ala wills."
Report Mistake | Permalink

Malik said, "There is no harm in buying dates from specified trees or a specified orchard or buying milk from specified sheep when the buyer starts to take them as soon as he has payed the price. That is like buying oil from a container. A man buys some of it for a dinar or two and gives his gold and stipulates that it be measured out for him. There is no harm in that. If the container breaks and the oil is wasted, the buyer has his gold back and there is no transaction between them." Malik said, "There is no harm in everything which is taken right away as it is, like fresh milk and fresh picked dates which the buyer can take on a day-to-day basis. If the supply runs out before the buyer has what he has paid for in full, the seller gives him back the portion of the gold that is owed to him, or else the buyer takes other goods from him to the value of what he is owed and which they mutually agree about. The buyer should stay with the seller until he has taken it. It is disapproved of for the seller to leave because the transaction would then come into the forbidden category of a debt for a debt. If a stated time period for payment or delivery enters into the transaction, it is also disapproved. Delay and deferment are not permitted in it, and are only acceptable when it is standard practice on definite terms by which the seller guarantees it to the buyer, but this is not to be from one specific orchard or from any specific ewes." Malik was asked about a man who bought an orchard from another man in which there were various types of palm-trees - excellent ajwa palms, good kabis palms, adhq palms and othertypes. The seller kept aside from the sale the produce of a certain palm of his choice. Malik said, "That is not good because if he does that, and keeps aside, for instance, dates of the ajwa variety whose yield would be 15 sa, and he picks the dates of the kabis in their place, and the yield of their dates is 10 sa or he picks the ajwa which yield 15 sa and leaves the kabis which yield 10 sa, it is as if he bought the ajwa for the kabis making allowances for their difference of quality. This is the same as if a man dealing with a man who has heaps of dates before him - a heap of 15 sa of ajwa, a heap of 10 sa of kabis, and a heap of 12 sa of cadhq, gives the owner of the dates a dinar to let him choose and take whichever of the heaps he likes." Malik said, "That is not good." Malik was asked what a man who bought fresh dates from the owner of an orchard and advanced him a dinar was entitled to if the crop was spoilt. Malik said, "The buyer makes a reckoning with the owner of the orchard and takes what is due to him of the dinar. If the buyer has taken two-thirds of a dinar's worth of dates, he gets back the third of a dinar which is owed him. If the buyer has taken three-quarters of a dinar's worth of dates, then he gets back the quarter which is owed to him, or they come to a mutual agreement, and the buyer takes what is owed him from his dinar from the owner of the orchard in something else of his choosing. If, for instance, he prefers to take dry dates or some other goods, he takes them according to what is due. If he takes dry dates or some other goods, he should stay with him until he has been paid in full." Malik said, "This is the same situation as hiring out a specified riding-camel or hiring out a slave tailor, carpenter or some other kind of worker or letting a house and taking payment in advance for the hire of the slave or the rent of the house or camel. Then an accident happens to what has been hired resulting in death or something else. The owner of the camel, slave or house returns what remains of the rent of the camel, the hire of the slave or the rent of the house to the one who advanced him the money, and the owner reckons what will settle that up in full. If, for instance, he has provided half of what the man paid for, he returns the remaining half of what he advanced, or according to whatever amount is due." Malik said, "Paying in advance for something which is on hand is only good when the buyer takes possession of what he has paid for as soon as he hands over the gold, whether it be slave, camel, or house, or in the case of dates, he starts to pick them as soon as he has paid the money." It is not good that there be any deferment or credit in such a transaction. Malik said, "An example illustrating what is disapproved of in this situation is that, for instance, a man may say that he will pay someone in advance for the use of his camel to ride in the hajj, and the hajj is still some time off, or he may say something similar to that about a slave or a house. When he does that, he only pays the money in advance on the understanding that if he finds the camel to be sound at the time the hire is due to begin, he will take it by virtue of what he has already paid. If an accident, or death, or something happens to the camel, then he will get his money back and the money he paid in advance will be considered as a loan." Malik said, "This is distinct from someone who takes immediate possession of what he rents or hires, so that it does not fall into the category of 'uncertainty,' or disapproved payment in advance. That is following a common practice. An example of that is that a man buys a slave, or slave-girl, and takes possession of them and pays their price. If something happens to them within the period of the year indemnification contract, he takes his gold back from the one from whom he bought it. There is no harm in that. This is the precedent of the sunna in the matter of selling slaves." Malik said, "Someone who rents a specified slave, or hires a specified camel, for a future date, at which time he will take possession of the camel or slave, has not acted properly because he did not take possession of what he rented or hired, nor is he advancing a loan which the person is responsible to pay back."
Report Mistake | Permalink

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Muhammad Sirin used to say, "Do not sell grain on the ears until it is white." Malik said, "If someone buys food for a known price to be delivered at a stated date, and when the date comes, the one who owes the food says, 'I do not have any food, sell me the food which I owe you with delayed terms.' The owner of the food says, 'This is not good, because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade selling food until the deal was completed.' The one who owes the food says to his creditor, 'Sell me any kind of food on delayed terms until I discharge the debt to you.' This is not good because he gives him food and then he returns it to him. The gold which he gave him becomes the price of that which is his right against him and the food which he gave him becomes what clears what is between them. If they do that, it becomes the sale of food before the deal is complete." Malik spoke about a man who was owed food which he had purchased from a man and this man was owed the like of that food by another man. The one who owed the food said to his creditor, "I will refer you to my debtor who owes me the same amount of food as I owe you, so that you may obtain the food which I owe you ." Malik said, "If the man who had to deliver the food, had gone out, and bought the food to pay off his creditor, that is not good. That is selling food before taking possession of it. If the food is an advance which falls due at that particular time, there is no harm in paying off his creditor with it because that is nota sale. It is not halal to sell food before receiving it in full since the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade that. However, the people of knowledge agree that there is no harm in partnership, transfer of responsibility and revocation in sales of food and other goods." Malik said, "That is because the people of knowledge consider it as a favour rendered. They do not consider it as a sale. It is like a man lending light dirhams. He is then paid back in dirhams of full weight, and so gets back more than he lent. That is halal for him and permitted. Had a man bought defective dirhams from him as being the full weight, that would not be halal. Had it been stipulated to him that he lend full weight in dirhams, and then he gave faulty ones, that would not be halal for him."
Report Mistake | Permalink