Muwatta Malik

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Sulayman ibn Yasar said, "The blood-money of a magian is eight hundred dirhams." Malik said, "This is what is done in our community." Malik said, "The blood-monies of the jew, christian, and magian in their injuries, is according to the injury of the muslims in their blood-moneys. The head wound is a twentieth of his full blood-money. The wound that opens the head is a third of his blood-money. The belly-wound is a third of his blood-money. All their injuries are according to this calculation."

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 from Ibn Shihab that Umar ibn al- Khattab demanded of the people at Mina, "If anyone has knowledge of blood-money, let him inform me." Ad-Dahhak ibn Sufyan al-Kilabi stood up and said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, wrote to me that the wife of Ashyam ad-Dibabi inherited from the blood-money of her husband." Umar ibn al-Khattab said to him, "Go into the tent until I come to you." When Umar ibn al-Khattab came in, ad-Dahhak told him about it and Umar ibn al-Khattab gave a decision based on that. Ibn Shihab said, "The killing of Ashyam was accidental."

Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said from Amr ibn Shuayb that a man of the Banu Mudlij called Qatada threw a sword at his son and it struck his thigh. The wound bled profusely and he died. Suraqa ibn Jusham came to Umar ibn al-Khattab and mentioned that to him Umar said to him, "At the watering place of Qudayd count one hundred and twenty camels and wait until I come to you." When Umar ibn al-Khattab came to him, he took thirty four-year-old camels, thirty five-year-old camels, and forty pregnant camels from them. Then he said, "Where is the brother of the slain man?" He said, "Here." He said, "Take them. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'The killer gets nothing.' "

Malik said that he had heard that Said ibn al-Musayyab and Sulayman ibn Yasar were asked, "Does one deal more harshly in taking the blood-money in the sacred month?" They said, "No. But it is increased in it because of violating the month." It was said to Said, "Does one increase for the wound as one increases for the life?" He said, "Yes." Malik added, "I think that they meant the same as what Umar ibn al-Khattab did with respect to the blood-money of the Mudliji when he struck his son." (i.e. giving 120 camels instead of 100).

11 Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said from Urwa ibn az- Zubayr that a man of the Ansar called Uhayha ibn al-Julah had a young paternal uncle who was younger than him and who was living with his maternal uncles. Uhayha took him and killed him. His maternal uncles said, "We brought him up from a baby to a youth till he stood firm on his feet, and we have had the right of a man taken from us by his paternal uncle." Urwa said, "For that reason a killer does not inherit from the one he killed." Malik said, "The way of doing things about which there is no dispute is that the intentional murderer does not inherit anything of the blood-money of the person he has murdered or any of his property. He does not stop anyone who has a share of inheritance from inheriting. The one who kills accidentally does not inherit anything of the blood-money and there is dispute as to whether or not he inherits from the dead person's property because there is no suspicion that he killed him for his inheritance and in order to take his property. I prefer that he inherit from the dead person's property and not inherit from the blood-money."

see Book 17). Malik said, "Everyone leading an animal by the halter, driving it, and riding it is responsible for what the animal strikes unless the animal kicks out without anything being done to it to make it kick out. Umar ibn al-Khattab imposed the blood-money on a person who was exercising his horse." Malik said, "It is more fitting that a person leading an animal by the halter, driving it, or riding it incur a loss than a person who is exercising his horse." (See hadith 4 of this book). Malik said, "What is done in our community about a person who digs a well on a road or ties up an animal or does the like of that on a road used by muslims, is that since what he has done is included in that which he is not permitted to do in such a place, he is liable for whatever injury or other thing arises from that action. The blood-money of that which is less than a third of the full blood- money is owed from his own personal property. Whatever reaches a third or more, is owed by his tribe. Any such things that he does which he is permitted to do on the muslims' road are something for which he has no liability or loss. Part of that is a hole which a man digs to collect rain, and the beast from which the man alights for some need and leaves standing on the road. There is no penalty against anyone for this." Malik spoke about a man who went down a well, and another man followed behind him, and the lower one pulled the higher one and they fell into the well and both died He said, "The tribe of the one who pulled him in is responsible for the blood-money." Malik spoke about a child whom a man ordered to go down into a well or to climb a palm tree and he died as a result. He said, "The one who ordered him is liable for whatever befalls him, be it death or something else." Malik said, "The way of doing things in our community about which there is no dispute is that women and children are not obliged to pay blood-money together with the tribe in the blood-moneys which the tribe must pay. The blood-money is only obligatory for a man who has reached puberty." Malik said that the tribe could bind themselves to the blood-money of mawali if they wished. If they refused, they were people of the diwan or were cut off from their people. In the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, people paid the blood-money to each other as well as in the time of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq before there was a diwan. The diwan was in the time of Umar ibn al-Khattab. No one other than one's people and the ones holding the wala' paid blood- money for one because the wala' was not transferable and because the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "The wala' belongs to the one who sets free." Malik said, "The wala' is an established relationship." Malik said, "What is done in our community about animals that are injured is that the person who causes the injury pays whatever of their value has been diminished." Malik said about a man condemned to death and one of the other hudud befell him, "He is not punished for it. That is because the killing overrides all of that, except for slander. The slander remains hanging over the one to whom it was said because it will be said to him, 'Why do you not flog the one who slandered you?' I think that the condemned man is flogged with the hadd before he is killed, and then he is killed. I do not think that any retaliation is inflicted on him for any injury except killing because killing overrides all of that." Malik said, "What is done in our community is that when a murdered person is found among the main body of a people in a village or other place, the house or place of the nearest people to him is not responsible. That is because the murdered person can be slain and then cast at the door of some people to shame them by it. No one is responsible for the like of that." Malik said about a group of people who fight with each other and when the fight is broken up, a man is found dead or wounded, and it is not known who did it, "The best of what is heard about that is that there is blood-money for him, and the blood-money is against the people who argued with him. If the injured or slain person is not from either of the two parties, his blood-money is against both of the two parties together."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said from Said ibn al-Musayyab that Umar ibn al-Khattab killed five or seven people for one man whom they had killed secretly by trickery. Umar said, "Had all the people of Sana joined forces against him, I would have killed them all."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Muhammad ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Sad ibn Zurara that he had heard that Hafsa, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, killed one of her slave-girls who had used sorcery against her. She was a mudabbara. Hafsa gave the order, and she was killed. Malik said, "The sorcerer is the one who uses sorcery for himself and no one else uses that for him. It is like the one about whom Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'They know the one who devotes himself to it will have no share in the Next World.' (Sura 2 ayat 102) I think that that person is killed if he does that himself."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Umar ibn Husayn, the mawla of A'isha 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 related to me from Malik that he had heard that Marwan ibn al-Hakam wrote to Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan to mention to him that a drunkard was brought to him who had killed a man. Muawiya wrote to him to kill him in retaliation for the dead man. Yahya said that Malik said, "The best of what I have heard on the interpretation of this ayat, the word of Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, 'The free man for the free man and the slave for the slave - these are men and the woman for the woman,' (Sura 2 ayat 178) is that retaliation is between women as it is between men. The free woman is killed for the free woman as the free man is killed for the free man. The slave-girl is slain for the slave-girl as the slave is slain for the slave. Retaliation is between women as it is between men. That is because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'We have written for them in it that it is a life for a life and an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds there is retaliation.' (Sura 5 ayat 48) Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, mentioned that it is a life for a life. It is the life of a free woman for the life of a free man, and her injury for his injury." Malik said about a man who held a man fast for another man to hit, and he died on the spot, "If he held him and he thought that he meant to kill him, the two of them are both killed for him. If he held him and he thought that he meant to beat him as people sometimes do, and he did not think that he meant to kill him, the murderer is slain and the one who held him is punished with a very severe punishment and jailed for a year. There is no killing against him." Malik said about a man who murdered a man intentionally or gouged out his eye intentionally, and then was slain or had his eye gouged out himself before retaliation was inflicted on him, "There is no blood-money nor retaliation against him. The right of the one who was killed or had his eye gouged out goes when the thing which he is claiming as retaliation goes. It is the same with a man who murders another man intentionally and then the murderer dies. When the murderer dies, the one seeking blood-revenge has nothing of blood- money or anything else. That is by the word of Allah, the Blessed the Exalted, 'Retaliation is written for you in killing. The free man for the free man and the slave for the slave.' " Malik said, "He only has retaliation against the one who killed him. If the man who murdered him dies, he has no retaliation or blood-money." Malik said, "There is no retaliation held against a free man by a slave for any injury. The slave is killed for the free man when he intentionally murders him. The free man is not slain for the slave, even if he murders him intentionally. It is the best of what I have heard."

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 that Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community is that retaliation is taken from someone who breaks someone's hand or foot intentionally and not blood-money." Malik said, "Retaliation is not inflicted on anyone until the wound of the injured party has healed. Then retaliation is inflicted on him. If the wound of the person on whom the retaliation has been inflicted is like the first person's wound when it heals, it is retaliation. If the wound of the one on whom the retaliation has been inflicted becomes worse or he dies, there is nothing held against the one who has taken retaliation. If the wound of the person on whom the retaliation has been inflicted heals and the injured party is paralysed or his injury has healed but he has a scar, defect, or blemish, the person on whom the retaliation has been inflicted does not have his hand broken again and further retaliation is not taken for his injury." He said, "But there is blood-money from him according to what he has impaired or maimed of the hand of the injured party. The bodily injury is also like that." Malik said, "When a man intentionally goes to his wife and gouges out her eye or breaks her hand or cuts off her finger or such like, and does it intentionally, retaliation is inflicted on him. As for a man who strikes his wife with a rope or a whip and hits what he did not mean to hit or does what he did not intend to do, he pays blood-money for what he has struck according to this principle, and retaliation is not inflicted on him." Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Abu Bakr ibn Muhammd ibn Amr ibn Hazm took retaliation for the breaking of a leg.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu'z-Zinad from Sulayman ibn Yasar that a slave was set free by one of the people on hajj and his master had abandoned the right to inherit from him. The ex-slave then killed a man from the Banu A'idh tribe. An A'idhi, the father of the slain man came to Umar ibn al-Khattab seeking the blood-money of his son. Umar said, "He has no blood-money." The A'idhi said, "What would you think if it had been my son who killed him?" Umar said, "Then you would pay his blood-money." He said, "He is then like the black and white Arqam snake. If it is left, it devours and if it is killed, it takes revenge."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu Layla ibn Abdullah ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Sahl from Sahl ibn Abi Hathma that some of the great men of his people informed him that Abdullah ibn Sahl and Muhayyisa went out to Khaybar because extreme poverty had overtaken them. Muhayyisa returned and said that Abdullah ibn Sahl had been killed and thrown in a shallow well or spring. The jews came and he said, "By Allah! You have killed him." They said, "By Allah! We have not killed him!" Then he made for his people and mentioned that to them. Then he, his brother Huwayyisa, who was older than him, and Abd ar-Rahman, set out. Muhayyisa began to speak, as he had been at Khaybar. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to him, "The greater first, the greater first," meaning in age. So Huwayyisa spoke and then Muhayyisa spoke. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Either they pay your companion's blood-money or we will declare war against them." The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, wrote that to them and they wrote, "By Allah, we did not kill him!" The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to Huwayyisa, Muhayyisa, and Abd ar-Rahman, "Do you swear and claim the blood of your companion?" They said, "No." He said, "Shall the jews swear to you?" They said, "But they are not muslims." The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave blood-money from his own property, and sent them one hundred camels to their house. Sahl added, "A red camel among them kicked me."

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."

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 said that Malik said, "The way of doing things in our community about Yahya said that Malik said, "The procedure in swearing in manslaughter is that those who claim blood swear and it becomes due by their swearing. They swear fifty oaths, and there is blood-money for them according to the division of their inheritances. If it is not possible to divide up the oaths which they swear between them evenly, one looks to the one who has most of those oaths against him, and that oath is obliged against him." Malik said, "If the slain man only has female heirs, they swear and take the blood-money. If he only has one male heir, he swears fifty oaths and takes the blood-money. That is only in the accidental killing, not in the intentional one."