Muwatta Malik

Yahya said that Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us about an investor who pays qirad money to an agent to buy goods, and the agent then sells the goods for a price to be paid later, and has a profit in the transaction, then the agent dies before he has received payment, is that if his heirs want to take that money, they have their father's stipulated portion from the profit. That is theirs if they are trustworthy to take the payment. If they dislike to collect it from the debtor and they refer him to the investor, they are not obliged to collect it and there is nothing against them and nothing for them by their surrendering it to the investor. If they do collect it, they have a share of it and expenses like their father had. They are in the position of their father. If they are not trustworthy to do so, they can bring someone reliable and trustworthy to collect the money. If he collects all the capital and all the profit, they are in the position of their father." Malik spoke about an investor who paid qirad money to a man provided that he used it and was responsible for any delayed payment for which he sold it. He said, "This is obligatory on the agent. If he sells it for delayed payment, he is responsible for it."

Yahya said that Malik spoke about an investor who gave qirad money to a man, and then the man sought a loan from the investor or the investor borrowed money from the agent, or the investor left goods with the agent to sell for him, or the investor gave the agent dinars to buy goods with. Malik said, "There is no harm if the investor leaves his goods with him knowing that if the agent did not have his money and he had asked a similar thing of him, he would have still done it because of the brotherhood between them or because it would have been no bother to him and that had the agent refused that, he would not have removed his capital from him. Or if the agent had borrowed from the investor or carried his goods for him and he knew that if the investor had not had his capital with him, he would have still done the same for him, and had he refused that to him, he would not have returned his capital to him. If that is true between both of them and it is in the way of a favour between them and it is not a condition in the terms of the qirad, it is permitted and there is no harm in it. If a condition comes into it, or it is feared that the agent is only doing it for the investor in order to safeguard the capital in his possession, or the investor is only doing it because the agent has taken his capital and will not return it to him, that is not permitted in qirad and it is part of what the people of knowledge forbid.' "

Yahya said that Malik spoke about a man who loaned another man money and then the debtor asked him to leave it with him as a qirad. Malik said, "I do not like that unless he takes his money back from him, and then pays it to him as a qirad if he wishes or if he wishes keep it." Malik spoke about an investor who paid a man qirad money and the man told him that it was collected with him and asked him to write it for him as a loan. He said, "I do not like that unless he takes his money from him and then lends it to him or keeps it as he wishes. That is only out of fear that he has lost some of it, and wants to defer it so that he can make up what has been lost of it. That is disapproved of and is not permitted and it is not good."

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."

Yahya said that Malik spoke about an investor who put qirad money with an agent who bought goods with it, and the investor told him to sell them. The agent said that he did not see any way to sell at that time and they quarrelled about it. He said, "One does not look at the statement of either of them. The people of experience and insight concerning such goods are asked about these goods. If they can see anyway of selling them they are sold for them. If they think it is time to wait, they should wait." Malik spoke about a man who took qirad money from an investor and used it and when the investor asked him for his money, he said that he had it in full. When he held him to his settlement he admitted that "Such-and-such of it was lost with me," and he named an amount of money. "I told you that so that you would leave it with me." Malik said, "He does not benefit by denying it after he had confirmed that he had it all . He is answerable by his confession against himself unless he produces evidence about the loss of that property which confirms his statement. If he does not produce an acceptable reason he is answerable by his confession, and his denial does not avail him." Malik said, "Similarly, had he said, 'I have had such-and-such a profit from the capital,' and then the owner of the capital asked him to pay him the principal and his profit, and he said that he had not had any profit in it and had said that only so it might be left in his possession, it does not benefit him. He is taken to account for what he affirmed unless he brings acceptable proof of his word, so that the first statement is not binding on him." Malik spoke about an investor who put qirad money with an agent who made a profit with it. The agent said, "I took the qirad from you provided that I would have two-thirds." The owner of the capital says, "I gave you a qirad provided that you had a third." Malik said, "The word is the word of the agent, and he must take an oath on that if what he says resembles the known practice of qirad or is close to it. If he brings a matter which is unacceptable and people do not make qirads like that, he is not believed, and it is judged to be according to how a qirad like it would normally be." Malik spoke about a man who gave a man one hundred dinars as a qirad. He bought goods with it and then went to pay the one hundred dinars to the owner of the goods and found that they had been stolen. The investor says, "Sell the goods. If there is anything over, it is mine. If there is a loss, it is against you because you lost it." The agent says, "Rather you must fulfil what the seller is owed. I bought them with your capital which you gave me." Malik said, "The agent is obliged to pay the price to the seller and the investor is told, 'If you wish, pay the hundred dinars to the agent and the goods are between you. The qirad is according to what the first hundred was based on. If you wish, you are free of the goods.' If the hundred dinars are paid to the agent, it is a qirad according to the conditions of the first qirad. If he refuses, the goods belong to the agent and he must pay their price." Malik spoke about two people in a qirad who settled up and the agent still had some of the goods which he used - threadbare cloth or a waterskin or the like of that. Malik said, "Any of that which is insignificant is of no importance and belongs to the agent. I have not heard anyone give a decision calling for the return of that. Anything which has a price is returned. If it is something which has value like an animal, camel, coarse cloth or the like of that which fetches a price, I think that he should return what he has remaining of such things unless the owner overlooks it."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Said ibn al- Musayyab that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to the jews of Khaybar on the day of the conquest of Khaybar, "I confirm you in it as long as Allah, the Mighty, the Majestic, establishes you in it, provided that the fruits are divided between us and you." Said continued, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used to send Abdullah ibn Rawaha, to assess the division of the fruit crop between him and them, and he would say, 'If you wish, you can buy it back, and if you wish, it is mine.' They would take it."

a half or a third or a quarter or whatever." Malik said, "Share-cropping is also permitted in any crop which emerges from the earth if it is a crop which is picked, and its owner cannot water, work on it and tend it. "Share- cropping becomes reprehensible in anything in which share-cropping is normally permitted if the fruit is sound and the good condition is clear and it is halal to sell it. He must share-crop in it the next year. If a man waters fruit whose good condition is clear and it is halal to sell it, and he picks it for the owner, for a share of the crop, it is not sharecropping. It is similar to him being paid in dirhams and dinars. Share-cropping is what is between pruning the palms and when the fruit becomes sound and its sale is halal." Malik said, "If some one makes a share-cropping contract for fruit trees before the condition becomes clear and its sale is halal, it is share-cropping and is permitted . " Malik said, "Uncultivated land must not be involved in a share-cropping contract. That is because it is halal for the owner to rent it for dinars and dirhams or the equivalent for an accepted price." Malik said, "As for a man who gives his uncultivated earth for a third or a fourth of what comes out of it, that is an uncertain transaction because crops may be scant one time and plentiful another time. It may perish completely and the owner of the land will have abandoned a set rent which would have been good for him to rent the land for. He takes an uncertain situation, and does not know whether or not it will be satisfactory. This is disapproved. It is like a man having someone travel for him for a set amount, and then saying, 'Shall I give you a tenth of the profit of the journey as your wage?' This is not halal and must not be done." Malik summed up,"A man must not hire out himself or his land or his ship unless for a set amount." Malik said, "A distinction is made between sharecropping in palms and in cultivated land because the owner of the palms cannot sell the fruit until its good condition is clear. The owner of the land can rent it when it is uncultivated with nothing on it." Malik said, "What is done in our community about palms is that they can also be share-cropped for three and four years, and less or more than that." Malik said, "That is what I have heard. Any fruit trees like that are in the position of palms. Contracts for several years are permissible for the sharecropper as they are permissible in the palms." Malik said about the owner, "He does not take anything additional from the share-cropper in the way of gold or silver or crops which increases him. That is not good. The share-cropper also must not take from the owner of the garden anything additional which will increase him of gold, silver, crops or anything. Increase beyond what is stipulated in the contract is not good. It is also not good for the lender of a qirad to be in this position. If such an increase does enter share- cropping or quirad, it becomes by it hire. It is not good when hire enters it. Hire must never occur in a situation which has uncertainty in it." Malik spoke about a man who gave land to another man in a share-cropping contract in which there were palms, vines, or the like of that of fruit trees and there was also uncultivated land in it. He said, "If the uncultivated land is secondary to the fruit trees, either in importance or in size of land, there is no harm in share-cropping. That is if the palms take up two-thirds of the land or more, and the uncultivated land is a third or less. This is because when the land that the fruit trees take up is secondary to the uncultivated land and the cultivated land in which the palms, vines or the like is a third or less, and the uncultivated land is two-thirds or more, it is permitted to rent the land and share-cropping in it is haram." "One of the practices of people is to give out sharecropping contracts on property with fruit trees when there is uncultivated land in it, and to rent land while there are fruit trees on it, just as a Qur'an or sword which has some embellishment on it of silver is sold for silver, or a necklace or ring which have stones and gold in them are sold for dinars. These sales continue to be permitted. People buy and sell by them. Nothing described or instituted has come on that which if exceeded, makes it haram, and if fallen below makes it halal. What is done in our community about that is what people practise and permit among themselves. That is, if the gold or silver is secondary to what it is incorporated in, it is permitted to sell it. That is, if the value of the blade, the Qur'an, or the stones is two-thirds or more, and the value of the decoration is one-third or less."

Yahya said that Malik said, "The best of what has been heard about a sharecropper stipulating on the owner of the property the inclusion of some slave workers, is that there is no harm in that if they are workers that come with the property. They are like the property. There is no profit in them for the share-cropper except to lighten some of his burden. If they did not come with the property, his toil would be harder. It is like share-cropping land with a spring or land with a watering trough. You will not find anyone who receives the same share for share-cropping two lands which are equal in property and yield, when one property has a constant plentiful spring and the other has a watering trough, because of the lightness of working land with a spring, and the hardship of working land with a watering trough." Malik added, "That is what is done in our community." Malik said, "A share-cropper cannot employ workers from the property in other work, and he cannot make that a stipulation with the one who gives him the share-cropping contract. Nor is it permitted to one who share-crops to stipulate on the owner of the property inclusion of slaves for use in the garden who are not in it when he makes the share-cropping contract." "Nor must the owner of the property stipulate on the one who uses his property for share-cropping that he take any of the slaves of the property and remove him from the property. The share-cropping of property is based on the state which it is currently in." "If the owner of the property wants to remove one of the slaves of the property, he removes him before the share-cropping, or if he wants to put someone into the property, he does it before the share-cropping. Then he grants the share-cropping contract after that if he wishes. If any of the slaves die or go off or become ill, the owner of the property must replace them."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Rabia ibn Abd ar-Rahman from Handhala ibn Qays az-Zuraqi from Rafi ibn Khadij that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade renting out fields. Handhala said, "I asked Rafi ibn Khadij, about paying in gold and silver, and he said, 'There is no harm in it.' "

Malik related to me that Ibn Shihab said, "I asked Said ibn al- Musayyab about renting land for gold or silver, and he said, 'There is no harm in it.' "

Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab that he asked Salim ibn 'Abdullah ibn Umar about renting out fields. He said, "There is no harm in it for gold or silver." Ibn Shihab said, "I said to him, 'What do you think of the hadith which is mentioned from Rafi ibn Khadij?'" He said, ''Rafi has exaggerated. If I had a field, I would rent it out."

Malik related to me that he had heard that Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf rented land, and he continued to have it in his possession until he died. His son said, "I thought that it was ours because of the length of time which it had remained in his hands, until he mentioned it to us at his death. He ordered us to pay some rent which he owed in gold or silver."

Malik related to me from Hisham ibn Urwa that his father used to rent out his land for gold and silver. Malik was asked about a man who rented his field for 100 sa of dates or part of its produce of wheat or from other than its produce. He disapproved of that.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Said ibn al- Musayyab and from Abu Salama ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, decreed for partners the right of preemption in property which had not been divided up. When boundaries had been fixed between them, then there was no right of pre-emption.

Malik said, "That is the sunna about which there is no dispute among us."

Malik said that he heard that Said ibn al-Musayyab, when asked about pre-emption and whether there was a sunna in it, said, "Yes. Pre-emption is in houses and land, and it is only between partners."

Malik related to me that he heard the like of that from Sulayman ibn Yasar. Malik spoke about a man who bought out one of the partners in a shared property, by paying the man with an animal, a slave, a slave-girl, or the equivalent of that in goods. Then another partner decided to exercise his right of pre-emption after that, and he found that the slave or slave-girl had died, and no one knew what her value had been. The buyer claimed, "The value of the slave or slave-girl was 100 dinars." The partner with the right of pre-emption claimed, "The value was 50 dinars." Malik said, "The buyer takes an oath that the value of what he payed was 100 dinars. Then if the one with the right of pre-emption wishes, he can compensate him, or else he can leave it, unless he can bring a clear proof that the slave or slave-girl's value is less than what the buyer said. If someone gives away his portion of a shared house or land and the recipient repays him for it by cash or goods, the partners can take it by pre-emption if they wish and pay off the recipient the value of what he gave in dinars or dirhams. If someone makes a gift of his portion of a shared house or land, and does not take any remuneration and does not seek to, and a partner wants to take it for its value, he cannot do so as long as the original partner has not been given recompense for it. If there is any recompense, the one with the right of pre-emption can have it for the price of the recompense." Malik spoke about a man who bought into a piece of shared land for a price on credit, and one of the partners wanted to possess it by right of pre-emption . Malik said, "If it seems likely that the partner can meet the terms, he has right of pre-emption for the same credit terms. If it is feared that he will not be able to meet the terms, but he can bring a wealthy and reliable guarantor of equal standing to the one who bought into the land, he can also take possession." Malik said, "A person's absence does not sever his right of pre-emption. Even if he is a way for a long time, there is no time limit after which the right of preemption is cut off." Malik said that if a man left land to a number of his children, then one of them who had a child died and the child of the deceased sold his right in that land, the brother of the seller was more entitled to pre-empt him than his paternal uncles, the partners of his father. Malik said, "This is what is done in our community." Malik said, "Pre- emption is shared between partners according to their existing shares. Each of them takes according to his portion. If it is small, he has little. If it is great, it is according to that. That is if they are tenacious and contend with each other about it." Malik said, "As for a man who buys out the share of one of his partners, and one of the other partners says, 'I will take a portion according to my share,' and the first partner says, 'If you wish to take all the preemption, I will give it up to you. If you wish to leave it, then leave it.' If the first partner gives him the choice and hands it over to him, the second partner can only take all the pre-emption or give it back. If he takes it, he is entitled to it. If not, he has nothing." Malik spoke about a man who bought land, and developed it by planting trees or digging a well etc., and then someone came, and seeing that he had a right in the land, wanted to take possession of it by pre-emption. Malik said "He has no right of preemption unless he compensates the other for his expenditure. If he gives him the price of what he has developed, he is entitled to pre- emption . If not, he has no right in it." Malik said that someone who sold off his portion of a shared house or land and then, on learning that some one with a right of pre-emption was to take possession by that right, asked the buyer to revoke the sale, and he did so, did not have the right to do that. The pre-emptor has more right to the property for the price for which he sold it. In the case of some one who bought along with a section of a shared house or land, an animal and goods (that were not shared), so that when any one demanded his right of pre-emption in the house or land he said, "Take what I have bought altogether, for I bought it altogether," Malik said, "The pre-emptor need only take possession of the house or land. Each thing the man bought is assessed according to its share of the lump sum the man paid. Then the pre-emptor takes possession of his right for a price which is appropriate on that basis. He does not take any animals or goods unless he wants to do that." Malik said, "If someone sells a section of shared land, and one of those who have the right of preemption surrenders it to the buyer and another refuses to do other than take his pre-emption, the one who refuses to surrender has to take all the preemption, and he cannot take according to his right and leave what remains. In the case where one of a number of partners in one house sold his share when all his partners were away except for one man, the one present was given the choice of either taking the pre-emption or leaving it, and he said, 'I will take my portion and leave the portions of my partners until they are present. If they take it, that is that. If they leave it, I will take all the pre-emption,' Malik said, 'He can only take it all or leave it. If his partners come, they can take from him or leave it as they wish. If this is offered to him and he does not accept, I think that he has no pre-emption.' "

Yahya said that Malik related from Muhammad ibn Umara from Abu Bakr ibn Hazm that Uthman ibn Affan said, "When boundaries are fixed in land, there is no pre-emption in it. There is no pre-emption in a well or in male palm trees. " Malik said, "This is what is done in our community." Malik said, "There is no pre-emption in a road, whether or not it is practical to divide it." Malik said, "What is done in our community is that there is no pre- emption in the courtyard of a house, whether or not it is practical to divide it." Malik spoke about a man who bought into a shared property provided that he had the option of withdrawal and the partners of the seller wanted to take what their partner was selling by pre-emption before the buyer had exercised his option. Malik said, "They cannot do that until the buyer has taken possession and the sale is confirmed for him. When the sale is confirmed, they have the right of pre-emption." Malik spoke about a man who bought land and it remained in his hands for some time. Then a man came and saw that he had a share of the land by inheritance. Malik said, "If the man's right of inheritance is established, he also has a right of preemption. If the land has produced a crop, the crop belongs to the buyer until the day when the right of the other is established, because he has tended what was planted against being destroyed or being carried away by a flood." Malik continued, "If the time has been long, or the witnesses are dead or the seller has died, or the buyer has died, or they are both alive and the basis of the sale and purchase has been forgotten because of the length of time, pre- emption is discontinued. A man only takes his right by inheritance which has been established for him. If his situation differs from this, because the sale transaction is recent and he sees that the seller has concealed the price in order to sever his right of pre- emption, the value of the land is estimated, and he buys the land for that price by his right of pre-emption. Then the buildings, plants, or structures which are extra to the land are looked at, so he is in the position of some one who bought the land for a known price, and then after that built on it and planted. The owner of pre-emption takes possession after that is included." Malik said, "Pre-emption is applied to the property of the deceased as it is applied to the property of the living. If the family of the deceased fear to break up the property of the deceased, then they share it and sell it, and they have no pre-emption in it." Malik said, "There is no pre- emption among us in a slave or a slave-girl or a camel, a cow, sheep, or any animal, nor in clothes or a well which does not have any uncultivated land around it. Pre-emption is in what can be usefully divided, and in land in which boundaries occur. As for what cannot be usefully divided, there is no pre-emption in it." Malik said, "Some one who buys land in which people who are present have a right of pre-emption, refers them to the Sultan and either they claim their right or the Sultan surrenders it to him. If he were to leave them, and not refer their situation to the Sultan and they knew about his purchase, and then they left it until a long time had passed and then came demanding their pre-emption, I do not think that they would have it."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Hisham ibn Urwa from his father from Zaynab bint Abi Salama from Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "I am but a man to whom you bring your disputes. Perhaps one of you is more eloquent in his proof than the other, so I give judgement according to what I have heard from him. Whatever I decide for him which is part of the right of his brother, he must not take any of it, for I am granting him a portion of the Fire."

Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said from Said ibn al-Musayyab that Umar ibn al-Khattab had a dispute brought to him between a muslim and a jew. Umar saw that the right belonged to the jew and decided in his favour. The jew said to him, "By Allah! You have judged correctly.'' So Umar ibn al-Khattab struck him with a whip and said, "How can you be sure." The jew said to him, "We find that there is no judge who judges correctly but that there is an angel on his right side and an angel on his left side who guide him and give him success in the truth as long as he is with the truth. When he leaves the truth, they rise and leave him."