�

Al-Muwat.t.a
Editorial Board
Harvard Series in Islamic Law

General Editor
Intisar A. Rabb

Editorial Board
Khaled Abou El Fadl, UCLA School of Law
Aslı Bâli, UCLA School of Law
Maribel Fierro, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas
Cemal Kafadar, Harvard University
Hossein Modarressi, Princeton University
Roy Mottahedeh, Harvard University
Mathieu Tillier, Université Paris-Sorbonne
M. Qasim Zaman, Princeton University
 �
Al-Muwat.t.a
by Mālik b. Anas (d. 179/795)
[The Recension of [Link]̄ b. [Link]̄ al-Laythı̄ (d. 234/848)]

A translation of the Royal Moroccan Edition

Edited and translated by

Mohammad Fadel & Connell Monette

Published by the
Program in Islamic Law, Harvard Law School
Distributed by Harvard University Press
Cambridge, Massachusetts
2019
 Library of Congress Control Number:
2019946147

Copyright 2019 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College

All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
ISBN 978-0-6742413-5-0
 Arabic Edition Team
Editorial Committee
Dr. Mohamed Raoundi, Member of the High Council of Religious Scholars
Dr. Driss Ibn Daouia, President of the High Council of Religious Scholars,
Larache Branch
Dr. Mohamed Azzeddine Mayar El Idrissi, President of the High Council of
Religious Scholars, Marrakesh Branch

With the Assistance of:

Prof. Driss Elhamdaoui, Faculty of Islamic Law, Fez
Dr. Lahoucine Ait Said, Member of the High Council of Religious Scholars
Dr. Abdelhafid Doumar, Faculty of Humanities, Oujda
Dr. Abdellah Lansari, Representative of the Ministry of Endowments and
Islamic Affairs, Marrakesh
Prof. Abdelmjid Mouhib, Dar al-Hadith al-Hasaniyya
Dr. Mohammed Guennoun Hassani, President of the High Council of
Religious Scholars, Tangiers Branch

English Translation Team

Chief Editor
Dr. Connell Monette, Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane

Co-Editor and Mālikī Law Specialist

Dr. Mohammad Fadel, University of Toronto Faculty of Law

First Draft Translators

Dr. Ali Azeriah, Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane
Dr. Mohamed Ouakrime, Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane

Research Assistants
Shuaib Ally, University of Toronto
Lahoucine Amedjar, Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane
Dawud Nasir, Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane
 Contents
English Translation of the Royal Moroccan Edition
of Imam Mālik b. Anas’ Muwaṭṭaʾ: An Introduction 1
Introduction to the Translation of the Royal Moroccan Edition
of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, Recension of Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā al-Laythī 7
Arabic Introduction to the Royal Moroccan Edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ 39

Book 1: The Book of Obligatory Prayer (Ṣalāt) Times 73

Book 2: The Book of Ritual Purity (Ṭahāra) 83
Book 3: The First Book of Prayer (Ṣalāt) 109
Book 4: Forgetfulness in Prayer (Sahw) 129
Book 5: The Book of the Friday Congregational Prayer (Ṣalāt al-Jumuʿa) 131
Book 6: The Book of Prayer (Ṣalāt) during Ramadan 139
Book 7: The Book of the Night Prayer (Ṣalāt al-Layl) 141
Book 8: The Book of the Congregational Prayer (Ṣalāt al-Jamāʿa) 149
Book 9: The Book of Shortening the Prayer (Ṣalāt) 157
Book 10: The Book of the Two Feasts (ʿĪd) 177
Book 11: The Book of the Prayer of Danger (Ṣalāt al-Khawf) 181
Book 12: The Book of the Prayer for Rain (Ṣalāt al-Istisqāʾ) 187
Book 13 : The Book of the Prayer Direction (Qibla) 191
Book 14: The Book of the Quran 195
Book 15: The Book of Funerals (Janāʾiz) 209
Book 16: The Book of the Alms-Tax (Zakāt) 221
Book 17: The Book of Fasting (Ṣiyām) 253
Book 18: The Book of the Night of Power (Laylat al-Qadr) 271
Book 19: The Book of Pious Seclusion (Iʿtikāf) 275
Book 20: The Book of Pilgrimage (Ḥajj) 281
Book 21: The Book of Campaigning for the Sake of God (Jihād) 357
Book 22: The Book of Sacrificial Animals (Ḍaḥāyā) 377
viii Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Book 23: The Book of the Newborn Sacrifice (ʿAqīqa) 381

Book 24: The Book of Domesticated Animals Slaughtered for
Ordinary Use (Dhabāʾiḥ) 383
Book 25: The Book of Wild Animals (Ṣayd) 387
Book 26: The Book of Vows (Nudhūr) 393
Book 27: The Book of Mandatory Inheritance Shares (Farāʾiḍ) 401
Book 28: The Book of Manumission (ʿAtāqa) and Patronage (Walāʾ) 421
Book 29: The Book of the Slave Who is a Party to a Manumission
Contract (Mukātab) 435
Book 30: The Book of a Master’s Designation of Slaves for
Manumission Upon His Death (Tadbīr) 463
Book 31: The Book of Marriage (Nikāḥ) 473
Book 32: The Book of Divorce (Ṭalāq) 493
Book 33: The Book of Breastfeeding (Raḍāʿa) 531
Book 34: The Book of Sales (Buyūʿ) 537
Book 35: The Book of Judicial Rulings (Aqḍiya) 599
Book 36: The Book of the Right of First Refusal (Shufʿa) 643
Book 37: The Book of Irrigation Partnerships (Musāqāt) 649
Book 38: Leasing Out (Kirāʾ) Farmland 657
Book 39: The Book of Investment Partnerships (Qirāḍ) 659
Book 40: The Book of Compensation (ʿAql) Due for Battery 677
Book 41: The Book of Collective Oaths (Qasāma) 701
Book 42: The Book of Lapidation (Rajm) and Mandatory
Criminal Punishments (Ḥudūd) 709
Book 43: The Book of Theft (Sariqa) 719
Book 44: The Book of Beverages 727
Book 45: The Book of Miscellaneous Matters 731

Glossary of Proper Names 787

Glossary of Terms 795
Bibliography 807
Index 811
Kingdom of Morocco National Library, MS No. J787: Colophon of the
Muwaṭṭaʾ manuscript, copied by Ibn al-Ṭallāʿ, dated 595 AH.
Kingdom of Morocco National Library, MS No. J787, Folio 1: Excerpt of
manuscript of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, copied by Ibn al-Ṭallāʿ, dated 595 AH.
Kingdom of Morocco National Library, MS No. D2911, Folio 1: Excerpt of
manuscript of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, copied by Ibn al-Labbād, dated 613 AH.
 English Translation of the Royal Moroccan
Edition of Imam Mālik b. Anas’ Muwaṭṭaʾ:
An Introduction

Background to the Translation

In summer 2011, President Idriss Ouaouicha of Al Akhawayn University
in Ifrane (AUI) proposed to His Excellency Ahmed Toufiq, Minister of
Islamic Affairs and Endowments of the Kingdom of Morocco, that the
ministry sponsor the university to produce academic translations of
some of the foundational texts in Mālikī law (fiqh). In the Mālikī school of
Islamic jurisprudence, the two earliest and most important texts are the
Muwaṭṭaʾ (eighth century CE) and al-Mudawwana al-kubrā (ninth century
CE). Although nonspecialists had previously translated the Muwaṭṭaʾ into
English, no academic press had published a peer-reviewed translation of
this work. The absence of a scholarly translation of the Muwaṭṭaʾ made its
use in North American universities problematic. Given the recent upsurge
in interest in the academic study of Islamic law at leading universities in the
United States (e.g., Harvard), Canada (e.g., Toronto, McGill), and Europe, the
ministry agreed that the publication of academic translations of these works
would be very timely. Further, Mālik’s Muwaṭṭaʾ has always been considered
a very special text, in that it not only provides the basis for a legal system
but also tells a kind of story. Piece by piece, anecdote by anecdote, opinion
by opinion, this collection of conversations, stories, and legal opinions
coalesces into a powerful narrative space that can project the reader, like a
time traveler, back into the world of the first, second, and third generations
of the Muslim community of Medina. Medina was where the first public
Muslim community was established, and from its humble beginnings there
it grew into a universal religion. The Muwaṭṭaʾ tells the story of that ancient
first community of Muslims, a community that straddled the time and space
between Arabian paganism (known as the Days of Ignorance, or jāhiliyya),
the Greco-Roman Hellenism of late antiquity, and the Zoroastrianism of
the Sasanians, on the one hand, and the rise of a new Islamic order that
would radically restructure the Mediterranean, Near Eastern, and Central

1
2 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Asian worlds, on the other. The outlines of this new religious and cultural
order, however, were only dimly coming into view when Mālik wrote the
Muwaṭṭaʾ. The narrative space that he inhabited can be accessed only if the
tone, nuance, and specific vocabulary of his text are properly translated into
our modern vernacular.
But the Muwaṭṭaʾ’s importance lies not only in its status as a unique
repository of communal memory (which it certainly is), but also in the
special reverence with which Moroccan national culture, which historically
is closely intertwined with the Mālikī school of law, cloaks the work. For
these reasons, the ministry and the university agreed that the Muwaṭṭaʾ
of Imam Mālik would serve as an excellent pilot for their joint translation
project. The choice of the Muwaṭṭaʾ was especially timely in view of the then
impending publication of the Royal Moroccan Edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ (RME;
the edition was eventually published in 1434/2013). The RME, which at the
time was still being prepared by a team of Moroccan scholars in response
to a request of His Majesty, the Commander of the Faithful, Muḥammad VI,
King of Morocco, was to be the first critical edition of the Arabic text and
was to be based on some of the most ancient North African and Andalusian
manuscripts available. Minister Toufiq provided the university with an
electronic copy of the RME’s text, and President Ouaouicha promised that
the university would revise the timetable and budget of the translation to
align with the production of the RME. The university received the digital
copy in 2013, and the printed version of the RME followed in 2016.

Previous Translations of the Muwaṭṭaʾ

As noted above, at the time the translation was begun there were two
English-language, nonacademic translations of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, those of
Muhammad Rahimuddin (1985) and Aisha Bewley (1989). Although both
of these editions have proven useful to non-Arabic-speaking Muslims, a
critical edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ did not exist when Rahimuddin and Bewley
undertook their respective translations. Moreover, neither translation
was published under an academic imprint, and to our knowledge, neither
translation was ever subjected to peer review.1 Further, neither text included
supplemental notes that could help the nonspecialist understand the legal
issues presented in the text, a deficiency that further limited the usefulness
of these translations for general readers.

1 Muhammad Rahimuddin, Muwattaʼ Imam Malik (Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1985);
Aisha Bewley, Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas: The First Formulation of Islamic Law (Lon-
don: Kegan Paul, 1989). The Bewley translation was republished by Routledge in 2010. Mer-
lin Swartz published an appreciative, if brief, review of the Bewley translation in Middle East
Studies Association Bulletin 25, no. 1 (1991): 102–3.
The English Translation: An Introduction 3

Translation Team
To assure a translation of the highest quality, Al Akhawayn University
employed a team of specialists: Dr. Ali Azeriah (AUI) and Dr. Mohamed
Ouakrime (AUI) as first draft translators, Dr. Mohammad Fadel (University
of Toronto Faculty of Law) as the Mālikī fiqh specialist and editor, and Dr.
Connell Monette as chief editor and project coordinator. Graduate students
Dawud Nasir (AUI), Lahoucine Amedjar (AUI), and Shuaib Ally (University
of Toronto) also participated as research assistants. Special thanks are due
to Dr. Walid Saleh (University of Toronto), who served as lead translator at
the beginning of the project.

Method and Timeline of Translation

The translation of the RME began in January 2014. Each section was first
translated by Drs. Azeriah and Ouakrime. The first draft relied heavily on
consultation of primary and secondary Mālikī sources, including the very
valuable annotations included in the notes of the RME by its editors, along
with considerable assistance from the graduate assistants (Amedjar and
Nasir). The first draft of the translation took approximately three years to
complete (2014–2016). As each chapter of the Muwaṭṭaʾ was translated, it
was sent to Drs. Fadel and Monette. In the second stage, Fadel independently
reviewed the first-round translation, checking it against the Arabic
original and revising it as needed to guarantee correct jurisprudential
interpretation and conformity, when appropriate, with contemporary legal
terminology. Fadel and Monette then jointly reviewed Fadel’s revisions to
the initial translation against the Arabic text of the RME to ensure that the
tone of the original Arabic was conveyed as clearly as possible in idiomatic
English, even if this required a departure from the literal sense or original
grammatical structure of the text. They also confirmed that technical Arabic
terms had been translated consistently throughout the text. The translation
was finalized by reading it without reference to the Arabic original, with the
sole aim of ensuring that the translation read smoothly in English.
The review and editing process began in 2015 and continued to mid-2018.
As dictated by the context of the Arabic original, the translation has
sometimes adopted a very formal, even archaic tone, while at other times, a
colloquial style was deemed more appropriate. All in all, this multilayered
process has yielded, we believe, a translation that is stylistically superior
to previous translations and that provides a more faithful and accessible
account of its substantive teachings, particularly the technical legal questions
it addresses. Although the earlier English translations conveyed the general
sense of the text, this translation benefits from the use of idiomatic English
4 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

and of consistent English technical terms instead of Arabic transliterations.

Because the Muwaṭṭaʾ is not only a collection of narratives but also a legal
text, the use of modern legal terminology, wherever possible, is necessary
and desirable to make it more accessible to modern legal scholars who are
not specialists in Islamic law.
The result, we hope, is a translation that conveys both the sense and
the sensibility of the Arabic text, using idiomatic English and substituting
English terms for Arabic ones. Succinct clarificatory notes are provided to
explain to the general reader what might otherwise appear obscure, if not
unintelligible, issues while avoiding burdening the reader with excessive
commentary. Because one of the aims of the Ministry of Islamic Affairs
and Endowments is to make this important work accessible to pious
English-speaking Muslims, the texts of supplications that appear in the
original have been transliterated in full in the translation’s notes.
We believe that this translation will be useful both to researchers who
are interested in Islamic law but lack the necessary language skills to access
primary texts, and to nonspecialists seeking deeper familiarity with Islamic
law, whether as teachers of Islamic history, legal history, or religious studies
or as students interested in learning more about Islamic law or early Islamic
history. We are grateful to the Program in Islamic Law at Harvard Law School
for agreeing to publish this important text, and for its decision to host an
online companion to the translation on the SHARIAsource Portal. The
online companion will include both the original Arabic text and the English
translation, as well as supplementary materials that place the Muwaṭṭaʾ in
its broader historical and social context. Importantly, the online companion
will give readers and the scholarly community a forum for ongoing
comments, criticisms, and suggestions for improving the translation—for
example, by proposing revisions or corrections to the original translation
or identifying areas of the text that could benefit from greater commentary.
The remainder of this introduction includes an abridged translation of
the Arabic introduction to the RME and the translators’ introduction to the
English translation of the RME. We have omitted from the former portions
that deal with the technical aspects of preparing the critical edition and
that would interest only specialists in the study of manuscripts. We
include, however, those portions of the Arabic introduction that elucidate
the cultural background of contemporary Morocco that led to the project
to produce a critical edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, the place of Imam Mālik in
Morocco’s religious identity, and the history of the Muwaṭṭaʾ in the Maghrib
and Andalusia. The translators’ introduction to the RME attempts to
situate the Muwaṭṭaʾ in the broader sweep of the history of Islamic law
and jurisprudence. It also provides a brief synopsis of the different views
The English Translation: An Introduction 5

contemporary scholars have taken regarding the significance of the text

for Islamic law and jurisprudence. The aim of the introduction is to assist
nonspecialist readers in approaching the text. Accordingly, it provides a
general overview of the text’s structure, an introduction to Mālik’s use of
technical terms in his work, and our own views regarding the significance
of the Muwaṭṭaʾ for understanding early Islamic legal history.
The abridged translation of the Arabic introduction, while necessary to
gain a better understanding of the work’s history, the place of the Muwaṭṭaʾ
in Moroccan religious culture, and the labors that went into preparing the
Royal Moroccan Edition, may be skipped by those readers interested in the
Muwaṭṭaʾ primarily as an artifact of early Islamic legal history. Although
the translation speaks for itself, we believe that reading the translators’
introduction is helpful for understanding the text of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, especially
for nonspecialist readers.

Transliteration and Editorial Conventions

The transliteration of Arabic terms generally follows the conventions of the
International Journal of Middle East Studies. Nonspecialist readers should
note the variant spellings of the words ibn (“son of”) and bint (“daughter
of”), which appear, respectively, as “Ibn” or “Bint” in the beginning of a name
and as “b.” or “bt.” within a name, and abū (“father of”), which appears as
“Abū” in the beginning of a name and as “Abī” within a name. Place-names
and other anglicized Arabic words are not transliterated but rendered in
their conventional English spellings. Accordingly, the translation uses “Iraq,”
not “ʿIrāq,” and “Ramadan,” not “Ramaḍān.” The person who leads a Muslim
congregation in prayers is called an “imam,” since that term has entered
the English language with the meaning of “prayer leader,” but the word is
transliterated (imām) when used to mean a public official or ruler. When
the term is used honorifically in relation to Mālik b. Anas, it is capitalized
(“Imam Mālik”). We have chosen to translate Allāh, which in Arabic is the
proper name for the divinity, using the English word “God.” The blessings
that Muslims formulaically invoke upon the Prophet Muḥammad when his
name is mentioned are noted parenthetically as “(pbuh),” meaning “peace
be upon him.” The chains of transmitters (isnāds) that introduce individual
reports typically take the form “from X, from Y, that [text of report].” For the
sake of improved readability, we have replaced the first “from X” with “X
reported” even when the original text does not include a verb.
Technical terms are indicated by capitalization (e.g., the Morning
Prayer). On the assumption that readers of the translation are not likely to
read the text straight through, the transliteration of technical Arabic terms
is provided immediately following the first use of the English term in each
6 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

chapter; for example, “He performed the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ).” In
order to minimize the use of Arabic, the transliterated Arabic term is then
not repeated until it appears again in a different chapter. This convention
enables readers to locate Arabic technical terms easily without having to
reference the translation’s glossary, no matter where they begin reading.
 Introduction to the Translation of the Royal
Moroccan Edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, Recension of
Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā al-Laythī

Biography of Mālik b. Anas and His Place in the Sunnī Tradition

Mālik b. Anas, the author of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, lived through momentous
changes in early Muslim society. Born in 93/711 in Medina during the
reign of the Umayyad caliph al-Walīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik (r. 86–96/705–715),
he witnessed the transformation of Islam from a primarily Arab religion
into a cosmopolitan, multiethnic religion. By the time of his death in
179/795 during the reign of the fifth ʿAbbāsid caliph, Hārūn al-Rashīd (r.
170–93/786–809), the ʿAbbāsids had already been in power more than
forty years after their successful overthrow of the Umayyads in 132/750.
With the rise of the ʿAbbāsids and the founding of their new, cosmopolitan
capital of Baghdad during the reign of their second caliph, Abū Jaʿfar
al-Manṣūr (r. 136–58/754–775), the cultural center of gravity of the
Muslim world began to shift decisively from Medina in the Hijaz to Iraq
and the Muslim East. By Mālik’s death, Medina was no longer an important
center of learning, religious or otherwise, although it would remain central
to Muslims’ religious imagination and a site of pilgrimage. When Mālik was
still a youth, however, Medina was the undisputed cultural center of the
Muslim world, thus affording him the opportunity to learn from the most
important religious figures of the Umayyad period. His residence in Medina
also proved fortunate for his career as a teacher. Given Medina’s status
as a pilgrimage destination, Mālik taught scores of students from all over
the nascent Islamic empire, but especially those hailing from the regions
located to the west of the Hijaz—Egypt, North Africa, and Andalusia. Mālik
was known as a meticulous and scrupulous scholar for the care he took
in the transmission of the historical materials known as hadith. Ḥadīth
literally means “story” or “tale,” but in this case it refers generically to
narrative materials purporting to tell the story of the Muslim community.
The term would later come to be used almost exclusively to denote reports
of incidents that occurred during the lifetime of the Prophet Muḥammad,

7
8 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

but at this early stage in Muslim history, it was used more broadly to
include any report about the community’s past. Because of the care with
which Mālik transmitted these materials and what appears to have been a
conscious decision on his part to transmit to students only what he deemed
the best-attested of the historical narratives that he had studied and
collected,1 he came to be considered an imām, an authority, in the science of
hadith (imām fī al-ḥadīth). However, Mālik was not only an authority on the
Muslim community’s history as documented in hadith. He was also deemed
an authority—an imām—on its law (imām fī al-sunna).
To appreciate Mālik’s stature as a scholar within the Sunnī tradition, it
is helpful to consider the number and identity of his students. According
to Umar Abd-Allah Wymann-Landgraf, none of the putative founders of the
other Sunnī schools of law had as many students from as many different
regions of the Islamic world as did Mālik. Although a majority of his students
hailed from Egypt, North Africa, and Andalusia, his students also came from
the Levant and Iraq and even as far east as Khurāsān. Uniquely in a culture
that prized seniority, his study circle attracted more students who were
older than him than it did those who were his juniors.2
A principal reason for Mālik’s fame as a legist was his book, al-Muwaṭṭaʾ.
Mālik’s Muwaṭṭaʾ constitutes the first authored treatise on Islamic law. Prior
to Mālik’s generation, Islamic law seems to have developed in the context of
deliberations that took place in small gatherings of jurists. Although many
of these earlier juristic deliberations were preserved, either as handwritten
notes or via oral transmission, the generations of Muslim scholars before
Mālik did not compose books of law. The Muwaṭṭaʾ, by contrast, represents
an attempt to conceive of the law as an entirety, and even though it is not
a comprehensive treatise, the structure and contents of the work clearly
indicate that Mālik thought of the law as an independent object of knowledge
that could be set out systematically in written form. Indeed, historical reports
indicate that Mālik spent years editing and revising his text, which resulted
in the transmission to posterity of numerous different recensions of the
Muwaṭṭaʾ.3 Many of these recensions are lost to history or have survived in
only fragmentary form. The recension of the Muwaṭṭaʾ that is translated here
is that of the Andalusian scholar Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā al-Laythī (152–234/769–
839). Yaḥyā would have studied the Muwaṭṭaʾ near the end of Mālik’s life, and
accordingly, his recension represents the last, or almost the last, “version” or

1 Umar F. Abd-Allah Wymann-Landgraf, Mālik and Medina: Islamic Legal Reasoning in the For-
mative Period (Boston: Brill, 2013), 46.
2 Wymann-Landgraf, Mālik and Medina, 48.
3 Wymann-Landgraf, Mālik and Medina, 60 (noting that Mālik authorized as many as
seventy-three different recensions of the Muwaṭṭaʾ and that more than one thousand stu-
dents transmitted the text).
Introduction to the Translation of the Royal Moroccan Edition 9

“edition” Mālik prepared of the Muwaṭṭaʾ.4 In any case, Yaḥyā’s recension of

the Muwaṭṭaʾ became the most widely used version of the text in the Islamic
West, and the version most familiar to modern scholarship.5
The Muwaṭṭaʾ, however, is not the only source on Mālik’s legal reasoning.
Subsequent generations of Muslim jurists compiled Mālik’s legal opinions
into various books that came to serve as the sourcebooks (ummahāt) for what
came to be known as the Mālikī school of law or, sometimes, the Medinese
school (madhhab ahl al-Madīna). These sourcebooks that purported to
document Mālik’s legal reasoning were apparently drawn from the notes,
recollections, and inferences of Mālik’s students, and sometimes the
students of Mālik’s students. The most important of the sourcebooks in the
later Mālikī tradition was the Mudawwana.6 Compiled by Saḥnūn b. Saʿīd (d.
240/854), a North African jurist who hailed from Qayrawān in present-day

4 At least seven recensions of the Muwaṭṭaʾ have been published, although some are only frag-
mentary. Jonathan Brockopp, “Rereading the History of Early Mālikī Jurisprudence,” Journal
of the American Oriental Society 118, no. 2 (1998): 235.
5 Aside from Yaḥyā’s recension, the recension of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī (d.
189/805) is also well known and was widely disseminated, at least among followers of
what came to be known as the Iraqi school of jurisprudence (i.e., the Ḥanafīs). Shaybānī’s
recension, however, represents a substantially different text from the other recensions of
the Muwaṭṭaʾ. Sarah Savant has documented, using computer analysis of the recensions of
Yaḥyā, his near-contemporary Abū Muṣʿab al-Zuhrī (d. 242/856), and Shaybānī, that whereas
the recensions of Yaḥyā and Abū Muṣʿab are virtually identical, with relatively minor differ-
ences in ordering, less than 25% of Shaybānī’s recension overlaps with those of Yaḥyā and
Abū Muṣʿab, and less than 10% of the latter two recensions is found in Shaybānī’s. Savant
concludes from these results that Shaybānī’s recension is better understood as a commen-
tary on the Muwaṭṭaʾ rather than as a recension of Mālik’s text. This is not surprising inso-
far as Shaybānī remained loyal to the Iraqi tradition of Islamic law and was interested in
transmitting only those portions of Mālik’s work that were useful for Iraqi legal doctrine.
Accordingly, he omits the entirety of Mālik’s own legal reasoning in his recension, even
though, as will be shown below, Mālik’s reasoning represents a substantial portion of the
book. Sarah Savant, “A Tale of 3 ‘Versions,’” KITAB website, September 10, 2017, http://
[Link]/2017/09/10/a-tale-of-3-versions/ (accessed September 29, 2018). See
also Wymann-Landgraf, Mālik and Medina, 61–62 n. 119 (comparing Shaybānī’s recension of
the Muwaṭṭaʾ to that of Yaḥyā).
6 Saḥnūn b. Saʿīd, al-Mudawwana, 4 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1986). Other sourcebooks include
al-Mustakhraja of ʿUtbī (d. 255/868), al-Wāḍiḥa of ʿAbd al-Malik b. Ḥabīb (d. 238/852), and
al-Mawwāziyya of Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. Ziyād, known as Ibn al-Mawwāz (d. 269/882).
See Mohammad Fadel, “The Social Logic of Taqlīd and the Rise of the Mukhtaṣar,” Islamic Law
and Society 3, no. 2 (1996): 218 n. 98. It should be noted, however, that many passages of the
Mudawwana are verbatim quotations from the Muwaṭṭaʾ. See, for example, Wymann-Landgraf,
Mālik and Medina, 6, 54 n. 87, 61 n. 118, and 368. The Mustakhraja is published as part of
Ibn Rushd the Grandfather’s (d. 520/1126) commentary on that text: Abū al-Walīd Muḥam-
mad b. Rushd, al-Bayān wa’l-taḥṣīl wa’l-sharḥ wa’l-tawjīh wa’l-taʿlīl fī masāʾil al-Mustakhraja,
ed. Muḥammad Ḥijjī et al., 20 vols., 2nd ed. (Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1988). Only small
portions of al-Wāḍiḥa have been edited and published. See Beatrix Ossendorf-Conrad, Das
“K. al-Wadiha” des ʿAbd al-Malik b. Ḥabīb: Edition und Kommentar zu Ms. Qarawiyyin 809/40
(Abwab al-Tahara) (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1994), and ʿAbd al-Malik b. Ḥabīb, al-Wāḍiḥa:
Kutub al-ṣalāt wa-kutub al-ḥajj, ed. Miklos Muranyi (Beirut: Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyya, 2010).
To our knowledge, no portion of the Mawwāziyya has yet been published.
10 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Tunisia, the Mudawwana consists largely of a series of dialogues between

Saḥnūn and one of Mālik’s leading students, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim (d.
191/806), in which Saḥnūn would ask Ibn al-Qāsim about Mālik’s views on
particular legal questions.7 Ibn al-Qāsim would, in each case, then provide
Saḥnūn with Mālik’s opinion on the matter, if he believed he knew what it
was. If he did not know Mālik’s opinion on the question, he might, using
conjecture, offer his opinion regarding what Mālik would have said about
the question, had it been posed to Mālik directly. He would sometimes also
share his own view on the issue under consideration. Saḥnūn occasionally
also included the views of other students of Mālik, as well as the views of
other Muslim scholars, in the course of elaborating a particular legal issue.
However, it is clear that Saḥnūn anchored the Mudawwana in the voice of
Mālik, and it later became the most important source of Mālikī positive law,
eclipsing even the Muwaṭṭaʾ itself.8
While it is extremely unlikely that Mālik viewed himself as founding a
legal school, the decisive impact he had on later generations of jurists who
chose to follow his teachings ensured that he would hold an honored place
in the hall of Sunnī sages. But his impact was not limited to those jurists
who chose to follow him. One of his leading students, Muḥammad b. Idrīs
al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204/820), identified closely with Mālik’s teachings in his youth
but went on to break with them and to take Islamic jurisprudence in a
distinctly different direction, one perhaps more in keeping with the greater
cosmopolitanism of the ʿAbbāsid Empire. In so doing, he established the
Shāfiʿī school of law.9 Mālik’s influence was also felt in the Iraqi school of law,
later known as the Ḥanafī school: Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī, one of
Abū Ḥanīfa’s (d. 150/767) two most important disciples, spent substantial
time studying with Mālik in Medina. He even transmitted a version of the
Muwaṭṭaʾ to his own students, known as the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Muḥammad or the
Muwaṭṭaʾ of Shaybānī.10 Mālik also left an important legacy in the study of
hadith: not only was he deemed an astute critic of reports and transmitters,

7 For example, in the first line of the opening chapter of the Mudawwana, titled “What has come
down regarding ablutions (wuḍūʾ),” Saḥnūn wrote, “I said to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim,
‘With respect to ablutions, did Mālik specify a number of washings, one, two, or three?’ He
said, ‘No, only that they be fulsome. Mālik did not specify a number of washings.’” Saḥnūn,
al-Mudawwana, 1:2.
8 For an account of how the Mudawwana became the central text of Mālikī positive law, see
Fadel, “Social Logic,” 218–24.
9 Shāfiʿī not only authored his own extensive treatise on positive law, known as al-Umm, but
also composed the first theoretical treatise on Islamic jurisprudence, known as al-Risāla.
This latter work would lead in later generations to the development of theoretical jurispru-
dence, which came to be known as uṣūl al-fiqh, a branch of knowledge that was distinct from
and independent of substantive law, which was simply known as fiqh.
10 Shaybānī also wrote a polemical refutation of the teachings of Mālik and the Medinese; see
Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī, al-Ḥujja ʿalā ahl al-Madīna (Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1983).
Introduction to the Translation of the Royal Moroccan Edition 11

but many of the reports that he included in the Muwaṭṭaʾ about the Prophet
Muḥammad were later incorporated into what became the most important
Sunnī collections of hadith, such as those of Bukhārī and Muslim.

The Place of the Muwaṭṭaʾ in Modern Scholarship

English-language scholarship in Islamic studies has long recognized the
centrality of the Muwaṭṭaʾ in the history of Islamic law and jurisprudence and
in the rise of hadith. Much of this scholarship, however, has been concerned
primarily with the provenance of the material Mālik cites in his book and with
what it tells us about early conceptions of authority in the Muslim community.
Historians of early Islamic law are divided with respect to two fundamental
issues. The first is the historical authenticity of the narrative materials
preserved in works such as the Muwaṭṭaʾ. The second is the nature of the
Prophet Muḥammad’s legislative authority in the early Muslim community,
a debate centered around the meaning of the term Arabic term sunna (law),
and the extent to which it bears an exclusively Prophetic association.
Skeptics, most prominently the great Orientalist Ignaz Goldziher,11 the
historian of Islamic law Joseph Schacht,12 and their followers, believe that
the historical reports found in the Arabic literary tradition, such as those
in the Muwaṭṭaʾ, which attributed various legal and theological doctrines
to earlier generations of the Muslim community or sometimes to the
Prophet Muḥammad himself, were not to be taken at face value. Indeed,
the general position of these skeptics is that all such historical reports
should be deemed fabrications unless proven otherwise. Instead of viewing
them as plausible historical accounts of the development of Islamic legal
doctrines, the skeptics argue that literary sources such as the Muwaṭṭaʾ are
useful only for determining the content of Islamic law at the time the works
were composed, but that they tell us nothing about the legal practices or
theological beliefs of prior generations of Muslims.
Traditional Muslim scholarship exhibited great concern for the integrity
of transmitted historical materials, particularly if they had legal or
theological significance. Accordingly, transmitters of traditions developed
a custom of naming their sources. Ideally, every historical report would be
prefaced by the names of the intermediate sources responsible for each
stage of the report’s transmission, beginning with the report’s source and
concluding with the person receiving the report. The chain of transmitters
documenting the report’s provenance was known as the isnād, literally “that
which props [something] up.” The content of the report, that which was

11 Ignaz Goldziher, Muslim Studies (London: Allen and Unwin, 1971).

12 Joseph Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959).
12 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

“propped up” by the chain of transmitters, was called the matn. Scholars
of the skeptical school, however, placed no credence in these chains of
authorities, even suggesting that the more perfect the chain of authorities,
the greater reason there was to suspect forgery. They noted that sometimes
reports could be found in early works, such as the Muwaṭṭaʾ, with a chain
of transmitters that was truncated, ended with a Companion (sing. ṣaḥābī,
pl. ṣaḥāba) of the Prophet Muḥammad, or omitted intermediate sources,
only to appear in later works, such as the hadith collection of Bukhārī,
with a gapless chain of transmitters going back all the way to the Prophet
Muḥammad. To account for this phenomenon, skeptical scholars suggested
that later generations had invented chains of transmission to make it appear
as though the doctrines originated with the Prophet or the early community.
The skeptics’ belief that most historical reports found in early literary
sources should be deemed spurious is closely connected to their belief
that the early Muslim community did not see the Prophet Muḥammad as
a legislator or, if they did believe him to be one, did not consider him the
Muslim community’s exclusive or supreme lawgiver. For them, the fact that
a historical report places a theological or legal norm in the mouth of the
Prophet is evidence that a faction of Muslims attempted to project their
own normative views onto the Prophet Muḥammad to strengthen their
position vis-à-vis other Muslims who might have held a different view; it is
not evidence that the norm in fact originated in Prophetic teaching. When
such a report is documented by a gapless chain of transmission, there is
even greater reason to believe that the report was introduced later, rather
than earlier, in Muslim history.
There is a curious form of circularity in casting doubt on the accuracy
of a historical report on the grounds that it contains an appeal to a kind
of authority whose grounds, it is asserted, were articulated only later.
The danger of using normative standards regarding what does or does
not count as a plausible legal argument in the early Muslim community to
date particular texts comes out most clearly in the work of Norman Calder.
Calder, who read in the Muwaṭṭaʾ a theory of the Prophet Muḥammad as the
community’s supreme legislator, used this reading to argue that, contrary to
the common view of scholarship, the Mudawwana must have preceded the
Muwaṭṭaʾ. It was Calder’s view that because the Prophet’s role as supreme
legislator had become firmly established in legal theory only in the third
Islamic century (ninth century CE), the Muwaṭṭaʾ must have been written
substantially after Mālik’s death, and thus its attribution to Mālik is, like the
attributions of many traditions to the Prophet Muḥammad, fictitious.13

13 Norman Calder, Studies in Early Muslim Jurisprudence (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993). See
Mohammad Fadel, “Authority in Ibn Abī Zayd al-Qayrawānī’s Kitāb al-nawādir wa-l-ziyādāt
ʿalā mā fī l-Mudawwana min ghayrihā min al-ummahāt: ‘The Chapter of Judgments’ (Kitāb
Introduction to the Translation of the Royal Moroccan Edition 13

Unsurprisingly, Muslim scholars have reacted to such claims impeaching

the integrity of the Islamic legal tradition with derision and hostility.
Numerous Muslim scholars have published books and articles in both
English and Arabic defending the authenticity of the reports preserved
by the early Muslim literary tradition and the antiquity of the Prophet
Muḥammad’s status as not only a legislator but as the supreme legislator
of the Muslim community from the earliest days of the Muslim community.
Perhaps the best example of this genre of writing is Muhammad al-Azami’s
On Schacht’s Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence,14 in which Azami
attempted to refute Schacht’s claim that Muslim jurists invented spurious
chains of transmission in order to attribute, anachronistically, their
preferred legal positions to the Prophet Muḥammad. Azami demonstrated
that the phenomenon of the apparent backward proliferation of chains of
authorities might be explained by the failure of skeptical scholars to consider
the broad range of historical material available. While Mālik, for example,
might have included a report with only a perfunctory chain of transmitters,
another, contemporaneous authority might have transmitted the same
report with the full chain of authorities. Azami also criticized Schacht and
his followers for failing to distinguish between the use of traditions in works
of law such as the Muwaṭṭaʾ and in the works of traditionists (scholars who
specialized in the transmission of historical reports about the Prophet
Muḥammad, known as muḥaddithūn or ahl al-ḥadīth). According to Azami,
jurists were relatively indifferent to documenting the chains of authorities
for every report they used in their legal reasoning. In short, Azami and
other scholars with a positive view of the integrity of the Muslim tradition
have demonstrated that there are numerous plausible explanations for the
phenomenon of the backward proliferation of chains of authorities other
than Schacht’s suggestion of deliberate forgery.15

al-aqḍiya),” in The Heritage of Arabo-Islamic Learning: Studies Presented to Wadad Kadi, ed.
Maurice A. Pomerantz and Aram A. Shahin (Boston: Brill, 2016), 208–9. However, the care-
ful work of Miklos Muranyi, based on careful analysis and collation of thousands of pieces
of early manuscript evidence found in North African libraries, has generally been taken as
vindicating the traditional dating of the Muwaṭṭaʾ and the Mudawwana. See Joseph E. Lowry,
review of Die Rechtsbücher des Qairawāners Saḥnūn b. Saʿīd: Entstehungsgeschichte und
Werküberlieferung by Miklos Muranyi, Journal of the American Oriental Society 123, no. 2
(2003): 439 (stating that “Muranyi has surely disproved Calder’s imaginative reconstruc-
tion” of the relative dating of the Mudawwana and the Muwaṭṭaʾ).
14 Muhammad M. al-Azami, On Schacht’s Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (Oxford: Oxford
Centre for Islamic Studies and Islamic Texts Society, 1996).
15 See, for example, Nabia Abbott, Studies in Arabic Literari Papyri, 3 vols. (Chicago: University
of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 1957), for evidence that the early Muslim com-
munity recorded traditions of the Prophet Muḥammad. See also Harald Motzki, Analysing
Muslim Traditions: Studies in Legal, Exegetical and Maghāzī Ḥadīth (Boston: Brill, 2010), who
attempts to develop a method for dating traditions that neither assumes that the chains of
authorities are forgeries nor takes them as conclusive.
14 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Whatever one’s views regarding the dating of Muslim traditions generally

and of the historical authenticity of the traditions that Mālik cites in the
Muwaṭṭaʾ in particular, one can approach the Muwaṭṭaʾ without taking a
stance on the provenance of either the work or the materials it contains.
Contemporary readers are entitled to read it as an important artifact of
Islamic legal history—indeed, of legal history generally16—that challenges
us to understand it on its own terms, whether at the level of its implicit
theory of law (jurisprudence, or what the later Islamic tradition would call
uṣūl al-fiqh) or at the level of its specific legal doctrines (positive law, or
what Islamic tradition refers to as fiqh). It is our hope as translators that
our translation will render the text of the Muwaṭṭaʾ sufficiently accessible
to nonspecialists to allow them to appreciate it with both questions in mind.
Calder has helpfully classified the modes of reasoning in early Islamic
legal thought as falling broadly into two categories: apostolic and discursive.17
Discursive arguments are characteristically dialogic in structure, often
appearing in the guise of a question followed by an answer, or a statement
followed by a response.18 Arguments rooted in apostolic authority, by
contrast, are exegetical in structure; that is, they are based on deciphering
the meaning of an authoritative text, whether from the Quran, from the
Prophet Muḥammad, or from some other authority figure. This division
of arguments into those of authority versus those of discursive reason,
moreover, is well known in the Islamic tradition, which itself broadly
recognizes the distinction between arguments rooted in authority and
those rooted in reason. The Islamic tradition uses various terms to refer to
authority arguments, including naql (transmitted information), samʿ (heard
information), and athar/khabar/hadith (reported information), to name
only a few. Likewise, there are a number of terms for rational (discursive)
arguments, such as raʾy (considered opinion), naẓar (deliberation), and
qawl (a view). Indeed, Islamic sources themselves describe early legal
and theological disputes as being grounded in different conceptions of the
relative authority of revelation and reason, sometimes labeling one group
aṣḥāb al-ḥadīth (the partisans of transmitted authority) and its rivals aṣḥāb
al-raʾy (the partisans of considered judgment).
Part of what makes the Muwaṭṭaʾ a challenging text is that it resists neat
categorization as either a vindication of authoritative texts against rational
argumentation or a vindication of rational argumentation over texts. In
reading this work, therefore, the reader must attempt to understand how

16 To put the Muwaṭṭaʾ into a broader historical context, the Justinian Code, for example, was
developed between 529 and 565 of the Common Era, only two centuries before Mālik.
17 Calder, Studies, 8 and 19.
18 Calder, Studies, 8 and 19 (noting that discursive arguments are often marked by an “I said, he
said” [qultu/qāla] structure or introduced by the phrase, “What do you think [a-raʾayta]?”).
Introduction to the Translation of the Royal Moroccan Edition 15

its author views the relationship between authority and reason. As the
preceding discussion of scholarly debates regarding the provenance of the
Muwaṭṭaʾ indicates, however, scholars have sometimes implicitly conflated
jurisprudential questions with questions related to the authenticity of the
materials on which such questions draw. One consequence is that some
scholars essentially use jurisprudential arguments to derive conclusions
regarding the authenticity of particular texts. Although we believe that
this is a serious methodological error, it is nevertheless important for the
reader to be aware of the different jurisprudential theories that modern
scholars have attributed to the text. Awareness of the different accounts of
the Muwaṭṭaʾ’s jurisprudence will help the reader approach the text with a
better sense of its interpretive possibilities.
As seen in greater detail below, while there is a great deal of disagreement
among modern scholars about Mālik’s jurisprudence, there is convergence
regarding certain features of the Muwaṭṭaʾ and its place in Islamic legal
history. First, there is broad agreement that Mālik’s jurisprudence
represents, for lack of a better term, an “old” style of jurisprudence that was
displaced with the rise of a “new” style of jurisprudence. This new style of
jurisprudence is exemplified by the writings of Mālik’s student Muḥammad
b. Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī. In contrast to earlier generations of Muslim jurists,
including Mālik himself, Shāfiʿī was deeply concerned with articulating a
formal set of jurisprudential principles that could justify substantive legal
doctrine. Although he began his study of the law as a student of Mālik, his
peripatetic career, which led him to various regions of the ʿAbbāsid Empire,
including Yemen, Iraq (especially the ʿAbbāsid capital, Baghdad), and
finally Egypt, exposed him to the diversity of legal views within the Muslim
world. In the course of these travels, moreover, Shāfiʿī regularly debated
with local scholars, constantly challenging them to explain the grounds on
which they justified their diverse doctrinal positions. His critical approach
to substantive law ultimately led him to write treatises devoted exclusively
to the jurisprudential questions of what are the material sources that
constitute Islamic law and what are the proper means of inference (istidlāl)
that may be used to interpret those material sources. The most famous
of these theoretical reflections on jurisprudence is known simply as The
Epistle (al-Risāla).19
Shāfiʿī articulated a formal system of jurisprudence based on three
material sources of law—the Quran, Prophetic law (sunna), and the

19 There are two translations of this text into English, the first by Majid Khadduri, Islamic Juris-
prudence: Shāfiʿī’s “Risāla” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1961), and the second by Joseph
E. Lowry, The Epistle on Legal Theory: A Translation of al-Shāfiʿī’s “Risālah” (New York: New
York University Press, 2013).
16 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

consensus of the Muslim community (ijmāʿ)—and one method of reasoning,

analogy (qiyās). Shāfiʿī’s theory of the sources of Islamic law is sometimes
referred to as the “four sources” theory. Many scholars also assume that
Shāfiʿī’s four-source theory of the law later became the universal theory
that defined Sunnism. For that reason, scholars sometimes refer to him as
“the master architect” of Islamic law.20
Even a cursory skim of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, however, discloses that Mālik
certainly recognized the authority of each of these three material sources
insofar as he appealed, from time to time, to Quranic texts, to traditions
attributed to the Prophet Muḥammad, and to a kind of consensus. It is
also clear from the Muwaṭṭaʾ that Mālik sometimes engaged in analogical
reasoning. Therefore, what is distinctive about Shāfiʿī’s contribution?
Whereas there was no substantive difference with respect to the Quran
between Mālik and other representatives of the “old” jurisprudence, on
the one hand, and Shāfiʿī, on the other hand, Shāfiʿī applied much more
demanding standards than did other jurists for what constituted evidence of
Prophetic law, the sunna. Mālik, for example, accepted traditions attributed
to the Companions of the Prophet Muḥammad, as well as traditions
attributed to the next two generations of Muslims, known as the Followers
(tābiʿūn) and the “followers of the Followers” (tābiʿū al-tābiʿīn), as evidence
of Prophetic law. He also accepted as evidence traditions attributed to the
Prophet Muḥammad that lacked a complete chain of transmitters attesting
to the authenticity of the report. For example, Mālik frequently omitted the
names of all the intermediary transmitters of the report between himself
and the Prophet Muḥammad, and he would sometimes simply attribute the
report to an unnamed source that he deemed to be trustworthy.21
Shāfiʿī, by contrast, admitted only traditions that satisfied the most
rigorous criteria of authenticity—those that included the names of all
the reporters who had participated in transmitting the report from the
report’s origination with the Prophet Muḥammad to himself. Shāfiʿī
insisted that only reports with explicit and uninterrupted chains of
transmission could serve as evidence of Prophetic law because although
a Muslim is bound to obey Prophetic law, there must be objective proof
that a particular norm is, in fact, part of Prophetic law before he is under
an obligation to follow it. When a Muslim hears a Prophetic tradition,

20 See, for example, Wael Hallaq, “Was al-Shāfiʿī the Master Architect of Islamic Jurisprudence?,”
International Journal of Middle East Studies 25, no. 4 (1993): 593 (while denying that Shāfiʿī
in fact was the “master architect” of Islamic jurisprudence, Hallaq argues that he was the
first to articulate the “great synthesis” between rationalists and traditionists that is said to
characterize Sunnī Islam).
21 See, for example, hadith no. 933 of the RME, where Yaḥyā gives the chain of transmitters as
follows: “According to Mālik, a source he deemed reliable reported (ʿan al-thiqa ʿindahu).”
Introduction to the Translation of the Royal Moroccan Edition 17

he will suffer confusion if he has no means to determine whether the

teaching contained in the tradition is an authentic part of Prophetic law
(and therefore to be obeyed) or a mistaken attribution to the Prophet
Muḥammad or, worse still, a forgery (and therefore to be ignored).
Only if the full chain of transmitters of the report is disclosed to the
listener is he in a position to evaluate the soundness of the report’s
contents, because he is then able to determine whether the transmitters
are reliable. If the listener can establish that each link in the chain of
transmission is reliable, he can soundly conclude that the teaching in
the report is part of Prophetic law and must be taken into account in
determining his legal rights and obligations before God.
Accordingly, for Shāfiʿī, a report, even if attributed to the Prophet
Muḥammad, is not admissible as evidence of Prophetic law unless two
conditions are satisfied. First, the report must include a complete chain of
transmission. And second, the transmitters of the report, at each stage of
its transmission, must be known to be trustworthy. When these conditions
are satisfied, the report is considered valid (ṣaḥīḥ) and its teachings
become obligatory, even if only a few individuals (or, in the extreme
case, only one) report the tradition, and even if the tradition goes against
numerous other reports of the Prophet’s Companions or their Followers.
The only exception to this principle occurs when another source of law
contradicts or otherwise qualifies the report’s teachings. However, Shāfiʿī
went to great lengths to demonstrate that many traditions attributed to
the Prophet that were commonly thought to contradict other traditions
or the Quran were not, in fact, contradictory and could, with proper
knowledge of the Arabic language as well as the community’s history,
be harmonized.
This point marked another distinctive feature of Shāfiʿī’s jurisprudence:
when faced with texts that seemed to contradict one another, he attempted
to harmonize them (jamʿ) rather than give effect to only one of them
(tarjīḥ) and ignore the others. Shāfiʿī’s approach to Prophetic law thus
reduced the possibility of contradictions within the body of reports that
constituted evidence of Prophetic law by simply excluding a vast amount
of traditional material that did not meet his relatively stringent formal
criteria of validity. However, Mālik and other jurists adhering to the “old”
jurisprudence were more willing to accept reports while ignoring contrary
reports without providing a clear basis for their choice, because they
admitted a much broader set of reports as valid evidence of Prophetic law.
Shāfiʿī’s theory of what constituted Prophetic law and how it related to
the other material sources of law gave pride of place to reports attributed
to the Prophet Muḥammad that bore objective indicia of reliability in the
18 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

form of complete chains of transmitters whom the Muslim community

knew to be trustworthy.22
Shāfiʿī also articulated a doctrine of consensus (ijmāʿ) that essentially
eviscerated it, neutering it as an effective source of law. Whereas the “old”
jurisprudence often relied on assertions of consensus or agreement, these
claims did not assert universal agreement or consensus. In most cases,
claims of agreement or consensus indicated that a majority of jurists
agreed on a particular principle of law, and not that all of them agreed.
Furthermore, even these majoritarian agreements were not universal,
but instead often reflected only local majorities of scholars. Accordingly, a
claim of consensus or agreement often boiled down to the agreement of
a majority of scholars in a particular location, such as the scholars of the
Hijaz (Mecca and Medina), those of Iraq (Kufa and Basra), or the Levant.
Shāfiʿī, however, understood consensus as requiring the agreement of
all Muslims, not just the agreement of the learned. The effect of such an
understanding of consensus was to reduce its purview to those elements of
revealed law that were elementary, such as the obligations to pray, to fast,
to pay the alms-tax, to perform the Pilgrimage, and so on, and to eliminate
it as a source of law for the substantive regulation of either ritual or secular
life. Another consequence of this narrow understanding of consensus was
that it reinforced the status of valid Prophetic traditions as a preeminent, if
not the dominant, source of Islamic law.
With respect to what constituted legitimate tools of legal reasoning,
Shāfiʿī’s theory was not original insofar as he recognized the validity of
analogical reasoning. There is no doubt that the “old” jurisprudence made
much use of analogy, a fact that is evident from the Muwaṭṭaʾ. What was
unique about Shāfiʿī’s theory of legal reasoning was that he argued that
the only form of legitimate legal reasoning was analogy based on a rule
set out in one of the three material sources of law—Quran, Prophetic
law, or consensus. With this position, he pitted himself against the “old”
jurisprudence, which was also willing to use other modes of practical
reasoning to derive legal rules.
Mālik, for example, readily used the doctrine of “preclusion” or “blocking
the means” (sadd al-dharīʿa) to prohibit conduct that, although lawful if
viewed in isolation, could reasonably be expected to produce an unlawful
result. Mālik would also sometimes take into account conceptions of the public

22 Wymann-Landgraf suggests that in many cases the disagreement between Mālik and Shāfiʿī
regarding how Prophetic law should be understood turned on how much weight to give the
Prophet Muḥammad’s nonverbal conduct, with Mālik much more reluctant to take such con-
duct as evidence of Prophetic law. See, for example, Wymann-Landgraf, Mālik and Medina,
106 (noting that according to the Mālikīs, reports of the Prophet’s actions are ambiguous and
in need of further interpretation to determine their legal content).
Introduction to the Translation of the Royal Moroccan Edition 19

good (al-maṣlaḥa al-mursala) in formulating legal rules without grounding

his conclusions in a rule enshrined in one of the three material sources of
law. Similarly, Iraqi jurists would sometimes adopt a rule that was contrary to
analogical reasoning on the basis of what they called istiḥsān, which is often
translated as “equity” or “juristic preference.” Shāfiʿī, however, vociferously
rejected these various modes of nontextual legal reasoning in his polemics
with followers of the “old” jurisprudence, even authoring a treatise called
“The Invalidation of Istiḥsān” (Ibṭāl al-istiḥsān).23 Just as Shāfiʿī’s approach to
Prophetic law dramatically reduced the kinds of evidence admissible to prove
the content of Prophetic law, his theory also significantly reduced the scope
of legitimate legal reasoning by limiting it to analogical reasoning grounded
in a rule found in one of the three material sources of law.
Finally, Shāfiʿī elevated the status of the individual legal interpreter over
the community as a collective interpreter by recognizing an individual duty
to engage in a search for the legal truth in situations in which the material
sources did not provide an explicit answer to a legal question. This search for
an answer to a legal question he called ijtihād, and he derived its necessity
from the general obligation of Muslims to face the Kabah (a cube-shaped
shrine located in Mecca) when they perform their daily prayers. If a Muslim
is in the vicinity of the Kabah, his sense perception provides immediate
and necessary knowledge of the proper direction of prayer. If, however, the
Muslim is not in Mecca, he is obliged to infer the direction of the Kabah
using natural signs, such as the location of stars, as well as other possible
indicants to determine, to the best of his or her ability, the direction in
which he ought to pray. By doing so, he has discharged his duty before God,
whether or not his reasoning is correct.
According to Shāfiʿī, the same principle applies whenever a Muslim is
faced with a practical question of law for which the revealed sources do
not provide a clear answer. In such a case, the Muslim is obliged, to the
extent of his ability, to seek evidence (dalīl) of what God’s intended rule is
by investigating the material sources of law in order to reach a reasoned
judgment. Whether or not his conclusion is correct, he has satisfied his duty
before God. By contrast, blindly following the opinion of another scholar or
a group of scholars (a process known as taqlīd), at least in circumstances
in which the Muslim has the capacity to understand the material sources of
law directly, does not discharge his duty before God and therefore implicitly
results in sin.24

23 Shāfiʿī’s opposition to non-analogical modes of legal reasoning was so strident that he was
commonly reported to have said, “Whoever reasons by istiḥsān has certainly invented law”
(man istaḥsana fa-qad sharaʿa).
24 For details on Shāfiʿī’s view of ijtihād and taqlīd, see Ahmed El Shamsy, “Rethinking Taqlīd in
the Early Shāfiʿī School,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 128, no. 1 (2008): 1–23.
20 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Modern scholars’ view of Shāfiʿī’s contribution to Islamic jurisprudence

inevitably colors their understanding of Mālik’s approach to Islamic law as
set out in the Muwaṭṭaʾ. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say
that Schacht considered Shāfiʿī and his jurisprudence the telos toward
which Islamic law was evolving and its natural equilibrium point. Indeed,
one might even say that in Schacht’s view, Islamic law did not become
truly Islamic until Shāfiʿī, whose jurisprudential method sought to anchor
every rule in a revealed source. For Schacht, the “old” jurisprudence was
characterized by a different ethos, one that he referred to as the “living
sunna.” By this term he meant that the legal system of the early Muslim
community was little more than an ad hoc, anonymous amalgamation of
Arab customary laws and the laws of the conquered peoples of the Near
East, with only a vague connection to Quranic ethical principles.
Prophetic law was not a constituent element of this living sunna in
Schacht’s conception. The fact that Mālik included in the Muwaṭṭaʾ traditions
attributed to the Prophet Muḥammad did not contradict this conclusion,
since Mālik clearly did not feel bound to give effect to all of the Prophetic
traditions that he included. However, in Schacht’s view, Mālik’s inclusion
of Prophetic traditions indicated that the idea of the living sunna as the
basis of the Muslim community’s law was already beginning to give way
to a notion of an explicitly Prophetic law. But at least in Mālik’s generation,
scholars were still keen on defending the living sunna against the threat
posed by Prophetic traditions, which were often transmitted by relatively
small numbers of individuals. According to Schacht, Shāfiʿī’s powerful
defense of Prophetic law and his insistence on excluding secondary
evidence and admitting only rigorously authenticated Prophetic traditions
finally served the coup de grace to the living sunna and the “old” method of
jurisprudence. Followers of the latter continued to adhere to the teachings
of prior generations, but as a result of Shāfiʿī’s impact, they could no longer
justify their position on the grounds of either consensus or deference to
prior authority. Accordingly, Schacht concluded, they had no choice but to
fabricate Prophetic traditions to support their legal positions.
In Schacht’s assessment, therefore, Shāfiʿī’s legacy is mixed. Although
Shāfiʿī succeeded in the articulation of a jurisprudence that transformed
what had merely been the law of the Muslims into a self-consciously Islamic
legal system, that very same jurisprudence also led to stasis in Islamic law
and its ultimate demise. Because his jurisprudential theory reduced Islamic
law to a process of law-finding that was limited to a body of fixed texts, once
the body of Prophetic traditions had stabilized in the century after Shāfiʿī,
Islamic law lost the adaptive qualities that had characterized the role of
the living sunna in the “old” jurisprudence. As a result, Islamic law found it
Introduction to the Translation of the Royal Moroccan Edition 21

increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to adapt to changing circumstances,

a feature that caused its deep crisis in the modern era.
Schacht’s view of the “old” methods of jurisprudence does have some
empirical basis in the Muwaṭṭaʾ. Mālik includes reports from numerous
authority figures other than the Prophet Muḥammad. At times, he cites
Prophetic traditions but explicitly points out that these traditions are not
only not legally normative but actually contrary to the law. In such cases,
Mālik often invokes the concept of “practice” (ʿamal). Indeed, post-Shāfiʿī
jurisprudence would identify Mālik’s conception of “the practice of the
people of Medina” (ʿamal ahl al-Madīna) as a distinctive feature of what
would become Mālikī substantive law. Schacht appears to treat Mālik’s
conception of the practice of the people of Medina as the paradigm of the
living sunna that characterized the “old” jurisprudence and that was the
direct object of Shāfiʿī’s critique.
Other scholars, however, have denied that Mālik’s conception of the
practice of the people of Medina functioned as an alternative to Prophetic
law in the manner Schacht suggested. Rather, according to them, Mālik
understood “practice” to be a more reliable indicant of Prophetic law than
were traditions narrated through single chains of transmission, even if the
individual transmitters were known to be reliable.25 Others agreed with
Schacht in part, accepting his claim that the pre-Shāfiʿī law of the Muslim
community was based on the living sunna in the sense that it was the product
of the deliberations of the Muslim community at the time and hence dynamic.
But they qualified Schacht’s understanding of the living sunna by insisting that
such deliberations and the development of the law were always conducted
under the general rubric of Prophetic law, so it was an error to juxtapose the
“old” conception of law with the idea of Prophetic law.26
However, these observations about the status of “practice” (ʿamal) in
Mālik’s jurisprudence in general and in the Muwaṭṭaʾ in particular are largely
impressionistic and not based on a systematic reading of the text itself.
The groundbreaking work of Umar Abd-Allah Wymann-Landgraf on the
Muwaṭṭaʾ, by contrast, provides a systematic analysis of Mālik’s approach
to the law.27 On the basis of a close analysis of Mālik’s terminology in the

25 See, for example, Yasin Dutton, The Origins of Islamic Law: The Qurʾan, the “Muwaṭṭaʾ” and
Madinan ʿAmal, 2nd ed. (New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002), 30 (arguing that although
Mālik recognized the decisive role of Prophetic traditions in the derivation of Islamic law,
he believed that they could be properly understood only by reference to the practice of the
Muslim community).
26 See, for example, Fazlur Rahman, Islamic Methodology in History (Karachi: Karachi Central
Institute of Islamic Research, 1965), 19. See also El Shamsy, “Rethinking Taqlīd,” 3, where he
equates Schacht’s notion of the living sunna with Mālik’s concept of practice but notes that
Prophetic traditions “were clearly an important element” constituting the “living tradition.”
27 Wymann-Landgraf, Mālik and Medina.
22 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Muwaṭṭaʾ, Wymann-Landgraf argues convincingly that Mālik developed

a sophisticated set of terms that he used to make systematic distinctions
between rules of law based on historical authority and those based on
discursive authority. Mālik denoted the former category of rules with the
term sunna and the latter with the term amr. Moreover, Mālik’s terminology
also signaled to his readers the degree to which various legal rules were the
subject of agreement in Medina. Accordingly, he would sometimes describe
a rule as “the rule in our view” (al-amr ʿindanā) or “the agreed-upon rule
among us” (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā), the latter indicating a
greater degree of acceptance among the Medinese than the former. Mālik
also deployed many other terms, according to Wymann-Landgraf, to convey
the range of views on particular legal issues, from terms indicating that the
stated position was his own opinion to those marking the absence of known
dissent on the rule in question.28
Wymann-Landgraf’s analysis of Mālik’s terminology calls into question
Schacht’s conception of the living sunna as an anonymous amalgam of ad
hoc norms adopted in response to new problems in the community. On this
account, Mālik’s notion of the practice of the people of Medina entailed a
complex set of interpretive and jurisprudential assumptions and practices.
In some cases, these included the assumption of a continuing, unbroken
line of “practice” that originated in the days of the Prophet Muḥammad.
The legitimacy of such practice could not be doubted simply because
a lone reporter transmitted a Prophetic tradition contrary to it, even if
the transmitters of that report were otherwise reliable. Mālik’s notion
of practice also encompassed appeal to the systematic legal reasoning of
scholars, sometimes individual and at other times collective, that was based
on legal norms and not on revealed texts and so was broader than the legal
analogy that Shāfiʿī endorsed as the only permissible tool of legal reasoning.
It also included an idea of relative consensus and thus recognized points of
agreement and disagreement within the community as well as the breadth
of each. Finally, it recognized that certain legal norms—which Mālik
called sunna—were themselves not justifiable in terms of systematic legal
reasoning but rather defined the bounds within which systematic legal
reasoning took place.29
Wymann-Landgraf thus argues that even before Shāfiʿī, Islamic law
was deeply committed to formal legal reasoning (ijtihād), although it
recognized a broader set of legitimate inferential tools than Shāfiʿī’s limited

28 Mālik’s other terms include, for example, “the agreed-upon rule among us, the one in respect
of which there is no dissent” (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi).
29 Because of the compelling nature of Wymann-Landgraf’s argument, the translation strives to
use consistent translations of Mālik’s terminology and to provide transliterations of the key
Arabic terms.
Introduction to the Translation of the Royal Moroccan Edition 23

legal analogy. Accordingly, the notion of practice cannot be equated with a

vague, ad hoc system of customary law, as Schacht’s analysis would suggest.
Moreover, even after Shāfiʿī, Muslim scholars trained in the Hijazi and Iraqi
traditions (which later came to be known as the Mālikī and Ḥanafī schools,30
respectively) continued to accept the legitimacy of the inferential techniques
that Shāfiʿī had so vehemently rejected and to follow their own, broader,
pre-Shāfiʿī conceptions of how Prophetic law may be established. Therefore,
contrary to Schacht, Shāfiʿī’s theory of the four sources never became the
common Sunnī theory of law. The Mālikīs and the Ḥanafīs continued to
reject Shāfiʿī’s most distinctive jurisprudential claims regarding the role of
Prophetic traditions as well as his narrow definition of consensus and his
position that analogy was the only legitimate method of legal reasoning.
Accordingly, they had no need to forge Prophetic traditions to defend their
points of view. In addition, there is very little evidence to support Schacht’s
claim that post-Shāfiʿī jurists increasingly relied on Prophetic traditions to
support their interpretations of controversial points of law, whether the
reports were forged or authentic.31
For Ahmed El Shamsy, the crucial development inaugurated by Shāfiʿī’s
jurisprudence was not his emphasis on the centrality of the Prophet
Muḥammad as a lawgiver but rather the gradual canonization of the Muslims’
collective memory of the Prophet’s mission. The process of canonization
resulted in the transfer of religious authority from the community of
Muslims to a body of texts that recorded the community’s experience
of revelation. The result was a sharp demarcation between the sacred
time of the Muslim community’s founding and its subsequent, “secular”
history. Prior to canonization, the significance of the Muslim community’s
past necessarily had to be mediated through its living experience. But
once canonization had clearly separated sacred time from secular time,
there was no need for communal experience to access the Prophetic era;
instead, the individual interpreter became the locus of understanding the
present implications of the sacred founding moment. In the post-Shāfiʿī
era, El Shamsy argues, Islamic law was characterized by communities of
interpretation known as the schools of law (sing. madhhab, pl. madhāhib),

30 Followers of the Iraqi tradition of Islamic law were known as Ḥanafīs after the leading repre-
sentative of that tradition, Abū Ḥanīfa.
31 At several points in his book, Wymann-Landgraf identifies a rule in the Muwaṭṭaʾ as a point
of contention between Hijazi and Iraqi jurists but notes that neither side was able to produce
a conclusive Prophetic tradition to vindicate its position, whether during Mālik’s lifetime or
over the succeeding generations. See, for example, Wymann-Landgraf, Mālik and Medina, 375
(noting that despite the antiquity of the disagreement between the Iraqis and the Medinese
regarding how to distribute the estates of individuals who die in common circumstances,
such as during battles, in shipwrecks, or under collapsed buildings, neither party was able to
cite a hadith in support of its position).
24 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

rather than the communities of tradition that had prevailed in the first two
centuries of Islam before Shāfiʿī.32
The ideological transformation sparked by canonization was paralleled
by a sociological transformation that reinforced this cultural development.
Whereas Mālik was born in an Islamic empire dominated by Arab Muslims
and one in which Arab tribal origins were a distinct badge of privilege,
by Shāfiʿī’s death in the beginning of the third Islamic century, Muslim
society had become ethnically cosmopolitan, and tribal membership was
rapidly losing its social importance. The new order under the ʿAbbāsids,
for example, increasingly relied on non-Arab Muslims to staff the empire’s
legal and administrative bureaucracy. In such a sociological milieu, it
is not surprising that a conception of the law such as that advanced by
Shāfiʿī, which cast the law as amenable to theoretical study along the
lines of any other science, would displace a conception of the law rooted
in shared experience. The kind of experience-based justification of law
seemingly advocated by Mālik and other jurists of the “old” school seemed
to marginalize, even if unintentionally, new Muslims, who by virtue of
their more recent conversion could never be the discursive equals of “old”
Muslims. Shāfiʿī’s jurisprudence, by making a common body of texts that
existed in the space of sacred time the exclusive source of religious and
legal authority, had a leveling effect between old Muslims and new converts.
Both groups existed in historical time and therefore were equidistant from
the sacred time that held a monopoly over the new community’s authority.
Whereas Mālik was reported to have believed that “the people” should defer
to the Medinese (al-nās tabaʿ li-ahl al-Madīna), for Shāfiʿī all Muslims stood
in an equal relationship to the community’s founding moment. The implicit
social egalitarianism of Shāfiʿī’s jurisprudence was in that respect more
consonant with the spirit of the ʿAbbāsid age than was the communitarian
model of law and authority found in the Muwaṭṭaʾ, which effectively denied
that those who had not experienced life in the Prophet’s community could
reach a true understanding of Prophetic law.33

Overview of the Muwaṭṭaʾ

Although modern scholarship has provided many interesting and useful
insights regarding the Muwaṭṭaʾ and its relationship to Mālik’s jurisprudence,
its engagements with the text have been overwhelmingly generic, and its
conclusions have consequently been partial, incomplete, and in many cases
reductive. To demonstrate their weaknesses, however, it is first necessary to

32 Ahmed El Shamsy, The Canonization of Islamic Law: A Social and Intellectual History (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 4–6.
33 El Shamsy, Canonization, 91–92.
Introduction to the Translation of the Royal Moroccan Edition 25

provide a fuller description of the text to show that there is no single theory
that structures the relationship between authority and legal reason in
Mālik’s jurisprudence. Instead, context matters. As shown in greater detail
below, some discussions in the Muwaṭṭaʾ are almost entirely dependent
on what Calder would have called “apostolic” authority, that is, appeals to
authoritative texts that call simply for exegesis, while other discussions are
virtually devoid of historical texts and therefore consist almost entirely of
discursive legal reasoning. One cannot fully grasp the jurisprudence of the
Muwaṭṭaʾ, therefore, without also taking into account the distribution of
different kinds of arguments across the work.
Accordingly, we will here provide an overview of the book’s arrangement
and contents, outline a taxonomy of the texts Mālik uses, and tally the
distribution of these texts throughout the work, both in the aggregate and at
the level of individual chapters. This overview, in turn, will allow the reader
to better appreciate the relationship of authority and discursive reason in
Mālik’s jurisprudence.
Mālik arranged the Muwaṭṭaʾ in a series of parts that the modern reader
would call chapters but that Mālik himself titled “books,” each chapter
representing one book (kitāb). The Royal Moroccan Edition (RME), which
forms the basis of this translation, includes forty-five books, the first
entitled the Book of Obligatory Prayer Times and the last called the Book
of Miscellaneous Matters. Each book is typically divided into one or more
sections, each with its own heading, with one or more texts included under
each heading.34 Although the manuscript does not number the texts, the
editors of the RME have done so. According to their enumeration, the RME
contains 2,815 distinct texts. The first twenty books of the Muwaṭṭaʾ pertain
to ritual law, regulating the ordinary ritual practices of Islam commonly
referred to as the “five pillars” of Islam as well as certain supererogatory
rituals closely associated with those duties.35 These texts make up almost
40% of the book’s length if measured by word count,36 and 45% of the

34 The only exception to this pattern is Book 38, which does not contain separate sections.
Instead, it has a single section titled “Leasing Out Farmland.” It is, however, clearly separate
from Book 37, and it concludes with the statement, “The Book of Leasing Farmland has been
completed, with praise to God.”
35 The “five pillars” of Islam consist of the testimony of faith, daily prayer (ṣalāt), fasting
(ṣiyām), almsgiving (zakāt), and pilgrimage (ḥajj). Mālik also includes texts that deal with
various supererogatory forms of worship associated with these required rituals. One might
question the inclusion of Book 16, the Book of the Alms-Tax (zakāt), among the chapters that
deal with ritual law and instead classify it simply as part of the law of taxation in light of its
objective character and the fact that it even touches on the tax obligations of non-Muslims.
Of the chapters that treat ritual, the Book of the Alms-Tax is the second-longest, consisting of
approximately 12,000 words and including 129 distinct texts.
36 Our translation contains approximately 270,000 words. The total word count of the first
twenty books is approximately 100,000.
26 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

book’s length if measured as a proportion of the total number of texts

in the work.37 If a broader understanding of ritual is used, however, it is
also necessary to include Books 21–26. These books deal with religiously
motivated conduct, even if it is not part of ordinary ritual life.38 When these
books are added to the first twenty books of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, the proportion
of texts dealing with ritual law increases to approximately 43% of the book
by word count39 and approximately 51% by text count.40
Given the centrality of ritual to the Muwaṭṭaʾ, it is understandable that
one might choose to describe this work as a book of religious law. However,
the rest of the book, with the exception of its concluding chapter, deals with
matters that lie squarely within what would conventionally be understood
to be “secular” law: inheritance (3%); manumission of slaves (7%);
marriage, divorce, and fosterage by suckling (raḍāʾa) (9%); sales (10%);
judicial rulings (7%); preemption rights (1%); agricultural partnerships
and the lease of agricultural land (1%); investment partnerships (3%);
acts of battery (4%); collective oaths (1%);41 scripturally determined
criminal penalties (3%); and inebriating beverages (<1%).42 The last
chapter of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, the Book of Miscellaneous Matters (9%), consists
of heterogeneous materials that include, among other things, anecdotes
regarding the virtues of Medina and of the early Muslim community that
made its home there, eschatological tales, and elaboration of various
practices that were closely identified with Muslim identity, even if they
did not rise to the status of legal obligations. The chapter concludes with a
text affirming the world-historical role of the Prophet Muḥammad and, by
implication, that of his community.
The shortest chapter of the Muwaṭṭaʾ is Book 4, Forgetfulness in Prayer
(170 words). The longest is Chapter 20, the Book of Pilgrimage (29,000
words). The Book of Sales, however, is nearly as long, with almost 26,000
words. Indeed, secular topics, in the aggregate, cover approximately 50%
of the book by word count, a fact that complicates characterization of the
Muwaṭṭaʾ as a work of religious law.

37 The number of reports included through the end of Book 20 is 1,283 according to the enu-
meration of the RME.
38 These chapters deal with rules governing warfare with non-Muslims (jihād), religiously
motivated sacrifices (ḍaḥāyā and ʿaqīqa), the sacrifice of domesticated animals for ordinary
consumption (dhabāʾiḥ), hunting wild animals (ṣayd), and vows (nudhūr).
39 Books 21–26 contain approximately 15,000 words in total.
40 Books 21–26 include 165 texts.
41 A special procedure used to determine either guilt or liability in cases of unlawful killing
when direct evidence of guilt or liability is unavailable.
42 The percentages referenced in this context are approximations based on word count, not
number of texts.
Introduction to the Translation of the Royal Moroccan Edition 27

To understand the kinds of authority Mālik draws on in the Muwaṭṭaʾ,

some scholars have resorted to tallying the numbers of the different
kinds of texts found in the Muwaṭṭaʾ,43 but because the texts’ lengths can
vary dramatically, we believe a better measure of the relative importance
of different kinds of texts is their length relative to the total size of the
book. Furthermore, it is important to use an appropriate taxonomy of the
Muwaṭṭaʾ’s texts. We have divided all the texts that appear in the Muwaṭṭaʾ
into six categories:
• historical texts
• texts in which Mālik uses the term amr
• texts in which Mālik uses the term sunna
• texts that refer to the concept of practice (ʿamal), expressly or implicitly
• texts in which Mālik adopts one rule out of an unspecified set of
potential rules solely because he prefers that solution, usually
describing it as “the best” (istiḥsān) of the proposed solutions44
• rules that Mālik articulates in his own personal voice and that appear
to represent his personal legal reasoning (ijtihād)
Some explanation of these categories is in order. A text is classified as
historical if it purports to have been transmitted from an earlier generation,
whether or not it is represented as originating with the Prophet Muḥammad.
Usually, these texts are preceded by a chain of transmitters, although in
many cases Mālik omits the chain and simply introduces a historical report
by saying, “It reached me (balaghanī) . . .”
The second category of texts—amr texts—includes texts that describe
a rule using the Arabic term amr, whatever its subsequent qualifications.
According to Wymann-Landgraf, a rule described with this term originates
in an exercise of discursive legal reasoning (ijtihād), and so Mālik also
signals the degree to which the proposition enjoys general assent in his
community by qualifying the amr with various descriptors. These texts thus
convey rules that both are derived from discursive legal reasoning and enjoy

43 For example, Wael Hallaq, in rejecting Schacht’s argument that Mālik did not recognize the
authority of Prophetic traditions and instead favored local traditions representing the “liv-
ing sunna,” stated that “Mālik’s Muwaṭṭaʾ . . . contains 898 Companion reports, but as many
as 822 for the Prophet alone.” Wael Hallaq, The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 106. Without knowing either the proportion of the
whole work represented by these numbers or the relative lengths of the different types of
texts, however, it is difficult if not impossible to determine the relative weight of each kind of
text in the overall structure of the Muwaṭṭaʾ.
44 Because Mālik uses the elative form of the word “good” (aḥsan) or “beloved” (ahabb) in these
circumstances to justify his choice of rule, we have, for convenience, tallied such choices as
instances of istiḥsān insofar as they are, quite literally, justified by virtue of Mālik’s conclu-
sion that the chosen rule is “better” or “more beautiful” or “more beloved” than the other
possible solutions.
28 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

a certain degree of public recognition. When he describes a norm as al-amr

ʿindanā, Mālik intends to communicate that the norm in question enjoys
substantial support but is not without important detractors. We translate
this expression as “the rule in our view.” With al-amr al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi
ʿindanā, Mālik means a norm that has nearly universal but not complete
support in Medina. We translate that expression as “the agreed-upon rule
among us.” For a rule that apparently enjoys unanimous support, Mālik uses
the expression al-amr alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi ʿindanā, meaning that there are
no known dissenters to the rule. We translate the expression as “the rule
about which there is no dissent among us.” There are various other qualifiers
that Mālik uses to describe legal principles, but they are all included within
the broad category of amr terms—rules derived through discursive legal
reasoning that have gained a significant degree of public recognition.
The third category of texts—sunna texts—comprises texts that describe
a rule using the Arabic term sunna. According to Wymann-Landgraf, in
Mālik’s usage a rule of this type originates in an authoritative past decision
that cannot be justified through the exercise of discursive legal reason and
thus may be reasonably compared to a statute. A sunna rule may or may not
come from a decision of the Prophet Muḥammad,45 but its crucial feature
is that unlike an amr rule, it places boundaries on discursive reasoning
and is inconsistent with the conclusions that discursive legal reasoning
would reach.46 Because the normativity of a sunna rule is based on history,
we have translated it as a “long-established ordinance” to distinguish it in
English from a rule derived through discursive legal reason. Like the term
amr, however, it may be qualified by a subsequent phrase, as in al-sunna
ʿindanā, which we translate as “the long-established ordinance among
us,” or al-sunna allatī lā ikhtilāfa fīhā ʿindanā, which we translate as “the
long-established ordinance about which there is no dissent among us.”
Unlike amr, sunna is sometimes used in an absolute sense, in which case
we translate it simply as “the long-established ordinance.”47 The statute-like
quality of a sunna rule is also reflected in a qualification that is unique to
it and not applied to amr rules, namely, the expression maḍat al-sunna.
Mālik’s use of the past tense of the verb maḍā, which means “to proceed” or
“to issue,” corroborates the intuition that a sunna rule is based on a decision

45 Wymann-Landgraf argues that a sunna rule may have originated in a decision of the Prophet
Muḥammad, in the precedent of one of the early caliphs, or even in events prior to Islam.
Wymann-Landgraf, Mālik and Medina, 4–5.
46 Wymann-Landgraf, Mālik and Medina, 5 (“the sunna-terms are systematically contrary to
analogy with related Medinese precepts of law”).
47 An example is hadith no. 248 of the RME. Significantly, after stating the rule, Mālik cites a
Prophetic tradition in support of it.
Introduction to the Translation of the Royal Moroccan Edition 29

made at a discrete moment in the past.48 Because the grammatical subject

is sunna—the rule itself—the phrase does not disclose who the decision
maker was. We have therefore translated the expression maḍat al-sunna as
“it has long been the established ordinance that . . .”
The fourth category of texts—practice (ʿamal) texts—raises interpretive
issues not present in the prior three categories. Although the later Islamic
tradition emphasizes Mālik’s commitment to the “practice of the people
of Medina” as a distinctive feature of his jurisprudence, he did not use the
term ʿamal or any cognate term systematically to describe rules in the
Muwaṭṭaʾ in the manner he did with the previous terms, amr and sunna.49 It
most commonly shows up in a negative sense, as in the expression “practice
does not accord with this” (laysa ʿalā hādhā al-ʿamal).50 Mālik sometimes
uses this phrase or an equivalent one when he rejects what might at first
glance appear a plausible candidate for a rule. In such a case, the absence
of sociological evidence that the rule is followed corroborates the legal
conclusion that, despite its initial plausibility, the potential rule is not, in fact,
normative. Positive appeals to practice as proof that something is a rule are
more difficult to detect, but we have identified several phrases that Mālik
uses to endorse particular rules as effectively practice-based. Some of these
phrases are as follows: “This is the rule that I found both the people and the
learned of our town following” (al-amr alladhī adraktu ʿalayhi al-nās wa-ahl
al-ʿilm bi-baladinā); “That is the rule that the people of knowledge in our
city have always followed” (wa-dhālika alladhī lam yazal ʿalayhi ahl al-ʿilm
bi-baladinā); “It has always been the case that” (lam tazal). Accordingly, any
rule that Mālik justifies by reference to a sociological fact we have classified
as falling into the fourth category of practice (ʿamal).
We chose to describe the fifth category of texts as istiḥsān even though
Mālik does not use that term anywhere in the Muwaṭṭaʾ. The term istiḥsān
is derived from the Arabic root ḥ-s-n, which denotes beauty or goodness.
In later juristic discourse, it is associated with the jurist’s preference for
one rule over another, often in circumstances in which the application of
strict analogy would lead to a result that the jurist finds contradictory to the
spirit of the law. Accordingly, modern scholarship has sometimes translated

48 See M. M. Bravmann, The Spiritual Background of Early Islam (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 148 (“It
should be especially stressed that the phrase maḍat-i s-sunnatu bi [or: maḍat sunnatun bi],
far from reflecting the concept of ‘the continuous practice of the community [the custom of
the Muslims of the past],’ as Schacht had assumed . . . , precisely emphasizes the character of
the sunnah as ‘a procedure created by an individual personality.’”).
49 Wymann-Landgraf notes that despite the importance of practice to understanding the
Muwaṭṭaʾ, “explicit references to it are rare”; Mālik and Medina, 71. Practice most com-
monly appears in the titles of sections within the book’s chapters, where it is used a total of
twenty-nine times, mostly in connection with matters of ritual law. Ibid., 400.
50 See, for example, Wymann-Landgraf, Mālik and Medina, 384.
30 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

it into English using terms such as “equity” or “juristic preference.” The

detractors of istiḥsān in the Islamic tradition frowned on its use or rejected
it outright on the grounds that it substituted the subjective preference of the
jurist for the objective evidence provided by revelation. Indeed, as already
mentioned, Shāfiʿī authored a treatise titled “The Invalidation of Istiḥsān”
(Ibṭāl al-istiḥsān).51 Mālik, however, is widely understood to have endorsed
istiḥsān wholeheartedly, to the point that later Mālikī jurists commonly
quote him as having said, “Istiḥsān is nine-tenths of [legal] knowledge.”52
Although later Mālikī jurists associated istiḥsān closely with the idea of
well-being (maṣlaḥa),53 that is not the sense in which we are using it here.
Rather, we classify a text as falling into the category of istiḥsān whenever
Mālik expressly endorses the rule contained in the text on the basis of its
inherent beauty or goodness. He takes this approach in situations in which
he is apparently aware of numerous possible solutions to a legal problem
and chooses one of them, calling it either the best (aḥsan) of the proposed
solutions or the one he himself prefers (aḥabb ilayya).
The sixth and last category of texts consists of rules based on Mālik’s
personal use of legal reason. This categorization reflects the fact that a rule
of this type is articulated in Mālik’s own voice and is usually preceded by
an explicit question directed to him: “Mālik was asked .  .  . Mālik replied
.  .  .” More rarely, these texts appear in exegetical contexts in which he is
explaining the meaning of a historical text.54
Based on the preceding taxonomy, the aggregate breakdown of the
Muwaṭṭaʾ’s texts55 is as follows:

51 It should be noted that Shāfiʿī used istiḥsān in a much broader sense than did later Muslim
jurisprudence to refer to a variety of non-analogical juristic arguments, including preclusion
or “blocking the means” (sadd al-dharīʿa).
52 Later Mālikī jurists regularly attribute this statement to Mālik. See Aḥmad al-Raysūnī, Naẓar­
iyyat al-maqāṣid ʿinda al-Shāṭibī, 4th ed. (Herndon, VA: International Institute of Islamic
Thought, 1995), 70. The earliest Mālikī text that supports the attribution is the Mustakhraja
of ʿUtbī, one of the foundational texts of the school. See Ibn Rushd, al-Bayān wa’l-taḥṣīl, 4:155
(quoting Aṣbagh, an early follower of Mālik, as saying, “Istiḥsān is more common in the law
than analogy is, and I heard Ibn al-Qāsim say—and he would attribute it directly to Mālik—
that Mālik would say, ‘Nine-tenths of the law is istiḥsān’” [al-istiḥsān fī al-ʿilm yakūn aghlab
min al-qiyās wa-qad samiʿtu Ibn al-Qāsim yaqūl wa-yarwī ʿan Mālik annahu qāla tisʿat aʿshār
al-ʿilm al-istiḥsān]).
53 Raysūnī, Naẓariyyat al-maqāṣid, 70 (istiḥsān means taking into account well-being, maṣlaḥa,
and fairness, ʿadl); Wymann-Landgraf, Mālik and Medina, 15.
54 See, for example, hadith no. 48 of the RME, where Mālik opines that one may perform ablu-
tions in preparation for praying with water out of which a cat drank, unless one saw that the
cat’s mouth contained something that was impure, such as the blood from something that it
had killed.
55 The percentages were calculated on the basis of word count, not number of reports. The total
exceeds 100% because some reports incorporate more than one kind of argument and were
thus included in more than one category.
Introduction to the Translation of the Royal Moroccan Edition 31

Historical Istiḥsān Personal

texts Amr texts Sunna texts ʿAmal texts texts ijtihād texts
55% 11% 3% 5% 3% 26%

At first glance, this taxonomical breakdown of the Muwaṭṭaʾ’s texts

seems to vindicate scholars such as Dutton and Calder who have described
the Muwaṭṭaʾ as primarily a work of hadith, in which Mālik himself
appears incidentally and only as a commentator.56 But if one considers the
distribution of these texts across the chapters of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, a different
picture emerges. Some chapters are predominantly historical, whereas
others barely include any historical material whatsoever. For example, the
two chapters with the greatest amount of historical material are the Book
of Pilgrimage, which contains approximately 20,000 words of historical
reports, and the Book of Miscellaneous Matters, with approximately 22,000
words of historical reports. These two books contain approximately 16%
of the Muwaṭṭaʾ’s historical materials. Yet even that number conceals
important differences between these two chapters. Despite the heavy
emphasis on the historical past in the Book of Pilgrimage, approximately
40% of the chapter’s content consists of texts from the other five categories,
with Mālik’s personal opinions representing approximately 24% of the
chapter. By contrast, approximately 96% of the Book of Miscellaneous
Matters consists of historical reports. At the other extreme, only 6% of the
Book of Investment Partnerships consist of historical reports, and 76% of
its texts convey Mālik’s personal legal reasoning. It would stretch credulity
to describe Mālik’s personal legal reasoning in this case as exegetical since
he hardly included any historical material that would call for exegesis. A
chapter with a distribution in the middle of these extremes might be the
Book of the Alms-Tax, of which approximately 33% is historical material,
39% is Mālik’s personal legal reasoning, 9% is amr rules, 7% is istiḥsān
rules, 7% is ʿamal rules, and 4% is sunna rules.
To understand the Muwaṭṭaʾ’s jurisprudence, therefore, it is not enough
to describe, in the abstract, a generic approach based on a theoretical
relationship between authority and legal reason without taking into account
the legal context. The distribution of different kinds of texts indicates
that Mālik clearly believed that certain kinds of arguments had greater
salience in different areas of the law. It should not come as a surprise, then,
that historical materials make up a substantial portion of sections of the
Muwaṭṭaʾ dealing with matters that either fell squarely within ritual law

56 Dutton, Origins, 27 (describing the Muwaṭṭaʾ as a book of hadith); Calder, Studies, 8 and 23
(describing the Muwaṭṭaʾ as based on “apostolic authority,” with texts of authority figures
coming first, followed by Mālik’s exegesis of those texts).
32 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

or functioned as identity markers in the early Muslim community; and it

is likewise not surprising that the relative importance of historical reports
declines sharply as one moves to areas of the law connected to more
conventional legal topics, such as sales, inheritance, and property. If, as
we have suggested, amr rules are most relevant in contexts characterized
by a need for a common understanding, it makes sense that they would
appear with relatively high frequency in the Book of Sales (24%) and the
Book of Judicial Rulings (27%). Similarly, because sunna rules function as
the equivalent of statutory norms that preempt the ordinary operation of
systematic discursive legal reason, it is understandable that the chapter
with the largest number of sunna rules in absolute terms is the Book of
Judicial Rulings (11% of the chapter and containing 1,924 words in total).57
The aggregate breakdown of the texts of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, though, is
revealing in one important way: much contemporary scholarship assumes
that Mālik was merely a representative of the Hijazi school of law, and that
the Muwaṭṭaʾ is simply a reflection of the median view of the law from the
perspective of the Medinese. But these conclusions are clearly not tenable
when one considers the Muwaṭṭaʾ in its entirety. There can be no denying
that Mālik’s voice in the Muwaṭṭaʾ—at least in the recension of Yaḥyā—is
that of an independent legal authority, in some areas of the law if not in
all of them. The notion that Mālik held a communitarian conception of the
law58 in contrast to the more individualistic orientation that Shāfiʿī would
propose must accordingly be modified in light of the fact that some areas of
the law in the Muwaṭṭaʾ appear to be derived almost entirely from Mālik’s
own reasoning, and in most of the Muwaṭṭaʾ’s chapters his voice is distinct
from both the community’s history and the community of scholars.
At the same time, Mālik’s heavy reliance on amr terms and sunna terms
reveals a jurisprudential theory that was substantially different from the
one that Shāfiʿī proposed and that would revolutionize Islamic law in later
centuries. Although Wymann-Landgraf is certainly correct that Schacht
was mistaken in believing that Shāfiʿī’s theory of the four sources became
the universal theory of law among Sunnīs, the fact that post-Mālikī jurists
formally retained a broader set of sources than that recognized by Shāfiʿī
does not capture what we believe lay at the heart of Shāfiʿī’s revolution
against the kind of law Mālik advocated. For Shāfiʿī and the Muslim jurists
who came after him, regardless of school, law was now a science, modeled
along the lines of theology,59 in which the legal scholar was assumed to

57 Other chapters display much higher proportional reliance on sunna rules. The chapter with
the highest proportion of sunna texts (23%) is the Book of Pious Seclusion, a supererogatory
practice associated with fasting.
58 El Shamsy, Canonization, 84.
59 El Shamsy, Canonization, 44.
Introduction to the Translation of the Royal Moroccan Edition 33

be investigating the legal implications of the ontological reality of divine

speech.60 Although jurists could reasonably disagree about the content of
divine speech and its legal implications, in principle only one interpretation
was correct. Indeed, because the study of law was now conceived of as a
science, it was possible for one jurist to be correct and the rest of the juristic
community to be wrong.61 By contrast, it appears that although Mālik
believed that there were correct and incorrect interpretations of the law, he
understood the law to be a project immanent to the Muslim community, and
so its legal deliberations were political (broadly understood), not scientific.
For that reason, Mālik included in his book numerous historical reports of
the decisions of Umayyad-era political authorities.
In the Muwaṭṭaʾ, discursive legal reasoning was the tool-in-trade of the
jurist, but it operated within limits established by historical authority, and
even systematic legal reasoning was shaped by considerations of well-being
and the public good rather than strict analogy. It is no coincidence,
therefore, that there has been renewed interest in Mālikī jurisprudence
given contemporary Muslims’ interest in maṣlaḥa (the common good) and
the closely related notion of maqāṣid al-sharīʿa (the purposes of the divine
law) as a method of legal reform.62 At the same time, the history of Mālik’s
jurisprudence as found in the Muwaṭṭaʾ and the fact that it rapidly became
obsolete under the ʿAbbāsids suggest that the kind of jurisprudence Mālik
followed in the Muwaṭṭaʾ was dependent on a particular set of institutions
that might have been appropriate for a small city-state but were not scalable
when Islam became the religion of a cosmopolitan empire and its followers
were no longer limited to a conquering Arab elite.
This fact helps explain why later Mālikīs abandoned the elaborate termi-
nology of the Muwaṭṭaʾ.63 Although the Muwaṭṭaʾ remained an important text
because of its connection with the school’s putative founder, its importance for
later Mālikīs was more sentimental than substantive. Saḥnūn’s Mudawwana,
a work that approached the law as a science, became the foundational text of
Mālikī jurisprudence. Saḥnūn’s goal in that work was to identify, whenever

60 El Shamsy, Canonization, 10.

61 El Shamsy is almost certainly correct when he describes Shāfiʾī’s theory of the law as grounded
in metaphysical realism; Canonization, 82. Two centuries later, after theoretical jurisprudence
became firmly established as a discipline distinct from positive law, Muslim jurists and theo-
logians would split into two camps on the question of metaphysical realism, with one group
endorsing the notion that the goal of legal reasoning (ijtihād) was to obtain true metaphysi-
cal knowledge of the content of the divine law and the other denying that legal rules derived
through interpretation had any connection to metaphysical reality. The former were known as
the “fallibilists” (mukhaṭṭiʿa) and the latter as the “infallibilists” (muṣawwiba).
62 See, for example, Felicitas Opwis, “Maṣlaḥa in Contemporary Islamic Legal Theory,” Islamic Law
and Society 12, no. 2 (2005): 182–223 (giving an overview of the history of maṣlaḥa in medieval
Islamic theoretical jurisprudence and its reception by contemporary Muslim legal scholars).
63 Wymann-Landgraf, Mālik and Medina, 274 and 289 n. 50.
34 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

possible, Mālik’s opinion on a wide range of legal questions; when that was
not possible, to reconstruct it based on the views of his various students; and
when even that was not possible, to derive, through conjecture, what Mālik
would have said about the question had it been posed to him. While Saḥnūn’s
deference to Mālik’s views would no doubt have prompted objections from
Shāfiʿī and his followers, Saḥnūn seemed to share Shāfiʿī’s assumption that
the goal of legal science is to obtain true knowledge of an ontological reality
disclosed through the vehicle of divine speech. The only difference between
the two would have concerned the question whether such truths could be
obtained indirectly through deference to the views of a great scholar such as
Mālik, or whether a jurist had to consider the evidence provided by divine
speech independently for himself.64
In reading the Muwaṭṭaʾ, it is crucial to remember that although scholars
may disagree as to why it took the form that it did, there is no dispute that
Mālik did not intend it to be an exhaustive statement of the law. Many of its
texts make sense only on the assumption that the reader is already familiar
with basic principles of Islamic law. There is also a temptation to view the
work as a mere primer on the foundational elements of Medinese law in the
time of Mālik, functioning as an introduction to the weightier work, Saḥnūn’s
compilation of Mālik’s legal teachings.65 The fact that the Mudawwana
certainly includes more cases than the Muwaṭṭaʾ does not, on its own, mean
that the cases discussed in the Muwaṭṭaʾ are basic or rudimentary. To the
contrary, many of the cases Mālik addresses are quite intricate and require
a relatively advanced level of legal education to understand. For this reason,
we have included a substantial amount of commentary in the notes in an
attempt to make the stakes at issue clear to nonspecialist readers. Although
it may very well be the case that Mālik intended the Muwaṭṭaʾ to serve as a
restatement of the basic principles of Medinese law, that in no way implies
that the Muwaṭṭaʾ is a book for beginners in legal science. In fact, familiarity
with a broad range of legal principles is very helpful to comprehend the
text, its arguments, and the positions it takes on a variety of questions.
We believe that this translation of the Muwaṭṭaʾ offers readers a window
into what is now an archaic period of Islamic law, and that it will make this
important work of legal history available to a much wider audience.

64 Ibn Farḥūn (d. 799/1396) quoted Saḥnūn as saying, “I heard Ibn al-Qāsim say, ‘I have gladly and
contentedly accepted Mālik b. Anas for the good of my soul, and I have placed him between me
and Hell.’ . . . And I have gladly and contentedly accepted Ibn al-Qāsim for the good of my soul,
and I have placed him between me and Hell.” Ibn Farḥūn, Tabṣirat al-ḥukkām fī uṣūl al-aqḍiya
wa-minhāj al-aḥkām, 2 vols. (Cairo: Maktabat al-Kulliyyāt al-Azhariyya, 1986), 1:70.
65 Wymann-Landgraf, Mālik and Medina, 71–73 (suggesting that the Muwaṭṭaʾ lays out the
foundations of Mālik’s legal reasoning, along with that of the Medinese more generally, and
thus “lays the groundwork for the Mudawwana”).
 Arabic Introduction to the
Royal Moroccan Edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ

35
The Members of the Editorial Committee of the Muwaṭṭaʾ i
[5] The Commander of the Faithful, may God preserve him, entrusted the
Committee for the Renewal of Islamic Learning, which is itself an affiliate
of the Secretariat General of the High Council of Religious Scholars, with
the task of preparing a critical edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Imam Mālik b.
Anas, may God be pleased with him, drawing the Committee’s attention
to the defective nature of the various printed editions currently in public
circulation. He directed the Committee to rely only on original manuscripts
of the recension of Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā al-Laythī al-Maṣmūdī.
The members who have been honored with the task of carrying out His
Majesty’s command are the following:
• Dr. Mohamed Raoundi, Member of the High Council of
Religious Scholars
• Dr. Driss Ibn Daouia, President of the High Council of Religious
Scholars, Larache Branch
• Dr. Mohamed Azzeddine Mayar El Idrissi, President of the High
Council of Religious Scholars, Marrakesh Branch
The Committee sought the help of the following group of researchers:
• Prof. Driss Elhamdaoui, Faculty of Islamic Law, Fez
• Dr. Lahoucine Ait Said, Member of the High Council of
Religious Scholars
• Dr. Abdelhafid Doumar, Faculty of Humanities, Oujda
• Dr. Abdellah Lansari, Representative of the Ministry of Endowments
and Islamic Affairs, Marrakesh
• Prof. Abdelmjid Mouhib, Dar al-Hadith al-Hasaniyya
• Dr. Mohammed Guennoun Hassani, President of the High Council of
Religious Scholars, Tangiers Branch

i We reproduce footnotes that are part of the original text using consecutive Arabic numerals.
Footnotes provided by the translators of the Arabic introduction are indicated in consecutive
lowercase Roman numerals. The numbers in brackets indicate the page numbers in the Royal
Moroccan Edition.

37
Preface to the Critical Edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate
Praise Be to God, Lord of the Worlds.
May God Grace Our Master, the Chosen and Trustworthy One, the
Prophet Muḥammad, His Family, and His Companions, All of Them.

[7] To proceed: Knowledge and wisdom are the greatest legacy that God’s
prophets and messengers have left for humanity. Together, knowledge and
wisdom constitute the noblest achievements that they have commended
to humanity and urged their followers to pursue, acquire, and understand.
Whoever acquires a share of this inheritance is fortunate beyond measure
and the recipient of a most generous bequest.
It is well known that during the Prophetic era, throughout the era of
the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and for a portion of the Umayyad era, people’s
attention was focused on the Book of God, Sublime is He. This involved
writing it down and memorizing, reciting, discussing, and interpreting it.
With regard to other sciences, however, peopled relied primarily on their
memory, though a handful of them recorded some details pertaining to
other sciences in their own notebooks.
Toward the end of the first century AH (718 CE), the then ruler of the
Muslims, the caliph ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, issued an official declaration
permitting people to record sacred knowledge, to collect the various
reports (ḥadīth) about the Messenger of God (pbuh), and to preserve them.
He also ordered the scholars to spread this knowledge among the people
and directed them to instruct them in the affairs of their religion and its
rules. This is how the process of collecting, writing, and recording the
sacred sciences began.
Around the time of the decline of the Umayyad dynasty and the rise of
the ʿAbbāsids, the first books in Islamic civilization emerged, written in an
improved form and layout with topics arranged in well-sequenced chapters,
using precise documentation and editing. The people who undertook this
scholarly leap forward were a group of pioneering second-generation
Muslims (tābiʿūn),ii and their followers. Responsibility for scholarship

39
40 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

at that time ended up in their hands, their names forever shining in the
heavens among the stars of knowledge. The most prominent of these was
the Imam of Medina, Mālik b. Anas (93–179/711–795).
This Imam became famous for two reasons: his prolific teaching and his
authorship of books. Because of his rigorous scholarly methods and his
careful attention to the accuracy and reliability of his teaching materials, he
won over the hearts and minds of the students who traveled from far and
wide to study with him. In turn, his own knowledge and reputation spread
far and wide when his students returned to their homes. [8] His book, the
Muwaṭṭaʾ, secured for him and for his knowledge fame throughout the
many regions and cities in which Muslims reside and sealed his reputation
as one of Islam’s scholars throughout the ages.

The Muwaṭṭaʾ in the Islamic West

The first groups of religious scholars returned to their own people in
the Maghrib, their packs laden with the first books of the scholars of
the eastern Arab lands. One of these was the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Imam Mālik b.
Anas. These scholars had great respect and admiration for this Imam,
his moral character, and his noble qualities. They were impressed by the
great knowledge and understanding that God had bestowed upon him, a
knowledge that the people received with open arms. Their respect and
admiration for Imam Mālik laid the ground for the future spread of Mālik’s
school of jurisprudence (madhhab) in the Maghrib and Andalusia. His
reputation continued to grow, and his teachings continued to spread, and
the number of those who followed his teachings continued to increase.
Finally, the entirety of the Maghrib and Andalusia submitted to his madhhab
and freely adopted his teachings as their law.
Since then, tremendous importance has been given to anything having a
connection with Imam Mālik’s book, the Muwaṭṭaʾ, and his madhhab. No one
can claim to be a learned scholar of Islam in these regions unless he has first
made a contribution in the service of this madhhab. All scholars recognize
this to be a binding obligation on them and part of their established creed.
However, attention to Mālik and his school of jurisprudence reaches
its apogee and achieves its highest degree of perfection when its source
originates in the great protector of Islam and its community, the one on
whose opinion and deliberations the people rely. This person is none other
than the Commander of the Faithful, our master and protector, Muḥammad
VI, the descendant of the trustworthy Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh). When
he issued his noble command to the High Council of Religious Scholars to
ii The generation of Muslims who were born after the death of Muḥammad but who were con-
temporaries of the Companions (ṣaḥāba) of Muḥammad (pbuh).
Arabic Introduction to the Royal Moroccan Edition 41

prepare a critical edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, one free of the mistakes, flaws,
and errors found in previous published versions, he offered this project in
repayment of the debt the Moroccan nation owed to Imam Mālik and his
school.
His Majesty, may God ennoble him, gave appropriate directives to the
Committee that has been tasked with preparing a critical version of the
Muwaṭṭaʾ: “We have commissioned the Permanent Committee for the
Renewal of Islamic Learning to produce a scholarly and carefully prepared
critical edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Imam Mālik b. Anas, may God be pleased
with him, an edition appropriate to the status it holds among Moroccans.
We expect this Committee to rectify the flaws plaguing previously published
editions by relying on the manuscripts of this text that are found uniquely
in Morocco, resulting in a publication bearing a national imprint, worthy of
Morocco as a shining beacon of Mālikī jurisprudence.” (From a speech of the
Commander of the Faithful to the High Council of Religious Scholars on the
occasion of the expansion of the Scholarly Councils, delivered at the Royal
Palace in Casablanca on May 30, 2004).
[9] The Royal Order to prepare a critical edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, issued by
the Commander of the Faithful, His Majesty Muḥammad VI, the descendant
of Alaouite sultans, in the fifteenth century AH (twenty-first century CE),
parallels the action of the Commander of the Faithful Abū Jaʿfar al-Manṣūr,
the founder of the ʿAbbāsid dynasty, when he advised Imam Mālik to compile
the Muwaṭṭaʾ in the second century AH (eighth century CE).
The Editorial Committee spared no effort in carrying out, faithfully
and with utmost sincerity, the royal directives set out in the speech of the
Commander of the Faithful by seeking out and collecting rare and precious
manuscripts of the Muwaṭṭaʾ with the goal of publishing the most accurate
edition conforming to the recension of Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā al-Laythī al-Maṣmūdī
(d. 234/848), as transmitted over the generations by its most reliable
transmitters. The Committee used reliable, original Moroccan manuscript
copies of the text, ones used by the luminaries of Islamic jurisprudence
in our land, which our scholarly libraries have carefully preserved, as is
further explained below in this introduction to this edition. In this regard,
the respected Editorial Committee deserves high praise for the excellent
work it has done in its service to the Islamic sciences, which are of ancient
vintage in our country, by editing the Muwaṭṭaʾ, clarifying its content, and
rectifying errors in the manuscripts. This is the Editorial Committee’s
important contribution to the renewal of Islamic learning, culture, and
wisdom, and to a sound civilizational and scientific revival. This work—
praise be to God—meets the established requirements of a critical edition,
and it adds to the work of previous scholars, especially insofar as this edition
42 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

relied on particularly rare and precious manuscripts that had never before
been available to scholars. This fact confers on this edition a distinctive
nature that gives us fair cause to boast, in addition to giving it a distinctively
Moroccan character.

Praise belongs to God.

Dr. Mohamed Yessef
Secretary General, High Council of Religious Scholars
Introduction to the Critical Edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ iii
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate
May God Grace Our Master Muḥammad, His Family,
and His Companions and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.

[11] Imam Mālik b. Anas, may God be pleased with him (93–179/711–
795), was without peer. He was the foremost scholar of the Hijaz in the
history of the dissemination of that knowledge that serves and preserves
the purposes of the teachings of the Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh). Imam
Mālik had outstanding qualities, the likes of which none had possessed
before him, nor was any other scholar able to make a contribution to
learning like his. His stature was assured insofar as the Prophet (pbuh)
expressly foretold us of his career. Sufyān b. ʿUyayna (d. 198/813–4)
reported from ʿAbd al-Malik b. Jurayj, who reported from Muḥammad
b. Muslim b. Abī al-Zubayr al-Makkī, who reported from Abū Ṣāliḥ
al-Sammān, who reported from Abū Hurayra, may God be pleased with
him, that the Prophet (pbuh) said, “The people shall strike the flanks of
their camels in their quest for knowledge, but they will not find a scholar
more knowledgeable than the scholar of Medina.”iv
[12] The great scholar of Prophetic traditions (ḥāfiẓ) Dhahabī (d.
748/1348), may God have mercy on his soul, said, “There was not in Medina
a scholar after the generation of the followers (tābiʿūn) who was the like of
Mālik in terms of his knowledge of Prophetic traditions and of Islamic law
(fiqh), augustness, and memorization.”
The reason for this unique praise of Mālik’s knowledge and his
jurisprudence that is set out in the Muwaṭṭaʾ, which is considered one of
the books of knowledge containing the most accurate accounts of Prophetic
traditions on earth, is that he was, in comparison to other scholars and

iii This English translation of the “Introduction to the Critical Edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ” has been
abridged for greater readability to the nonspecialist reader. For the complete original essay
with its comprehensive annotation, please consult the original Arabic text. Footnotes con-
taining references to Arabic reference works have been removed.
iv “Striking the flanks of their camels” is an expression for setting out on a lengthy journey. This
report was included in Sunan al-Tirmidhī, the famous collection of Prophetic traditions that
is considered one of the six most important such collections among Sunnīs.

43
44 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

critics of his time, [13] uniquely blessed with a combination of a critical

intellect, profound understanding, a strong memory, and breadth and depth
of learning. Scholars are in unanimous agreement that he, Mālik, is a proof
that the Prophetic traditions he transmits are sound and that his orthodoxy
is unimpeachable. They are also in agreement as to his integrity (ʿadāla),
his observance of the Prophetic law (sunan), his unsurpassed knowledge
of Islamic law, his skill in providing legal opinions (fatwā) to the people,
his care in choosing what kinds of questions to answer, and the strength
of his legal school’s foundational principles. He inherited this knowledge
from those Medinese scholars—whether they were sons of the Emigrants
(muhājirūn) of Quraysh or sons of the Medinese (anṣār)—who preserved
religious knowledge and spread it in Medina before him, and whose reports
concerning Islamic teachings are probative in themselves by virtue of the
agreement of discerning scholars.
[15] This Medinese scholarly inheritance constitutes the principal
distinguishing characteristic of Mālik’s approach to questions, such as his
rigor in the criticism of reports. This inheritance gave him an advantage
in choosing narrators of historical reports. He approached this question
by determining narrators’ reputation for reliability. He answered it by
investigating their honesty, their care in transmitting reports, their
devotion to the study of Prophetic traditions, their innocence from heresies
that could influence the soundness of their reports, the consistency of
their reports with what the most important authorities had narrated
with respect to matters that do not permit controversy,1 and the absence
of contradiction between their reports and the inherited practice of the
Medinese jurists.
Muslim scholars have approved of his unique methodology for selecting
the sources and narrators of tradition in deriving legal doctrines and giving
legal opinions. They have praised him for his scholarly method, for the range
of his knowledge, for his keen insights into the chains of transmission (isnād),
and his use of reliable texts. Such was his skill that Sufyān b. ʿUyayna said, “I
have never seen anyone better than Mālik in acquiring knowledge. . . . May God
have mercy on Mālik’s soul. He was an expert in assessing both the narrators

1 Mālik checked reports of Prophetic traditions with a group of credible Medinese scholars
who were steeped in narration and jurisprudence and who closely followed their prede-
cessors. They are Nāfiʿ (the freedman of Ibn ʿUmar), Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Anṣārī, Muḥammad
b. Muslim b. Shihāb al-Zuhrī, Hishām b. ʿUrwa, Abū al-Zinād ʿAbd Allāh b. Dhakwān, Zayd
b. Aslam, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b. Ḥazm, Rabīʿa b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān,
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr al-Ṣiddīq, Sālim Abū al-Naḍr, Isḥāq b.
ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa, Sumayy b. Abī Bakr b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Ḥārith b. Hishām, Abū
al-Zubayr al-Makkī Muḥammad b. Tadrus, Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, Dāwūd b. al-Ḥuṣayn, Ḥamīd b. Qays
al-Makkī al-Aʿraj, Suhayl b. Abī Ṣāliḥ, Abū Suhayl Nāfiʿ b. Mālik (Mālik’s uncle), and al-ʿAlāʾ b.
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Yaʿqūb.
Arabic Introduction to the Royal Moroccan Edition 45

and the scholars,” referring to Mālik’s critical assessment of narrators in a

chain of transmission and of how people understood the meanings attached
to the words contained in reports.
Abū al-Ḥātim b. Ḥabbān (d. 354/965) said about Mālik, “Mālik, may God
have mercy on him, was the first Medinese jurist to assess carefully the
narrators of Prophetic traditions. He would turn away from anyone whom
he did not deem trustworthy in transmitting reports. He himself would
narrate only reports he believed to be sound, and only from narrators
whose narrations he considered reliable, requiring also that they possess
legal knowledge, religiosity, virtue, and regular worship.”
The proof of the truth of these critics’ testimonials is present in the
Muwaṭṭaʾ, where Mālik demonstrates the prodigious knowledge that he
inherited from the Medinese scholars; it is also proven by the fact that
his Medinese contemporaries received the book warmly. At the time of
its appearance the Muwaṭṭaʾ was deemed the most reliable collection of
Prophetic traditions and other historical reports about the early Muslim
community. It was also considered the most beneficial such collection
because, as anyone who spends any time reading it will realize, it was
based on the Noble Quran, on widely transmitted Prophetic traditions that
satisfied Medinese stipulations regarding their mode of transmission as
well as their content, and on the inherited learning of the scholars among
the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh) and the succeeding generation. Mālik
relied on the learning of this last group in order to avoid false narrations
and distorted comprehension of texts, even if contrary Prophetic traditions
were supported by sound chains of transmission attributed to sources who
were generally reliable in the sense used by those whose criticism of reports
focused exclusively on the individuals transmitting the reports, rather than
their contents.
[16] Imam Shāfiʿī (d. 204/820), who was Mālik’s student, appreciated
the importance of having a teacher so skilled in resolving matters of
disagreement regarding Prophetic traditions. When Shāfiʿī still adhered to
his old doctrine,v he would say on that very point, “If a report comes to
you from the people of Medina, let no doubt enter your heart regarding its
truth. As for a report that comes to you and appears to be very sound, yet is
unknown in Medina—ignore it and pay no pay attention to it.”
This [i.e., the teachings of the Medinese] is the “way of the believers,” which
Mālik would indicate by describing it as “the agreed-upon rule (al-amr) in

v Shāfiʿī was a peripatetic scholar who traveled throughout the eastern Arab lands. After
studying with Mālik in Medina, Shāfiʿī went to Yemen and Iraq and finally settled in Egypt.
Scholars have divided his writings into two phases, his “old doctrine” and his “new doctrine.”
His “new doctrine” represents his more mature thinking, in which his differences with Mālik
and the Hijazi scholars are more apparent.
46 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

respect of which there is no dissent among us,” “the rule among us in respect
of which there is no dissent,” “the rule in respect of which there is no dissent
nor doubt among any of the scholars in our town,” “the agreed-upon rule
among us,” “the long-established ordinance (al-sunna) in respect of which
there is no dissent and which I found the people of my town following,” “the
long-established ordinance of the Muslims in respect of which there is no
dissent,” “the firmly established ordinance in respect of which there is no
dissent,” “the long-established ordinance among us in respect of which there
is no doubt or dissent,” “the long-established ordinance in respect of which
there is no dissent among us and which the people have continually practiced,”
and “it has long been the ordinance, which I have found the scholars of our
town following.” What Mālik took from his scholarly predecessors was the
necessity to preserve the Medinese example and to adhere to it closely. Even
though the apparent sense derived from naming the school of jurisprudence
after Mālik is that his doctrines were his independent thoughts, they are in
fact the collective legacy of the Medinese scholars.
Imam Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (d. 324/936), may God have mercy on
him, explained clearly why the school of jurisprudence that is named after
Mālik is so named when he said,
The school of the Medinese is named after Mālik b. Anas, may God be
pleased with him, and anyone who follows the Medinese school is
called a “Mālikī.” Mālik, may God be pleased with him, only followed
the methods of those scholars who preceded him; indeed, he was
exceptionally deferential to them, but he both clarified the school’s
doctrines and extended them, and provided them with strong
legal proofs and detailed explanations. He composed his book, the
Muwaṭṭaʾ, and furthermore his students recorded volumes of notes
from his lectures, as well as his opinions about legal matters. The
Medinese school, therefore, was attributed to him because of all the
cases he elucidated and the arguments he expounded.
[18] The opinion of Imam Mālik, may God be pleased with him, was
founded on the practices of the Medinese, out of respect for the legacy of
the Companions in Medina, their jurists’ deep understanding of the law,
and the practices of the pious Emigrants and Medinese, as well as on the
methods of the leading scholars who resided there. It was their opinions
that the people relied on whenever a difficult case arose. Mālik would say,
“If it is knowledge that you seek, then make Medina your home, for the
Quran was not revealed along the banks of the Euphrates in Mesopotamia.”
[19] Mālik, may God have mercy on him, rejected the apparent sense of
many reports of Prophetic traditions based on his method for accepting
Arabic Introduction to the Royal Moroccan Edition 47

reports, even when he sometimes learned them from teachers he deemed

reliable. Sometimes he even transmitted such reports to his own students
to let them know he was aware of them and would give them permission to
present them to him for teaching, in accordance with his own standards for
transmitting knowledge. He would sometimes reject these reports despite
their apparent authenticity because they were odd or strange, and thus too
weak to stand against contrary teachings of the Quran, a well-documented
teaching of the Prophet (pbuh), well-established legal principles, or
Medinese practice.
God decreed that the knowledge-hungry students of the Islamic West,
when they visited Medina, the city of the Prophet (pbuh), during their
performance of the pilgrimage to Mecca, would attend Imam Mālik’s
lectures. The depth of his knowledge and the wisdom of his judgment
impressed them greatly. As a result, they took his knowledge back with
them to their lands and disseminated his school of law there. His book, the
Muwaṭṭaʾ, was what they most zealously sought to take back to their homes.
The Muwaṭṭaʾ of Imam Mālik b. Anas al-Aṣbaḥī, may God be pleased with
him, is beyond dispute the earliest and most authentic written collection of
Prophetic traditions. It is also the best-known work of Prophetic traditions
as established by the greatest scholars of Prophetic traditions.
Mālik earned his reputation on the strength of his book and his status as a
great Imam. He was also well known for his engagement with reports about
the Prophet (pbuh), for his rigorous methodology in refuting or accepting
traditions attributed to the Prophet (pbuh), and for his deep knowledge
of the status of the narrators of Prophetic traditions. Because of his fame,
students wished to study directly with the book’s author, Mālik. Scholars
from the Islamic West had the largest share in studying directly with Mālik.
Evidence of this fact is found in the records of those scholars of the Islamic
West, and Morocco in particular, who traveled to the city of the Prophet
(pbuh) to meet Imam Mālik, to learn the Muwaṭṭaʾ from him in person, and
to benefit directly from his knowledge.
The most prominent of these scholars was Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā al-Laythī
al-Maṣmūdī, may God be pleased with him, who took on this task and was
lucky enough to meet Imam Mālik. Among the fruits of that meeting was
that Yaḥyā was able to transmit the Muwaṭṭaʾ directly from Mālik. [20] This
is the recension attributed to Yaḥyā, which he recounted with utmost care
and attention and which, on account of these efforts, became widespread and
famous. The people of the Maghrib participated in teaching it and preserving
it, embracing it wholeheartedly. They considered it their recension that was
not to be superseded by any other. For that reason, the sublime Royal Order
to the Editorial Committee for the Renewal of Islamic Learning was a call to
48 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

edit the Muwaṭṭaʾ on the basis of the recension of Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā al-Laythī
and in reliance on Moroccan manuscripts based on that [Link]
This is an appropriate response to the needs of scholarship and a
methodological necessity, especially if we take into consideration the fact that
the Muwaṭṭaʾ, despite its importance, has not undergone, until now, a critical
edition commensurate with the status and respect it enjoys in the hearts of
Moroccans and its place in their history. Many flawed editions have been put
into circulation, published by editors who were inadequately prepared for
the task. The sublime Royal Order, therefore, came to correct this defective
situation and to restore things to their proper order. This sublime Order
established a clear work plan, drawing the Committee’s attention to the
defective editions currently in public circulation with a view to correcting the
mistakes and distortions that were prevalent in those editions. His Majesty,
may God honor him, ordered the Editorial Committee to rely on original
manuscripts of the book, copies of which are found in our Moroccan libraries.
He specifically referenced the commonly accepted recension of the Muwaṭṭaʾ
in Morocco, that is, Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā al-Laythī al-Maṣmūdī’s recension, with the
goal of producing a scholarly edition of this recension, which would be free of
the errors plaguing prior published editions.
In response to the sublime Order, a scholarly committee under the
auspices of the High Council of Religious Scholars was established. It
appointed a select group of scholars from the High Council whose task it
became to realize this noble project.
The first step the Committee took was to prepare scholarly reports
regarding the condition of prior editions. The Committee spent a
considerable amount of time reviewing previous editions, though it proved
unfeasible to survey all of them because of the sheer volume of the editions
of the Muwaṭṭaʾ that have appeared in recent centuries, from India to
Morocco; therefore, only the editions readily available to the Committee
were considered.
More than two centuries had elapsed since the first appearance of the
Delhi lithograph edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ in 1216/1801, followed by editions
in India, Egypt, Tunisia, and Lebanon. The Moroccan lithographic press also
contributed to this output, which [21] complicated the Committee’s efforts.
It was not easy to obtain microfilms of these lithographs, which,
in contemporary circumstances, would be deemed the equivalent of
manuscripts. Accordingly, the Committee decided to direct its attention

vi Mālik continued to teach and revise the Muwaṭṭaʾ over many years. During this period, several of
his students transmitted different versions of the Muwaṭṭaʾ. Scholars know these different ver-
sions by the names of Mālik’s students who transmitted them to later generations. In this trans-
lation of the Arabic introduction, we refer to each of these different versions of the Muwaṭṭaʾ as
a “recension” and to the subsequent transmission of a recension as a “transmission.”
Arabic Introduction to the Royal Moroccan Edition 49

to edited editions and editions deemed equivalent to edited editions. The

Committee then decided to ignore editions whose publishers, producers, or
printers failed to indicate their manuscript sources, because in the absence
of any information about the manuscript sources it becomes difficult if
not impossible to adopt objective criteria for assessing the reliability of
different versions or for selecting the most reliable transmission among the
existing recensions and manuscript copies.
The printed editions that the Committee decided to use are the following:
1. The Egyptian edition of Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī
This two-volume edition appeared in Cairo in 1951. The scholarly
community at that time was in need of an edition that was within easy
reach and had some scholarly features. As a result, it was received
warmly and enjoyed a good reputation. Its editor, may God have mercy
on him, said that he had consulted six previous editions:
a. The edition by al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī and Sons published in Egypt in
1348/1929
b. The edition by the Egyptian publisher ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Ḥanafī in
1353/1934
c. The Bāb al-Lūq edition in Cairo in 1280/1863
d. The edition by Fārūqī Printing House in India in 1291/1874
e. The Delhi edition, India, in 1307/1889
f. The Hūrīnī edition in 1280/1863
The late Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī did not use or cite any manuscripts,
despite their prevalence in Egypt, the Levant, the Hijaz, and Turkey, to
say nothing of those in Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco. His edition is thus
deficient in its documentation. His choices and preferences regarding
narrations and words do not rest on scholarly grounds. Instead, they are
the result of his own taste and whatever [22] meanings secondary sources,
such as dictionaries, books of Prophetic traditions, or biographies of the
narrators of Prophetic traditions, led him to. As a consequence, his edition
suffers from some very serious errors, which became clear with the
subsequent publication of other editions of the Muwaṭṭaʾ.
2. The edition of Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf
This two-volume edition was issued in 1996 in Beirut by Dār al-Gharb
al-Islāmī. Because it was a later edition, and because of the expertise and
knowledge of its editor, Dr. Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf, who was known for
his considerable knowledge of manuscripts and editing methodology,
many scholars hoped that it would surpass its predecessors. Because
50 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

of the war in Iraq, however, Maʿrūf was limited to the manuscripts

available domestically in Iraq. Moreover, he was able to consult only
some commentaries, such as Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr’s al-Tamhīd and Zurqānī’s
commentary, as well as the materials he found in some other editions,
including the Egyptian Hurīnī edition, the Tunisian edition, and the edition
of Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī. In producing his own edition, he relied on a derivative
copy from the manuscript of the traditionist (muḥaddith) Ibn Masdī, who
died in the year 366/976. The manuscript he used was dated to 749/1348.
3. The edition of Dr. Muṣṭafā al-Aʿẓamī
This edition appeared in the United Arab Emirates in Abu Dhabi in
1421/2000. The eight-volume edition was published by the Zayed Bin
Sultan Al Nahyan Charitable and Humanitarian Foundation. The first
volume was devoted to the introduction and preliminary materials, the
second through fifth volumes to the text of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, and the sixth
through eighth volumes to the indexes. The editor said that he relied on
six manuscripts, two of which were Moroccan; unfortunately, he made
only limited use of them, as the reader will see in our footnotes in the
commentary on the two manuscripts. [23] It is clear that the editor
made no real effort, whether in terms of correcting manuscripts against
a master or in terms of comparing them to one another, and he made
serious errors as a result.
Of course, reliance on the original, authenticated manuscripts of the
Muwaṭṭaʾ is necessary to produce a superior edition. Moreover, scholars
need to be aware of the circumstances surrounding the transmission of the
Muwaṭṭaʾ from the time of its first appearance in the Islamic West via Yaḥyā
b. Yaḥyā al-Laythī, as well as the circumstances surrounding its continued
narration by subsequent generations of scholars who devoted themselves
to its careful transmission to preserve its integrity.
One important consequence of Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā al-Laythī’s blessed trip to
the eastern lands of the Arab world was that he was able to meet Imam Mālik
and return with the Muwaṭṭaʾ to the Maghrib. It is true that many students
from the Maghrib had preceded him in doing so, including ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b.
Ziyād Shabṭūn,vii whose narration of the Muwaṭṭaʾ did not acquire the same
reputation, continuity, and wide dissemination as Yaḥyā’s. On his return from
Medina, Yaḥyā took it upon himself to teach and promote the Muwaṭṭaʾ, as is
evident from his impressive series of lectures, which attracted many students.
After he passed away, his son, ʿUbayd Allāh (d. 289/901), continued the work
of his father, spending all his time on the Muwaṭṭaʾ, which gave his recension

vii The editors of the RME probably mean Ziyād b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (d. 204/819).
Arabic Introduction to the Royal Moroccan Edition 51

wide fame, especially insofar as ʿUbayd Allāh narrated exclusively from his
father, a task at which he excelled. It is obvious that someone who spends the
entirety of his time with one recension is likely to perfect its transmission and
to become an authority on it given the rarity of mistakes in vocalization and
spelling, confused passages, and outright errors.
One of the factors that made ʿUbayd Allāh’s narration particularly famous
and widespread was the lengthy period of time he spent publicly teaching
and the fact that he was blessed with long life. He outlived his peers, Ibn
Waḍḍāḥ and Ibn Bāz, and so he became the necessary destination of
Andalusian students seeking the briefest chain of authorities to Mālik’s
Muwaṭṭaʾ.viii Accordingly, he taught three generations of students—sons,
fathers, and grandfathers—all of whom attended his lectures to hear
Prophetic traditions from him. It is for good reason, then, that he is described
as a teacher who connected grandsons to their grandfathers. Students too
numerous to count studied the Muwaṭṭaʾ with ʿUbayd Allāh, but at their
forefront were his family members, the most prominent of whom were his
two nephews:
[24] Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Yaḥyā (284–
339/897–950), chief judge (qāḍī al-jamāʿa) of Cordoba. He learned
Prophetic traditions from his uncle. History has preserved an autograph
copy of a manuscript of his. Later generations of scholars would correct his
brother Yaḥyā’s narration of the Muwaṭṭaʾ against his.
His brother, Abū ʿĪsā Yaḥyā (d. 367/977), whose narration gained such
fame and became so widespread that it eclipsed that of his brother, Abū
ʿAbd Allāh. He lived sufficiently long to become the last living narrator of
his generation, just like his father’s uncle Abū Marwān ʿUbayd Allāh, giving
his narration the distinction of having the smallest number of intervening
authorities to Mālik. Accordingly, the people felt the need to hear his

viii The medieval Muslim scholarly tradition was deeply concerned with preserving the accuracy
of an author’s text against the encroachment of errors in its transmission over time. Such
errors could result from misreading of the vocalization of certain words, spelling errors, or
mistranscription of a passage, to name just a few. Accordingly, scholars preserved the chain
of transmitters between each copy of a manuscript and the original copy of the work’s author
as a means to authenticate the accuracy of a manuscript’s transmission. In this manuscript
culture, the brevity of the chain of transmitters to the author was highly prized and was often
a function of the vagaries of health. It was assumed that the smaller the number of links to
the original author, the smaller the likely number of mistakes in the manuscript. The editors
are here pointing out that because ʿUbayd Allāh was given a long life compared to others of
his generation who studied the Muwaṭṭaʾ with his father and transmitted it, chains of trans-
mission linking copies of the Muwaṭṭaʾ that went through ʿUbayd Allāh were shorter than
those that went through his contemporaries. Accordingly, after the deaths of other teachers
of the Muwaṭṭaʾ belonging to his generation, students preferred to study the text directly
with ʿUbayd Allāh rather than with teachers of the next generation, even if the latter were
more numerous and readily available, on account of the brevity of the chain of authorities
produced by studying with ʿUbayd Allāh.
52 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

transmission of the Muwaṭṭaʾ in particular. He would transmit exclusively

from the manuscript of his father’s uncle, ʿUbayd Allāh, which he had fully
mastered. His student Abū al-Walīd b. al-Faraḍī (351–403/962–1012), who
used to attend his gatherings on the Muwaṭṭaʾ, would say, “I never saw a
Cordoban gathering more auspicious than our gathering for the Muwaṭṭaʾ.”
The young, the middle-aged, and the elderly heard the Muwaṭṭaʾ from
him. They came from all walks of life, including the Commander of the
Faithful al-Mustanṣir, al-Ḥakam b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (d. 366/976), or so Ibn
al-Faraḍī reported.
The most famous narrators from Abū ʿĪsā Yaḥyā b. ʿAbd Allāh are
the following:
Yūnus b. Mughīth Abū al-Walīd b. al-Ṣaffār (d. 419/1028), the
chief judge of Cordoba and one of its most esteemed jurists (faqīh) and
traditionists, steeped in the narration of Prophetic traditions. He was a man
of considerable acumen and intelligence and participated widely in the
affairs of his day. He was well known for his deep knowledge of the Arabic
language and its arts and for his knowledge of jurisprudence. He learned
such a large number of traditions from so large a number of teachers that
he became renowned in his day as the traditionist in possession of the
largest number of attested traditions, with the briefest chains of authorities
to their sources. For that reason, people were delighted that he narrated the
Muwaṭṭaʾ from Abū ʿĪsā, and they competed with one another in transmitting
it from him because of the accuracy and precision of his transmission and
its immediacy to Abū ʿĪsā, even though he also narrated directly from
(ḥaddatha ʿan) other eminent traditionists in Andalusia. Other eminent
traditionists beyond its borders, such as Abū Muḥammad b. Abī Zayd
al-Qayrawānī (310–386/922–996) and Abū al-Ḥasan al-Dāraquṭnī (306–
385/918–995), gave him authority (ajāzahu) to transmit their [Link]
Several eminent traditionists followed his transmission.
[25] Ibn Fuṭays, Abū al-Muṭarrif ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad
al-Qurṭubī (348–402/960–1012) was one of the master traditionists of his
age. He narrated from his father Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. Mufarrij, Abū Jaʿfar b. ʿAbd

ix The medieval Arabic manuscript tradition distinguished between the various means by
which a student might study a text. Here, it is reported that Yūnus b. Mughīth “transmitted
directly from,” indicating that he studied directly with the source of the transmitted text. This
method of transmission is contrasted with his link to scholars outside of Andalusia who are
described as having authorized him to transmit their materials. This latter mode of transmis-
sion was indirect insofar as the student did not study the text directly with the source, but the
source nevertheless trusted the student sufficiently to permit him to transmit the materials
to new students. In terms of reliability of transmission, direct transmission from a source
was considered more reliable than indirect transmission by way of the source’s permission.
Ibn Abī Zayd al-Qayrawānī lived in Qayrawān, in what is today Tunisia, and was the leading
Mālikī jurist of his day. Dāraquṭnī was a leading traditionist.
Arabic Introduction to the Royal Moroccan Edition 53

Allāh, Abū Zakariyāʾ b. ʿĀʾidh, and Abū ʿĪsā al-Laythī. Traditionists outside
of Andalusia, including Abū Muḥammad b. Abī Zayd al-Qayrawānī and Abū
al-Ḥasan al-Dāraquṭnī, also authorized him to narrate their materials.
Abū ʿAmr ʿUthmān b. Aḥmad al-Qayjāṭī al-Qurṭubī (d. 431/1040). He
was one of the most senior students of Abū ʿĪsā, and his narration was one
of the best-known routes to Abū ʿĪsā. He was a man of integrity, abstemious,
trustworthy, noble-mannered, and a careful narrator. The narrators who
narrated from him were Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Khawlānī, the latter’s son, and
Muḥammad b. Shurayḥ. His narration arrived in Seville through Abū ʿAbd
Allāh al-Khawlānī, who was a skilled traditionist; his father gave him a good
education from an early age, bringing him to study the Muwaṭṭaʾ with his
own teachers. He sought the permission of the senior scholars of his age on
his son’s behalf to authorize his son to narrate their materials. As a result,
his son obtained the advantage of having the shortest chain of authorities
and the only route for the Muwaṭṭaʾ through Qayjāṭī. Qayjāṭī was among
the last narrators to have reported the Muwaṭṭaʾ from Abū ʿĪsā, who was
himself among the last people to have reported it from ʿUbayd Allāh, who
was the last person to have reported it from Yaḥyā. Abū al-Rabīʿ al-Kallāʿī
later narrated the Muwaṭṭaʾ through this chain, and Abū al-ʿAbbās b.
al-Ghammāz narrated it from him, according to al-Wādī Āshī, as mentioned
in his bibliography (barnāmij).x [26] Abū ʿĪsā’s narration, therefore, became
widespread and acquired great fame because of his three students, Abū
al-Walīd b. Mughīth, Ibn Fuṭays, and Abū ʿAmr al-Qayjāṭī.
[27] Alongside Abū ʿĪsā, Abū ʿUmar al-Muntajālī al-Ṣadafī, whose full
name is Aḥmad b. Saʿīd b. Ḥazm al-Qurṭūbī (d. 350/961), also narrated the
ʿUbayd Allāh transmission of the Muwaṭṭaʾ. He was one of the most prominent
traditionists of his era. He busied himself with the narration and study of
Prophetic traditions and historical reports, and with the compilation of
Prophetic traditions. His knowledge of these matters was encyclopedic. He
studied with ʿUbayd Allāh and Ibn Lubāba. He then traveled to the eastern
lands of the Arab world, where he met the then most prominent scholars of
Prophetic traditions in Mecca, Egypt, and Qayrawān. Afterward he returned
to Andalusia, having acquired great knowledge.
Abū ʿAmr Aḥmad b. Muṭarrif al-Azdī, known as Ibn al-Mashshāṭ
al-Qurṭubī (d. 352/963), also took part in the transmission of the ʿUbayd
Allāh transmission of the Muwaṭṭaʾ. He heard Prophetic traditions from
ʿUbayd Allāh and busied himself with their study. He led prayers in Cordoba

x A genre of writing particular to the Islamic West in which a scholar lists all the books he has
studied, along with the chains of authorities that link him to those texts’ authors. It accord-
ingly purports to document both the contents of the scholar’s education and the scholarly
networks that transmitted the texts he studied over time.
54 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

after the nephew of ʿUbayd Allāh, Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Yaḥyā. He

and Muntajālī were reliable sources for whoever wished to hear Laythī’s
recension of the Muwaṭṭaʾ via ʿUbayd Allāh’s transmission. Accordingly,
some of their students who subsequently narrated the Muwaṭṭaʾ combined
their two transmissions, while others narrated it only through one of them.
Among the narrators who combine the two routes of transmission are
the following:
Ibn Ḥūbīl al-Tujībī, Abū Bakr ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad
(329–409/940–1018), one of Cordoba’s senior traditionists. He was a
trustworthy transmitter of reports, precise in what he transmitted, and
a scholar of Prophetic traditions. He narrated from Abū ʿĪsā, but he was
most famous for combining Muntajālī’s and Ibn al-Mashshāṭ’s narrations of
the Muwaṭṭaʾ.
[28] Abū al-Qāsim al-Ṭarābulsī took these two transmissions from him,
as did Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAttāb. The scholar of Prophetic traditions Abū ʿAlī
al-Jayānī narrated that transmission from the two of them. He heard itxi from
Ibn ʿAttāb in 448/1056 and 453/1061, and read itxii to Ḥātim al-Ṭarābulsī
in 447/1055. Their combined narrations gained fame through Ibn Ḥūbīl,
who narrated this version from Abū ʿAlī al-Jayānī. The latter authorized the
combined narration and taught it to Ibn ʿAttāb and Ṭarābulsī. It reached
us in the person of Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ (476–544/1083–1149), through Abū ʿAbd
Allāh Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā al-Tamīmī al-Sabtī, from Jayānī. Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ received
authorization from Jayānī. He repeated this transmission in the opening
pages of his work al-Mashāriq. Abū Bakr b. Khayr also mentioned it in his
list of the chains of transmission for the Muwaṭṭaʾ in his Fihristxiii from his
teacher, Abū Bakr b. Ṭāhir al-Qaysī, who narrated it to him from an autograph
manuscript of his, which he copied from Aṣīlī’s manuscript, which the latter
himself had copied from Abū ʿAlī al-Jayānī, who transmitted it from Ibn
ʿAbd al-Barr at a study session that took place in Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr’s house in
Shāṭiba in 453/1061.

xi The phrase “he heard it from” indicates not only that the student studied the text directly with
the source but that the source either read the text aloud to the students or that it was read
aloud in his presence. This was considered an especially accurate way of transmitting a text
because it gave the teacher of the text the opportunity to clarify any ambiguities that might be
present in the written manuscript, such as spelling errors, ambiguous vocalizations, or unclear
grammar. It also offered an opportunity for the students to incorporate valuable notes from the
teacher that could be beneficial to understanding the text into their own manuscripts of it.
xii This phrase indicates that he read his manuscript copy of the Muwaṭṭaʾ to the named teacher.
By reading his manuscript to a teacher, the student has an opportunity to correct his own
manuscript against the teacher’s knowledge, which strengthens the reliability of the stu-
dent’s manuscript in the eyes of later generations of students.
xiii The fihrist, like the barnāmij, is a genre of writing particular to the Islamic West. It is virtually
synonymous with barnāmij.
Arabic Introduction to the Royal Moroccan Edition 55

Abū ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-Barr (368–463/978–1070) was one of the

scholars who transmitted the combined narration of the Muwaṭṭaʾ from
his teacher, Abū ʿUmar b. al-Jasūr al-Umawī al-Qurṭubī, as indicated in the
beginnings of the former’s works al-Tamhīd, al-Istidhkār, and al-Taqaṣṣī.xiv Ibn
ʿAbd al-Barr, on the other hand, also preserved the individual transmissions
of Abū Muḥammad b. al-Mashshāṭ al-Aṣīlī (d. 392/1001) and Abū ʿAbd
Allāh b. Abī Zamanīn (d. 399/1008), both of whom were eminent scholars
of Prophetic traditions and jurisprudence, steeped in knowledge, with
encyclopedic knowledge of Prophetic traditions.
Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Zamanīn’s narration of the Muwaṭṭaʾ is found in
Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ’s Ghunya and is mentioned in the opening pages of his Mashāriq
via his teacher Ibn Ḥamdīn al-Taghlibī, from Abū Zakariyāʾ al-Qulayʿī, from
Ibn Abī Zamanīn.
He also preserved the individual transmission of Ibn al-Mashshāṭ through
Abū ʿUmar b. al-Jasūr. It was through him that this transmission—that is, the
route through Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr—gained fame. He narrated it in al-Tamhīd
and in al-Istidhkār. Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Dānī narrated it using this transmission
in al-Īmāʾ. Jayānī, Abū Baḥr b. al-ʿĀṣ, Ibn Abī Talīd, and other students of Ibn
ʿAbd al-Barr also narrated the Muwaṭṭaʾ via this transmission.
To these two transmissions Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ adds a third, that of Muḥammad b.
Qāsim b. Hilāl. Abū al-Qāsim Khalaf b. Yaḥyā b. Ghayth al-Ṭulayṭilī narrated
it from him, as did Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAttāb. Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ mentions it again in
al-Ghunya in the biography of his teacher, Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Tamīmī, from
Jayānī, from [Ibn] ʿAttāb. [29] It is laid out in al-Ghunya in the biography of
his teacher, Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Tamīmī, as mentioned by Abū Bakr b. Khayr,
via the transmission of Abū ʿAlī al-Jayānī.
There are also other transmissions of the Muwaṭṭaʾ from Yaḥyā that did
not receive the same care as the recensions of Ibn Waḍḍāḥ and Ibn Bāz.
Among these is the transmission of Abū ʿUmar Aḥmad b. Nābit al-Taghlibī
(274–360/887–970), which was overshadowed by Abū ʿĪsā’s transmission.
Abū Bakr b. Khayr, however, who preserved this transmission for us,
indicated that his teacher Abū Muḥammad b. Khazraj confirmed that the
transmission of Abū ʿUmar b. Nābit and that of Abū ʿĪsā are one and the
same, because Ibn Nābit copied his version from the manuscript of Abū
ʿUbayd Allāh, which was the one that Abū ʿĪsā used when he taught the
Muwaṭṭaʾ. Abū Bakr b. Khayr transmitted this transmission from his teacher

xiv These are three famous books by Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr that circulated widely in the medieval
Islamic world. The first focuses largely on the chains of authorities for the various reports
found in the different recensions of the Muwaṭṭaʾ. The second focuses on the legal doctrines
in the Muwaṭṭaʾ and compares them to the views of Muslim jurists from other regions of
the Muslim world. The third focuses exclusively on the Prophetic traditions included in the
Muwaṭṭaʾ. The first two are multivolume works, whereas the third is shorter.
56 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Abū Muḥammad b. Khazraj, from Abū al-Qāsim Ismāʿīl b. Badr, known as

Ibn al-Ghannām. The aforementioned Abū ʿUmar Aḥmad b. Nābit reported
it to him from ʿUbayd Allāh.
Alongside the ʿUbaydī transmission there were the following
transmissions:
1. The Waḍḍāḥī transmission, attributed to Muḥammad b. Waḍḍāḥ
(d. 287/900)
2. The Bāzī transmission, attributed to Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad b. Bāz
(d. 274/887)
The first transmission took its name from Imam Muḥammad b. Waḍḍāḥ
al-Qurṭubī, who was a famous Andalusian religious scholar. He accompanied
Yaḥyā for a lengthy period of time and transmitted the Muwaṭṭaʾ from him.
He traveled to the eastern Arab lands twice, but he did not give himself
over to studying Prophetic traditions during those trips because of his
asceticism, piety, and devotion to Sufism.
[30] His colleague Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad b. Bāz al-Qurṭubī
also participated in the narration of Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā’s recension. He was an
eminent traditionist and one of those who made significant contributions
to the success of Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā’s recension of the Muwaṭṭaʾ. Numerous
students recited the work in his presence. Like his colleague Ibn Waḍḍāḥ, he
claimed that Yaḥyā had made some errors in his recension of the Muwaṭṭaʾ.
With time, Ibn Waḍḍāḥ’s transmission acquired fame and circulated
widely. People competed to transmit it and were eager to spread it. The Bāzī
transmission, however, could not keep pace with the ʿUbaydī and Waḍḍāḥī
transmissions. Only two narrators continued to mention it alongside the
Waḍḍāḥī transmission:
Aḥmad b. Khālid b. al-Jabbāb Abū ʿUmar al-Qurṭubī (246–327/860–
938). He studied with Ibn Bāz, Ibn Waḍḍāḥ, and other scholars of Prophetic
traditions in Andalusia. He traveled to the eastern Arab lands, going as far as
Sanaa in Yemen. He received ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s Muṣannaf xv from Abū Yaʿqūb
Isḥāq al-Dabrī and brought it back to Andalusia, where he headed circles for
the study of Prophetic traditions and jurisprudence.
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Malik b. Ayman Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Qurṭubī
(252–330/866–941). He studied Prophetic traditions with Ibn Waḍḍāḥ
and Ibn Bāz and narrated from them. He traveled in the company of Qāsim
b. Aṣbagh and met eminent traditionists and jurists, including ʿAbd Allāh

xv The Muṣannaf of ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī (d. 211/826) is a collection of Prophetic tradi-
tions, reports from the first generations of Muslims, and early legal opinions. It was one of
the earliest authored works on Prophetic traditions and Islamic law, appearing a generation
after the Muwaṭṭaʾ.
Arabic Introduction to the Royal Moroccan Edition 57

b. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal. He visited Baghdad and heard there Kitāb al-Tārīkh

of Ibn Abī Khaythama, and he transmitted it from him. He authored a
book of Prophetic traditions that reproduced the contents of Sunan Abū
Dāwūdxvi but with chains of transmission that differed from those of Abū
Dāwūd (mustakhraj).xvii The book was well received. He was a precise and
trustworthy narrator from whom people narrated a great deal.
Among those who narrated from Ibn al-Jabbāb and Ibn Ayman is Abū
Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAlī b. Sharīʿa al-Lakhmī (d. 378/988), known as
“the narrator” (al-rāwiya). He narrated the Muwaṭṭaʾ in the month of Dhū
al-Ḥijja in the year 310/922.
As good fortune would have it, the National Library has an invaluable
original copy of Ibn Waḍḍāḥʾs narration. It is the original manuscript of
Abū al-Ḥasan Shurayḥ, which he wrote with his own hand. It incorporates
notes that include the words of Ibn Ayman and Ibn al-Jabbāb and those of
their teacher, Ibn Waḍḍāḥ, [31] based on what Abū Muḥammad heard in
319/931, when he read it to Ibn Ayman, and what he heard in 320/932,
when he read it back to Ibn al-Jabbāb. This is what Abū Bakr b. Khayr
specifically mentioned in his chains of transmission of the Muwaṭṭaʾ in his
Fihrist, as noted earlier.
Abū Bakr ʿAbbās b. Aṣbagh al-Hamadānī al-Ḥijārī (306–386/918–996),
by contrast, narrated it only from Ibn Ayman, from Ibn Waḍḍāḥ and Ibrāhīm
b. Bāz, and did not combine Ibn Ayman’s transmission with Ibn al-Jabbāb’s.
Abū Bakr was an accurate transmitter from whom the people benefited
greatly. Abū al-ʿĀṣ Ḥakam b. Muḥammad b. Afrānk al-Judhāmī (d.
447/1055) narrated from him. Abū Bakr was from Cordoba and one of the
city’s traditionists. He studied Prophetic traditions in Andalusia and then
traveled to the eastern Arab lands. On his way there he met Ibn Abī Zayd
al-Qayrawānī and studied with him. Qayrawānī authorized him to teach his
books. Abū Bakr performed the Pilgrimage (ḥajj), and on his return journey
he studied in Egypt and copied the books of its scholars. He lived well into
old age, so his transmissions, relative to those of his peers, have a shorter
chain of authorities. As a result, many eminent traditionists, such as Abū
Marwān al-Ṭabnī and Abū ʿAlī al-Jayānī, narrated through him.

xvi The Sunan of Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī (d. 275/888) is one of the six most important collections
of Prophetic traditions in the Sunnī tradition. His collection focused on traditions that had
legal relevance, hence the title Sunan, which means “laws.”
xvii A mustakhraj is a genre of works in the science of Prophetic traditions in which the author
seeks to replicate the Prophetic traditions found in another collection—in this case, the
Sunan of Abū Dāwūd—but with chains of authorities that differ from those reported by the
author of the original work. The purpose of such a work is to provide further authentication
for the content of the traditions by adducing additional routes of the texts’ transmission.
58 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

One of the well-known transmissions from Ibn Waḍḍāḥ is the transmission

of Qāsim b. Aṣbagh al-Bayānī (244–340/858–951), transmissions of
which are many and divided into several branches. Narrators transmitted it
to one another and it spread widely, thanks to Ibn Aṣbagh’s status, longevity,
and reputation. Its transmission is from Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, from his teacher
Saʿīd b. Naṣr (d. 395/1004), from Qāsim.
Imam Qāsim b. Aṣbagh was a respected narrator of Prophetic traditions.
He studied them in Andalusia from the region’s eminent traditionists, such
as Ibn Waḍḍāḥ, Baqī (201–276/817–889), and Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Khushanī.
He traveled to the eastern Arab lands in 274/887 in the company of
Muḥammad b. Ayman and IbnʿAbd al-Aʿlā. He studied Prophetic traditions in
Qayrawān, Egypt, and the Hijaz. He went as far as Iraq before bringing back
to Andalusia much knowledge and a great many lengthy books directly from
their eminent authors, such as Ibn Abī Khaythama’s Tārīkh and the works
of Ibn Qutayba, al-Mubarrad, and Thaʿlab. The people therefore preferred
his transmission over those of his colleagues [32] Ibn [ʿAbd] al-Aʿlā and
Muḥammad b. Ayman. The young and the old alike studied Prophetic
traditions with him, and he served as a bridge between the generations, as
stated by Ibn al-Faraḍī.
Among the scholars who studied the Muwaṭṭaʾ directly with Qāsim and
narrated his recension of it are the following:
Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad b. ʿAwn Allāh b. Ḥudayr al-Bazzāz (300–378/912–
988). He studied with Qāsim b. Aṣbagh and Ibn Abī Dulaym. He traveled
to Egypt, the Levant, and the Hijaz, where he heard Prophetic traditions
from Ibn al-Aʿrābī in Mecca, from Khaythama in Levantine Tripoli, from
Abū al-Maymūn al-Bajlī in Damascus, and from Ibn al-Sakan in Egypt. He
was a traditionist and a trustworthy narrator. Abū ʿUmar al-Ṭalamankī (d.
429/1037), the Quran reciter, narrated this transmission from him.
Abū al-Walīd al-Waqshī narrated Ṭalamankī’s recension. He was the most
eminent scholar of his time in Prophetic traditions and the Arabic language.
He busied himself with the correction and emendation of books. His linguistic
annotations are found scattered across the margins of various copies of
the Muwaṭṭaʾ, including the manuscript copies on which we have relied in
preparing this critical edition. Abū al-Qāsim Ḥātim al-Ṭarābulsī also narrated
the Muwaṭṭaʾ from Abū ʿUmar al-Ṭalamankī, as did Abū ʿAlī al-Jayānī.
Abū ʿUthmān Saʿīd b. Naṣr narrated the Muwaṭṭaʾ from both Qāsim and
Wahb b. Masarra. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, as stated in al-Tamhīd, heard him recite
it, word for word, from his copy, from Qāsim and Wahb, from Ibn Waḍḍāḥ.
Wahb b. Masarra al-Ḥajārī (d. 346/957). He was one of the most
eminent traditionists, well acquainted with Prophetic traditions, their
defects, and the biographies of their narrators. He was well known for
Arabic Introduction to the Royal Moroccan Edition 59

his rigor and precision in the transmission of Prophetic traditions. The

manuscripts of Ibn Waḍḍāḥ that he had studied were brought to him, and
people read them to him in Cordoba.
[33] In his Tamhīd, Istidhkār, and Taqaṣṣī, Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr transmits the
Muwaṭṭaʾ through various chains that go through Wahb b. Masarra, as well
as a unique chain from Abū ʿUmar b. al-Jasūr, to whom Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr read
the work, attributed to Ibn Abī Dulaym, from Abū al-Faḍl Aḥmad Qāsim
al-Tāhartī, from both of them (that is, Ibn Abī Dulaym and Wahb b. Masarra,
from Ibn Waḍḍāḥ), and added to Qāsim b. Aṣbagh’s narration, transmitted
by Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr via his teacher, Saʿīd b. Naṣr, from both of them (that is,
Qāsim and Wahb, from Ibn Waḍḍāḥ).
Ibn Khayr narrated it via Abū ʿAlī al-Jayānī, from Abū Shākir al-Qabrī,
from Abū Muḥammad al-Aṣīlī, from Abū al-Ḥazm Wahb, in Wādī al-Ḥijāra
(Guadalajara) in 344/955.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said, “There are some differences in the wording of
ʿUbayd Allāh’s narration and that of Ibn Waḍḍāḥ’s narration, which I noted
in my book.”
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr set forth his remarks in detail in al-Tamhīd, which helped
greatly in preparing this critical edition. Works such as al-Mashāriq and
al-Īmāʾ and other commentaries on the Muwaṭṭaʾ relied extensively on Ibn
ʿAbd al-Barr’s comments in al-Tamhīd. Ibn Khayr also transmitted them in
his collections of Prophetic traditions from his two teachers Abū Muḥammad
b. ʿAttāb, by way of authorization, and Abū al-Ḥasan Yūnus, by way of oral
recitation, from Qāḍī Abū ʿUmar b. al-Ḥadhdhāʾ al-Tamīmī, who named his
sources as follows: “ʿAbd al-Wārith b. Sufyān, from Qāsim b. Aṣbagh and
Wahb b. Masarra, combining the two recensions, from Ibn Waḍḍāḥ.”
Ibn Khayr also mentioned another chain of transmission to Wahb b.
Masarra, from the recension of his teacher, Abū Muḥammad Ismāʿīl b.
Khazraj, from his teacher, Abū ʿUthmān Saʿīd b. Aḥmad al-Qallās, from
Wahb, from Ibn Waḍḍāḥ.
Among the transmissions from ʿUbayd Allāh to Ibn Waḍḍāḥ is the
transmission of Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Dulaym (d. 338/949).
Most of the reports that he transmitted came from Ibn Waḍḍāḥ. He was
one of the most important narrators from Ibn Waḍḍāḥ. He was said to
resemble him in terms of physical appearance and behavior. He was upright
in character and a trustworthy narrator. Many people studied Prophetic
traditions with him.
His transmission of the Muwaṭṭaʾ came from Ibn Waḍḍāḥ, coupled with
that of Wahb b. Masarra, from Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (as set out in the opening
pages of al-Tamhīd), from his teacher Abū al-Faḍl al-Tāhartī, from both of
them (Ibn Abī Dulaym and Wahb).
60 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

[34] This transmission became famous through Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr. Abū
al-ʿAbbās al-Dānī mentioned it in his collection of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, from Abū ʿAlī
al-Jayānī, from Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr. This is what is found in Abū Bakr b. Khayr.
In the fourth century AH (tenth century CE), the features of the Muwaṭṭaʾ
were determined definitively. This was manifested in the disappearance
of the Bāzī transmission and the continuation of the ʿUbaydī and Waḍḍaḥī
transmissions. The change is confirmed by the notes, comments, and
corrections made in the margins of our manuscript copies.
All this came about thanks to a new generation of students of the students
of Ibn Waḍḍāḥ and ʿUbayd Allāh, the most prominent of whom was Imam
Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh b. Ibrāhīm al-Aṣīlī al-Maghribī. He traveled
to Cordoba in 342/953 and discovered brisk demand for the ʿUbaydī and
Waḍḍaḥī narrations, so he listened to the ʿUbaydī narration from Muntajālī
and Ibn al-Mashshāṭ.
During the fifth century AH (eleventh century CE), religious scholars
made the Muwaṭṭaʾ an object of intense study. [35] The figure who made
the greatest advancements in promoting the Muwaṭṭaʾ was the great
Maghribi scholar of Prophetic traditions Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr al-Qurṭubī, whose
transmission of the Muwaṭṭaʾ enjoyed great prominence. People adopted
his transmission because of his respected status as a scholar and a reliable
narrator of Prophetic traditions with an avid interest in the Muwaṭṭaʾ. The
written works of Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr—namely, al-Tamhīd, al-Istidhkār, and
al-Taqaṣṣī—became famous themselves among scholars, as did his recension
of the Muwaṭṭaʾ. In his Tamhīd, Abū ʿUmar provides a good overview of the
Muwaṭṭaʾ from Yaḥyā’s recension, relying on the transmissions of ʿUbayd
Allāh and Ibn Waḍḍāḥ. His commentary is confined exclusively to Yaḥyā’s
recension, treading the path of Moroccans who chose and preferred this
recension because it was the version they had inherited from their teachers,
which is why they preserved it so zealously. He prepared a commentary
that was well documented, relying on the first ʿUbaydī transmission, which
he had received via the route of Abū ʿUmar b. al-Jasūr, from Ibn al-Mashshāṭ
and Muntajālī, from ʿUbayd Allāh.
The second transmission, Ibn Waḍḍāḥ’s, was narrated by Saʿīd b. Naṣr
from his teacher, from Qāsim b. Aṣbagh and Wahb b. Masarra, both of whom
narrated it from Ibn Waḍḍāḥ, and via his teacher, Abū al-Faḍl al-Tāhartī,
from Ibn Abī Dulaym and Wahb b. Masarra, both from Ibn Waḍḍāḥ.
[36] Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr noted differences between the two transmissions
and mentioned them in his version. They are clearly detailed in his book
al-Tamhīd, along with his comments. As a result, we were compelled to
make regular use of his Tamhīd in preparing this critical edition. We had
frequent recourse to it in cases of discrepancy between the transmissions
Arabic Introduction to the Royal Moroccan Edition 61

of ʿUbayd Allāh and Ibn Waḍḍāḥ, as though it were an edited version of

the text.
Abū ʿAlī al-Jayānī, Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr’s best student, continued to work on
his teacher’s project, adding other transmissions of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, one of
which was that of Qāsim b. Aṣbagh and Wahb b. Masarra, both from Ibn
Waḍḍāḥ, via his teacher, Abū ʿUmar b. al-Ḥadhdhāʾ (d. 467/1074), from
ʿAbd al-Wārith b. Sufyān, from Qāsim b. Aṣbagh. Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Dānī
mentioned this transmission in the opening of his Īmāʾ.
We found a transmission made up of the transmissions of three different
narrators, Muntajālī, Ibn al-Mashshāṭ, and Abū ʿĪsā, all from ʿUbayd Allāh.
We find this transmission in Abū Muḥammad b. ʿAṭiyya’s Fihrist, from Abū
ʿAlī al-Jayānī, from Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAttāb and Abū al-Qāsim al-Ṭarābulsī,
both from Abū Bakr b. Ḥūbīl, from the three of them (Muntajālī, Ibn
al-Mashshāṭ, and Abū ʿĪsā), from ʿUbayd Allāh.
We find Abū Bakr b. Ḥūbīl again recounting Ibn al-Mashshāṭ’s
transmission in particular, as mentioned by Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ at the beginning of
al-Mashāriq.
Abū ʿAlī al-Jayānī also adds another individual to the list of narrators
from ʿUbayd Allāh: Muḥammad b. Qāsim b. Hilāl. Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ reported the
transmission of Abū ʿAlī al-Jayānī via Muḥammad b. Qāsim b. Hilāl, to
which he added the transmissions of Ibn al-Mashshāṭ and Muntajālī, thus
combining the three. We find this transmission in Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ’s al-Mashāriq
and in his Ghunya from Abū ʿAlī al-Jayānī, who authorized it, from Abū Isḥāq
al-Lawātī, who learned it from him in Sabta, from Qāḍī Abū ʿĪsā b. Sahl, from
Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAttāb, from Abū al-Qāsim Khalaf b. Yaḥyā b. Ghayth, from
Ibn al-Mashshāṭ and Muntajālī, and Muḥammad b. Qāsim b. Hilāl. Mention
has already been made of the multiple ʿUbaydī transmissions through the
chain of authorities found in the Fihrists of Ibn ʿAṭiyya, ʿIyāḍ, and Ibn Khayr.
[37] Through Ibn ʿAṭiyya’s Fihrist, we learn of two more transmissions
of Abū ʿĪsā:
• The transmission of Abū al-Muṭarrif ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad b.
ʿĪsā b. Fuṭays al-Qurṭubī (d. 402/1011)
• The transmission of Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. ʿUmar b. al-Fakhkhār
(d. 419/1028)
Abū Muḥammad b. ʿAṭiyya mentioned these two transmissions from the
transmission of Abū ʿAlī al-Jayānī, from Ḥātim al-Ṭarābulsī, from both Ibn
Fuṭays and Ibn al-Fakhkhār, from Abū ʿĪsā.
Abū al-Qāsim al-Ṭarābulsī adds a transmission from Abū ʿĪsā through the
Quran reciter Abū ʿUmar al-Ṭalamankī. We drew a comparison between his
transmission and that of Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Fakhkhār, from Abū ʿĪsā.
62 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Among the scholars who reported the transmission of the Muwaṭṭaʾ in

a unique chain via Aḥmad b. al-Muṭarrif was Ibn al-Mashshāṭ, from ʿUbayd
Allāh Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Zamanīn (d. 399/1008). We find his transmission
in the beginning of Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ’s Mashāriq, from his teacher Abū ʿAbd Allāh b.
Ḥamdīn, from the latter’s father, from Abū Zakariyāʾ Yaḥyā b. Muḥammad b.
Ḥusayn al-Qulayʿī, from Ibn Abī Zamanīn.
Through Abū Muḥammad b. ʿAṭiyya and Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ, we come across a
mention of two further transmissions from Abū ʿĪsā:
• The transmission of Abū ʿUthmān Saʿīd b. Salama (d. 413/1022)
• The transmission of Abū Bakr Yaḥyā b. Wāfid (d. 404/1013)
Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAttāb transmitted both transmissions, but Ibn Wāfid
raised doubts as to whether he had heard the entirety of the Muwaṭṭaʾ from
Abū ʿĪsāʾ, the omitted parts being the Book of Pilgrimage (ḥajj) and portions
of the Book of Obligatory Prayer (ṣalāt).
Nevertheless, the fifth-century individual who made the most lasting
impact on the ʿUbaydī transmission was Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Ṭallāʿ (d.
497/1103). He lived a long life, in which he devoted himself to public
teaching of the Muwaṭṭaʾ. He became famous for this, and people flocked to
him to hear the work. His chain of narration was the shortest of the chains
for the Muwaṭṭaʾ.
Through his chain of transmission, an ancient manuscript, written on
a gazelle parchment, has come down to us; this manuscript is a copy of
an original version. It was corrected and compared to the manuscript of
the jurist and meticulous scholar of Prophetic traditions Abū ʿAbd Allāh
Muḥammad b. Salama al-Anṣārī. The date [38] of the manuscript’s copying
is Rabīʿ al-Thānī 613/July 1216. The date on which the comparison took
place was probably not too far from the date of copying, because the word
“comparison” suggests that it occurred during the life of Abū ʿAbd Allāh b.
Salama, who was in possession of the original manuscript that was used
for the comparison. The manuscript’s use of the expression akramahu ’llāh
(May God honor him) is also consistent with the conclusion that Ibn Salama
was alive at that time.
Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. Salama’s date of birth cannot be later than 580/1184,
because he recited the Muwaṭṭaʾ to his father, Aḥmad b. Salama, who died
in the year 597/1200. The comparison with his transmission must have
taken place when he was at least thirty-five years old. This manuscript is
precious because it was compared to and corrected against the manuscript
of Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. Salama, who was himself a meticulous narrator and
well known for his rigor, and because of the precious marginal notes
included in his manuscript. These notes included comparisons with other
Arabic Introduction to the Royal Moroccan Edition 63

manuscripts, notes regarding divergences among various narrators of

the Muwaṭṭaʾ, and other notes and explanations. All of these were then
transferred to the copy from Ibn Salama’s manuscript, with which it
was compared.
Thus, this manuscript represents the ʿUbaydī transmission via Abū ʿĪsā,
ʿUbayd Allāh’s nephew, which helped us greatly.
Sixth-century AH (twelfth-century CE) scholars continued to transmit
the Muwaṭṭaʾ, taking good care of it. The most prominent of them were the
compilers of the famous Fihrists:
• Abū Muḥammad b. ʿAṭiyya al-Gharnāṭī
• Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ al-Sabtī
• Abū Bakr b. Khayr al-Fāsī
From a scrutiny of their collections of Prophetic traditions we derive a list
of scholars who had strong interest in the Muwaṭṭaʾ and in its preservation
and propagation. They include the following:
• Qāḍī Abū al-Qāsim b. Baqī, one of the grandchildren of the famous
narrator Baqī b. Mukhallad
• Abū al-Ḥasan b. Mughīth, the grandson of Abū al-Walīd b. Mughīth
• Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī al-Aṣbagh b. Abī al-Baḥr al-Zahrī [39]
• Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥamdīn al-Taghlibī
• Abū Isḥāq al-Lawātī
• Abū Marwān ʿAbd al-Malik b. al-Bājī
• Abū al-Ḥasan Shurayḥ
• Abū al-Ḥakam b. Najāḥ al-Lakhmī
Most of these scholars were students of Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Ṭallāʿ, whose
transmission achieved unprecedented fame due to the brevity of his chain
of transmission. It was possible for anyone who narrated from him to trace
the recension back to Mālik through only five intermediaries, which was the
shortest chain of narration possible at the time.
Through these scholars, their counterparts, and their attention to the
Muwaṭṭaʾ, Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā’s recension was handed down to us, with all of its
differences in terms of people and texts and its various ambiguous readings
of terms, along with scholars’ sustained efforts to understand his meaning
as evidenced by their marginalia and substantive notes, all of which we have
taken into account in editing this work. We have tried very hard to ensure
that our edition draws on the ʿUbaydī and Waḍḍāḥī transmissions, in addition
to the commentaries and works of Moroccan scholars of the Muwaṭṭaʾ such
as al-Tamhīd and al-Mashāriq. We were thus able, in our work, to rely on
valuable and rare manuscripts, one of which is dated 421/1030 and was
64 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

itself copied from the manuscript of Abū ʿUmar al-Muntajālī (d. 350/961). It
was compared and corrected twice against the original text.
The first comparison and correction took place in 487/1094, against a
manuscript of Muntajālī’s text in which variances found in Ibn Waḍḍāḥ’s
transmission were noted.
The second took place in the middle of the sixth century AH, in 557/1161,
when the manuscript was corrected against a handwritten manuscript
of the chief judge Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī ʿĪsā (d.
339/950), that is, more than ten years before Muntajālī’s death. That
manuscript, which was used as the basis for correcting our manuscript, is
the equivalent of Muntajālī’s because both of them recited the Muwaṭṭaʾ to
ʿUbayd Allāh.
[40] This version has thus achieved the highest degree of accuracy and
reliability, in addition to the abundance of marginalia and notes in it, which
make it especially useful.
The man who was in charge of publicly teaching this manuscript was
the traditionist Abū Bakr b. Rizq, one of the most famous traditionists
of the sixth century AH. All transmissions of the Muwaṭṭaʾ from Yaḥyā in
circulation at that time found their way to him. Abū Bakr recorded the
various chains of transmission of the Muwaṭṭaʾ from his teachers on this
copy. He narrated the Muwaṭṭaʾ via Abū Baḥr Sufyān b. al-ʿĀṣ, who was one
of Ibn ʿAbd al-Barrʾs companions, which makes it necessary to make use of
his version. It is as if this version, which was corrected against Muntajālī’s
manuscript and against that of Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī ʿĪsā, had benefited
from Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr’s text as received from his teachers. In Ibn Rizq’s
collections of Prophetic traditions there are other transmissions that
converge on ʿUbayd Allāh, such as the transmission of Abū al-Qāsim Aḥmad
b. al-Qāsim b. Jābir b. ʿUbayda.
Ibn Rizq also has other collections of Prophetic traditions that cannot be
mentioned here for lack of space—alas, would that it were otherwise! Among
the texts adopted in the preparation of this new edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ is
the text of the accomplished philologist and narrator Abū al-Ḥasan Shurayḥ
b. Muḥammad (d. 539/1144), one the teachers of Abū Bakr b. Khayr and a
companion of Abū Muḥammad b. Ḥazm—what a great teacher and student
they were! He wrote the text out with his own hand for his son, Muḥammad
b. Shurayḥ (d. 567/1171), the reliable narrator of Prophetic traditions. ʿAbd
Allāh b. Bulayṭ al-Qaysī (d. 530/1135), one of Shurayḥ’s students, was able
to compare his copy with that of Shurayḥ’s son Muḥammad. ʿAbd Allāh b.
Bulayṭ was one of Abū Bakr b. al-ʿArabī’s (468–543/1075–1148) students.
In Cordoba, ʿAbd Allāh b. Bulayṭ read Bukhārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ with Abū al-Ḥasan b.
Mughīth, the well-known transmitter of Ibn al-Sakan. He studied Prophetic
Arabic Introduction to the Royal Moroccan Edition 65

traditions with Abū al-Qāsim b. Ḥabīsh and other famous traditionists of

the era in 503/1109.
Accordingly, this manuscript boasts great value, reliability, and precision.
Its value becomes evident in its scattered marginalia and textual notes. This
text gives us the transmission of the Muwaṭṭaʾ via the transmission of Ibn
Waḍḍāḥ along with that of Ibn Bāz through his students Ibn al-Jabbāb and
Ibn Ayman.
At the end of the version is found an appendix that includes a record of
the names of the most famous traditionists of the sixth century AH (twelfth
century CE) until Shurayḥ. They include Ibn al-Aṣbagh al-Shaʿbānī, Abū
Bakr b. al-Murābiṭ, Abū al-Qāsim al-Mawāʿīnī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Balansanī,
and Abū Muḥammad b. Mūjwāl al-Balansanī, and all of them studied
this manuscript directly, either by reading it aloud to their teacher or by
listening to it as it was read aloud in the presence of their teacher.
[41] There are three other copies that we used for purposes of comparison
and correction. These were a great help to us in certain ambiguous cases;
however, they do not match those other manuscripts in quality. We will,
however, discuss and describe them when we discuss the manuscripts on
which we relied to prepare this critical edition.
Having reviewed the various historical stages involved in the transmission
of Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā’s recension of the Muwaṭṭaʾ in the course of its passing
from one generation of scholars to the next, a process that focused efforts
on this particular recension through its various chains of transmission
and succeeded in preserving its text reliably, we can make the following
observations in light of the manuscripts that we selected for use in the
critical edition on the grounds of their quality, reliability, and precision.
Yaḥyā’s recension would not have enjoyed such circulation and
popularity were it not for his reputation, his popularity, and his intention
to secure the place of the Muwaṭṭaʾ in Cordoba for as long as he lived.
He was able to prepare a generation of transmitters led by his son
ʿUbayd Allāh, along with a group of scholars who continued to transmit
the Muwaṭṭaʾ after his death. His son ʿUbayd Allāh, in particular, was
able to continue along the path of his father and prepare a generation
of transmitters who followed his example and his recension; some of
these transmitters were members of his family. In this way, each rising
generation learned the recension from the preceding one. This process
continued from one generation to the next until it became a widespread
custom in all subsequent periods. In the ensuing centuries, there were
leading scholars whose main concern was to transmit Yaḥyā’s recension
and to teach it publicly. The generation of ʿUbayd Allāh, Ibn Bāz, and Ibn
Waḍḍāḥ was replaced, with respect to the ʿUbaydī transmission, by the
66 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

generation of Muntajālī, Ibn al-Mashshāṭ, and Abū ʿĪsā, while Ibn Waḍḍāḥ’s
transmission was taken up by the generation of transmitters that included
Ibn al-Jabbāb, Ibn Ayman, Ibn Abī Dulaym, Qāsim b. Aṣbagh, and Wahb b.
Masarra. They were followed by another generation, which combined the
two transmissions. This generation included Abū Muḥammad al-Bājī (d.
378/988), Abū Muḥammad al-Aṣīlī, Saʿīd b. Naṣr, Ibn Abī Zamanīn, and
other scholars whose efforts culminated in the work of the generation of
the fifth century AH, Abū ʿUmar al-Ṭalamankī, Abū al-Qāsim al-Ṭarābulsī,
and the pioneering Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, who became the undisputed leader
in scholarship on the Muwaṭṭaʾ. Subsequent generations of scholars held
him in awe and respect, both for his efforts in transmitting the Muwaṭṭaʾ
to his students and for the encyclopedic works he authored about the
Muwaṭṭaʾ. [42]
One important trait of Yaḥyā’s recension of the Muwaṭṭaʾ is that its
transmitters were long-lived, which enhanced its popularity. Because
the Muwaṭṭaʾ was the work Imam Mālik, the Imam of Medina, it enjoyed
a special place in the hearts of Moroccans. In a sense, a fifth-century
Moroccan or Andalusian could get to know Mālik himself by studying the
Muwaṭṭaʾ through Imam Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Ṭallāʿ’s transmission, since the
latter was separated from Mālik by only four generations of transmitters:
Abū al-Walīd Yūnus b. Mughīth, from Abū ʿĪsā al-Laythī, from ʿUbayd Allāh,
from Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā, from Mālik.
From the perspective of traditionists and the conventions of their
science, the final version of an author’s work is considered the best because
it represents the last time he brings the text out to the public. There is no
doubt that Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā was the last person to have studied the Muwaṭṭaʾ
with Mālik and received it from him. Yaḥyā studied with Mālik in the latter’s
final days, he attended Mālik’s funeral, and he returned home bearing what
he narrated from Mālik, that is, the Muwaṭṭaʾ, which makes his recension
the most reliable. Despite the criticisms that may be leveled at Yaḥyā’s
recension, whether related to his omission of certain chapters such as the
Book of Pious Seclusion (iʿtikāf) or alleged mistakes regarding some its
expressions (which the editors identified by comparing his transmission
with others), Yaḥyā’s reputation and the value of his recension are beyond
question. The people of Morocco adopted his recension of the Muwaṭṭaʾ as
theirs and it formed the basis of their commentary tradition, a reality that
the great Moroccan scholar Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr noted in the introduction to his
Tamhīd. He said:
I adopted Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā’s recension especially because of the place
he occupies in the hearts of Moroccans because of his reliability,
devotion, gracefulness, knowledge, and understanding, and because
Arabic Introduction to the Royal Moroccan Edition 67

of the consistent use of his recension, which our scholars learned

from their teachers. I rely on his recension except in cases in which
he omits an important Prophetic tradition dealing with a founda-
tional matter of law; in such cases I mention it using another recen-
sion, God willing. Every people should adhere to the practice of its
predecessors and follow their example in doing what is good, even
when the behavior of others is likewise permissible and desirable.

[43] The Manuscripts Used in Preparing the Critical Edition of

the Muwaṭṭaʾ
His Majesty Muḥammad VI, the Commander of the Faithful, may God protect
him, entrusted the Committee for the Renewal of Islamic Learning, which is
an affiliate of the Secretariat General of the High Council of Religious Scholars,
with the task of producing a critical edition of Imam Mālik’s Muwaṭṭaʾ, may God
be pleased with him, in accordance with scientific standards, for an edition
whose quality would surpass all other editions found in the Islamic libraries
in the Muslim world, whether in the past or in the present, and which would
be free of the many errors found in those other works. It is to be the first fruit
of the Committee’s ongoing efforts to publish scholarly and model works in a
manner that is in conformity with the requirement of having attested chains
of transmission satisfying the conditions of the traditionists and the methods
of Moroccan scholars to preserve texts, whether orally or in writing.
His Majesty, may God preserve him, says, “Similarly, we are commissioning
the standing Committee for the Renewal of Islamic Learning to produce a
critical edition of Imam Mālik’s Muwaṭṭaʾ, may God be pleased with him,
which will be scholarly and carefully prepared, commensurate with its
subject and the status the subject enjoys among Moroccans. We expect
this Committee to rectify the errors that have plagued previous editions by
relying on the manuscripts of the Muwaṭṭaʾ that are uniquely available in
Morocco, and to publish a version that bears a national imprint, worthy of
Morocco as a shining beacon of Mālikī jurisprudence.”2
The Committee has taken the following steps to produce an accurate
version of the Muwaṭṭaʾ in accordance with the recension of Yaḥyā b.
Yaḥyā al-Laythī (d. 234/848), as transmitted over successive generations
by careful scholars through various paths of transmission, such as the
narration of ʿUbayd Allāh b. Yaḥyā from his father, which is the first narration
that springs to mind when the Muwaṭṭaʾ is mentioned, despite the existence
of numerous others. It is the transmission that Moroccans have relied on

2 From the speech of His Majesty, the Commander of the Faithful, during His Majesty’s presid-
ing over the first opening session of the proceedings of the High Council of Religious Scholars
in the Royal Palace in Fez on July 8, 2005.
68 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

when they transmit, teach, and comment on the work, and explicate unusual
words in it. They do not refer to any other recension of the text, even though
these, too, have been transmitted through reliable chains of transmitters, as
is clear in the bibliographies documenting their scholarly accomplishments
(fahārisuhum wa-athbātuhum wa-barāmijuhum).
[44] In producing this new edition, we celebrate the great efforts of our
religious scholars. We have compiled an inventory of their work within this
edition and cited it when appropriate. We have marshaled, in preparing
this edition, their great learning on matters related to the Arabic language
and its unfamiliar words, to the work’s jurisprudence, texts, and chains of
authority, and to the biographies of its narrators. The work that produced
this critical edition relied on original and reliable Moroccan manuscripts,
which generations of our leading scholars have used in their education.
All of this effort was in compliance with the Commander of the Faithful’s
sublime command and instructions. Our work has only confirmed what His
Majesty originally said in his noble speech when he commissioned this task:
First, the previous published editions contain errors and faults, because
they did not take care to confirm the reliability of their source texts or to
follow scholarly methods of editing. We have spared no effort to avoid the
errors, deviations, and distortions plaguing those editions.
Second, the principal manuscripts that formed the basis for comparisons
between versions and determinations of reliability are the Moroccan
manuscripts preserved in our archives and libraries. His Majesty referred
to them in his sublime speech. They are six in number and were carefully
selected out of the large number of manuscripts mentioned in the indexes
of Moroccan libraries.3 The most important of these six, in descending order

3 The most important of these are the indexes of the Ḥassani Library and the other Moroccan
libraries such as the Tamkarūt Library, the Public Library in Rabat and all the precious librar-
ies annexed to it such as the Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Ḥayy Library and the Jallāwī Library, the
Royal Library in Rabat, Qarawiyyīn Library in Fez, the index of the manuscripts of the Grand
Mosque in Meknes, the Public Library in Tarudant, and the guide to the manuscripts of the
ḥabūs prepared by the Ministry of Religious Endowments and Islamic Affairs in Morocco.
This index includes the Ḥabūs Library in the Mosque of Moulay ʿAlī Sharī in Ouezzane, the
Ḥabūs Library affiliated to the Superintendence of Religious Endowments in Safi, the library
of the Ḥabūs Islamic Institute in the Superintendence of Tetouan, the Library of Ḥabūs Man-
uscripts in the Superintendence of Zarhun, the library of the Ḥabūs Islamic Institute in the
Superintendence of Salé, the Ḥabūs Library of al-Zāwiya al-Ḥamzāwiyya in Errachidia Prov-
ince, the Ḥabūs Library of al-Masjid al-ʿAtīq in the Qaṣba of Essaouira, the Ḥabūs Library
of the Grand Mosque in Tangier, the Ḥabūs Library of the Ancient School affiliated to the
Superintendence of Qalaa Sraghna, the Ḥabūs Library in the Superintendence of Kasr Kbir,
the Ḥabūs Library in Sidi Usidī Mausoleum in Tarudant, the Ḥabūs Library of the Regional
Supreme Scientific Council of the Prefecture of Casablanca, the Ḥabūs Library of the Moulay
Slimān Mosque in Abū al-Jaʿd in the Superintendence of Khoribga, and other famous librar-
ies that boast a great number of titles that have stood the test of time, among which are
the Sidi ʿAbd al-Salām Library, the Darqawiyya Library in Oujda, the Karzaziyya Library, the
library of the Good Marabou Sidi ʿAbd al-Jabbār in Figuig, the library of the Grand Mosque
Arabic Introduction to the Royal Moroccan Edition 69

of importance, are the following:

[45] 1. A copy of the manuscript taken from al-Zāwiya al-Ḥamzāwiyya,
which found its final destination in Tunis. It is one of the most
precious manuscripts in terms of its accuracy and the care taken
in its preparation. It was copied at the end of the fifth century AH
(487/1094). Because this manuscript was compared and corrected
against two other ancient manuscripts, which are described below, it
is recognized as having the highest level of precision and reliability.
(a) The first manuscript was that of Abū ʿUmar al-Muntajālī (d.
350/961). He was among those who studied the Muwaṭṭaʾ with
ʿUbayd Allāh b. Yaḥyā, from the latter’s father, Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā
al-Laythī. Accordingly, there is only one transmitter between
him and Yaḥyā, and that is ʿUbayd Allāh.
(b) The second manuscript was the autograph manuscript of the
Chief Judge of Cordoba Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. Abī ʿĪsā. His manuscript was dictated in the presence of
his father’s uncle, Abū Marwān ʿUbayd Allāh b. Yaḥyā, from his
father, Yaḥyā. Both its marginalia and its notes are of the utmost
importance.
2. The manuscript copy of Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Ṭallāʿ (d. 497/1103). This
manuscript has a remarkably small number of links in its chain of
transmitters, with grandchildren narrating from their grandfathers. It
is a precious manuscript that was copied at the beginning of the seventh
century AH (thirteenth century CE), replete with useful annotations,
notes, and marginalia. It is distinguished by its careful spelling and
proofreading and was written in beautiful, clear handwriting, with
full vocalization that accords with both the narration and the rules
of Arabic grammar. The owner of this manuscript, Abū ʿAbd Allāh b.
al-Ṭallāʿ, narrates it from the Chief Judge Abū al-Walīd Yūnus b. ʿAbd
Allāh al-Ṣaffār, from Abū ʿĪsā Yaḥyā b. ʿAbd Allāh, from his father, Yaḥyā.
The manuscript was corrected against that of Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad
b. Salama al-Anṣārī, who holds the reputation of a trustworthy and
credible narrator and was a companion of Ibn Qarqūl, Ibn Bashkawāl,
and Ibn Khayr, all of whom were masters of transmission, accuracy,
and reliability. This second manuscript is no less important than the
first manuscript in terms of the abundance of quotations from other
sources, annotations, and marginalia. We were able to incorporate

in al-ʿAwīda, the library of the Grand Mosque in Chefchaouen, the ʿIyāshiyya in Er-Rich, the
Scientific Library in Beni Mellal, the Bzū Library, and the library of Moulay Idriss Zarhūn.
70 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

most of these annotations into the critical edition because we had

in our possession the handwritten original of the manuscript, and
although it was difficult to read some of them, in the end we were able
to decode them. Another point of interest is that this manuscript was
in the possession of two of the greatest traditionists of the Maghrib.
The first was Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. Rashīd al-Sabtī (d. 721/1321), who put
his name on it in 720/1320. The second was Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Wādī
Āshī (d. 749/1348), author of the famous barnāmij, who put his name
on it in 728/[Link]
[46] 3. The copy of the traditionist, Quran reciter, scholar of the Arabic
language, and grammarian Abū Muḥammad Shurayḥ b. Muḥammad
b. Shurayḥ al-Ruʿaynī (d. 539/1144). He was one of the companions
of Abū Muḥammad b. Ḥazm and one of the teachers of Abū Bakr b.
Khayr al-Ishbīlī. He wrote the manuscript in his own hand in beautiful
Maghribi script for his son, Muḥammad b. Shurayḥ (d. 567/1171). It
was corrected at the hands of one of his students, the skilled and careful
traditionist Abū Muḥammad b. Billīṭ, who gained fame, according to
Ibn al-Abbār and Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Malik al-Murrākushī, as a
trustworthy and careful transmitter. Because of its accuracy and the
care with which it was prepared, it is deemed an invaluable piece of
work. Furthermore, it includes an impressive number of valuable
marginalia and glosses, as well as notes on the textual differences among
the various transmissions of the text and recensions of the Muwaṭṭaʾ. A
great number of the most rigorous and famed scholars of Andalusia,
whose excellence in the transmission of Prophetic traditions is expressly
noted in various Andalusian sources, studied this manuscript in the six
century AH (twelfth century CE), as explicitly evidenced by the record
of study sessions noted on the manuscript.
[47] These three texts constitute the principal manuscripts that we used
as a basis for our comparisons and corrections, and they suffice to produce
a critical edition that meets the expectations of the Commander of the
Faithful and fulfills the requirements set forth in his sublime speech.
We also made use of three other manuscripts as principal texts. These
manuscripts also proved beneficial to us in cases in which we had doubts
regarding some words. These texts are as follows:
4. A manuscript that was copied in 595/1198, collated and corrected,
teeming with valuable marginalia and commentary.

xviii This is a reference to the custom of medieval scholars to add their names to a manuscript
once they had formally studied it.
Arabic Introduction to the Royal Moroccan Edition 71

5. Another manuscript, written in the hand of ʿAbd Allāh b. Aḥmad b.

Muḥammad b. al-Labbād in 613/1216. This manuscript would have
been no less important than the previous ones had there not been
substantial omissions in the first and middle parts of the book. Its
marginalia, however, are very important.
6. Another manuscript contemporaneous to that of the previously
mentioned Ibn al-Labbād. It has many important glosses that helped
clarify the kinds of differences in the text’s vocabulary, and the words’
proper spelling and vocalization.
It is possible that there are other manuscripts that we were not able to
examine in the private collections of scholars who are engaged in the study
of Prophetic traditions or who acquired precious manuscripts representing
the legacy of Islamic learning by way of inheritance, purchase, or some other
means. Such persons preferred to keep their treasures to themselves and
were content to benefit from what they have privately instead of sharing
them with the community, deeming the sin of withholding them from those
in need of them a trivial matter compared to the profit they hope to realize
from their sale. There were no means available, however, to force them to
share with the Committee whatever they had in their private collections,
despite widespread dissemination of news of the project to produce a
critical edition of the Muwaṭṭaʾ in accordance with the instructions of the
Commander of the Faithful.
Our consolation in this respect is that, despite what was withheld from
us, even if potentially important, we were able to use manuscripts with
uninterrupted chains of transmission that had been studied by the giants of
the sciences of Prophetic tradition in the dear lands of the Islamic West. Their
chains of transmission, in our estimation, are unsurpassed in their [Link]
The Committee hopes that fair-minded scholars, those who understand
the importance of producing scholarly, critical editions of the Islamic
scholarly tradition, will appreciate the Committee’s work, and that they will
accept it in a spirit of scholarly charity that restrains unbalanced criticism
that points out faults without recognizing merits. The Committee for the
Renewal of Islamic Learning also hopes that the scholarly community will
excuse it for the delay in completing this project. The delay resulted from
the Committee’s sense of the weightiness of the responsibility that had been
entrusted to it. There were two principal reasons the Committee found
this trust so burdensome. The first was the Commander of the Faithful’s
requirement that the Committee prepare a scholarly, critical edition of the
Muwaṭṭaʾ that met the highest academic standards, was commensurate

xix See note viii above.

72 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

with the honor of the Muwaṭṭaʾ and its elevated status in the eyes of
Moroccans, and corrected the mistakes of previous editions. The second
was His Majesty’s attachment to the Muwaṭṭaʾ, a book that all Moroccans
agree is unsurpassed as a source of divine guidance by any but the Book of
God, Sublime is He, and that is the distinctive foundational text of the Mālikī
school itself.
None of that prevents the Committee from admitting that fulfilling
this responsibility—in terms of satisfying the requirements of scholarly
methodology, manifesting fidelity to the Muwaṭṭaʾ’s status, and paying careful
attention to the text’s transmission—was a challenging task. Given the nature
of the task, and in light of the reality of the differences present in the various
narrators’ transmissions of the text, it is impossible to claim perfection.
Carelessness, mistakes, and forgetfulness are present in all human beings.
God, Sublime is He, has made mutual fairness and sincerity the cure to these
defects. He decreed that the cure for error should take the form of beautiful
reminders, whether by speech or by conduct. Authentic Islamic tradition
reports that humans are, by their nature, forgetful, error-prone, and quick to
succumb to temptation, but also that they instinctively seek to repent of their
mistakes. It is therefore the virtue of the godly person to remember where his
true welfare lies when he is duly reminded.

All praise belongs to God, Lord of the Worlds.

 In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate
May God Grace Our Prophet Muḥammad and His Family
and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.

Book 1
The Book of Obligatory Prayer (Ṣalāt) Times

Chapter 1. The Times for the Performance of Obligatory Prayer

(Ṣalāt)
The jurist Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Faraj, may God be pleased with
him, told us, in an oral reading of the Muwaṭṭaʾ in his presence by one of his
students in his mosque in Cordoba at the beginning of the month of Rabīʿ
al-Ākhir in the year 494 AH,1 while I listened, that the judge Abū al-Walīd
Yūnus b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Mughīth, the chief judge of Cordoba, known as Ibn
al-Ṣaffār, may God have mercy on him, said that Abū ʿĪsā Yaḥyā b. ʿAbd Allāh
b. Abī ʿĪsā told him from his father’s paternal uncle ʿUbayd Allāh b. Yaḥyā,
from his father, Yaḥyā, the following:2

1 The first day of that month would correspond to February 3, 1101 CE.
2 This set of names establishes the chain of transmission (isnād) by which the Muwaṭṭaʾ was
transmitted from its author, Mālik b. Anas (d. 179/795), via his student Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā (d.
234/849), who introduced the text to Andalusia and the Maghrib. This chain of transmission
was highly valued because it was only three transmitters removed from the original source
of this version of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā. Yaḥyā’s recension of the Muwaṭṭaʾ is only one
of several recensions of the Mālik’s Muwaṭṭaʾ. It is, however, the best known, and the one
that predominated in Andalusia and the Maghrib. Most other recensions of the Muwaṭṭaʾ
have survived only in fragmentary form, with the exception of the recension of Muḥammad
b. al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī (d. 189/805). Shaybānī was one of the two principal students of Abū
Ḥanīfa (d. 150/767) in Iraq and can be deemed one of the founders of the Ḥanafī school of
law. Shaybānī studied for a time with Mālik b. Anas in Medina, where he read the Muwaṭṭaʾ.
Because he did not follow Mālik’s legal views, however, his recension of the text omits the
bulk of Mālik’s legal opinions and reasoning and retains only the portions of the text that
Shaybānī found useful from the perspective of his own legal doctrine. After laying out this
chain of authorities, the text hereafter names only the transmitters through whom Mālik
received his material.

73
74 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1. According to Mālik b. Anas, Ibn Shihāb3 reported that one day, ʿUmar b.
ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz4 deferred the performance of an obligatory prayer. Upon his
doing so, ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr5 came to him and told him that al-Mughīra b.
Shuʿba6 had once deferred the performance of an obligatory prayer when
he was in Kufa. Seeing al-Mughīra’s action, Abū Masʿūd al-Anṣārī had gone
to him and said, “Mughīra, what are you doing? Don’t you know that the
Angel Gabriel descended and prayed in the presence of the Messenger
of God (pbuh), and so the Messenger of God (pbuh) prayed; then Gabriel
prayed, and so the Messenger of God (pbuh) prayed; then Gabriel prayed,
and so the Messenger of God (pbuh) prayed; then Gabriel prayed, and so
the Messenger of God (pbuh) prayed; and then Gabriel prayed, and so the
Messenger of God (pbuh) prayed. The Messenger of God (pbuh) then said,
‘Thus have I been commanded to perform the obligatory prayers.’”7 ʿUmar b.
ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz said to ʿUrwa, “Think carefully about what you are reporting!
Was it really Gabriel who established for the Messenger of God (pbuh) the
times for the performance of the obligatory prayers?” ʿUrwa said, “This is
what Bashīr b. Masʿūd al-Anṣārī would relate from his father.”
2. ʿUrwa said, “ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), told me that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) would perform the Afternoon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿaṣr)
while the sun was still shining in her chamber, before it faded from there.”
3. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār said, “A man
came to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and asked him about the time for the

3 Muḥammad b. Muslim b. ʿUbayd Allāḥ b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Shihāb, known as Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī
(d. 124/742), was a prominent early Muslim historian and collector of hadith. He is one of
Mālik’s most important sources in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.
4 ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Marwān (r. 99–101/717–720) was an Umayyad caliph who was
highly esteemed in the Sunnī tradition for his learning and piety and is often referred to as
the fifth of the Rightly Guided (rāshidūn) Caliphs. Mālik includes many decisions and opin-
ions of ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz as precedents in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.
5 ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr (d. 94/713) was the son of a prominent early convert to Islam, al-Zubayr b.
al-ʿAwwām, and an important member of the early generation of Muslims known as the Fol-
lowers (tābiʿūn) that followed the founding generation, known as the Companions (ṣaḥāba).
ʿUrwa was known as one of the “seven jurists of Medina” and is an important source of legal
rules for Mālik in the Muwaṭṭaʾ. The sources do not agree on the identity of these seven
jurists, and as a result, more than seven have been named as such. Furthermore, some have
suggested that the group of seven functioned as a council, in which case membership could
have changed over time.
6 Al-Mughīra b. Shuʿba (d. 50/670) was a Companion of the Messenger of God (pbuh) who
served as the governor of the garrison town of Kufa in southern Iraq during the term of the
second of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (r. 13–23/634–644).
7 The Arabic is equivocal: the phrase “Thus have I been commanded to perform the obligatory
prayers” could be read as a statement by the Angel Gabriel rather than the Messenger of
God (pbuh), with the meaning “Thus have you been commanded to perform the obligatory
prayers.” The difference between the two readings hinges on vocalization, and manuscripts
of the Muwaṭṭaʾ include both.
Book 1 75

performance of the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ). The Messenger (pbuh)

did not answer him. The next morning, the Messenger performed the
Morning Prayer when the blackness of the night had begun to lift. The next
day, the Messenger (pbuh) performed the Morning Prayer when sunlight
had just begun to appear. The Messenger (pbuh) then said, ‘Where is the
man who asked about the time of the Morning Prayer?’ The man said, ‘Here
I am, Messenger of God!’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) then said, ‘Between
these two is the time for the performance of the Morning Prayer.’”
4. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān8 that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said, “When the
Messenger of God would complete performance of the Morning Prayer, the
women would depart from the mosque, wrapped in their shawls, and they
would be unrecognizable on account of the darkness.”
5. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār, from Busr
b. Saʿīd, and from al-Aʿraj, all of whom told Zayd b. Aslam from Abū Hurayra,
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Whoever performs one cycle
(rakʿa) of the Morning Prayer before sunrise has performed the Morning
Prayer within its designated time; and whoever performs one cycle of the
Afternoon Prayer before sunset has performed the Afternoon Prayer in a
timely fashion within its designated time.”
6. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ, the freedman (mawlā)9 of ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar,10 reported that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb wrote to his governors, “In my
estimation, your most important duty is the obligatory prayer. Whoever
guards it and performs it diligently guards his religion; whoever neglects
his prayers is likely to be even more heedless of his other duties.” He then
added, “Perform the Noon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ẓuhr) beginning when a person’s
shadow is one arm’s length until his shadow is equal to his own height;
the Afternoon Prayer when the sun is high in the sky, white and clear, and
when there is still enough time for a rider to travel six to ten kilometers11

8 ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (29–106/649–724) was a prominent Follower to whom the
sources attribute great knowledge. She was raised and educated by the Mother of the Believ-
ers, ʿĀʾisha bt. Abī Bakr al-Ṣiddīq. Mālik included many of her reports in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.
9 The Arabic term mawlā in this context means a manumitted slave. It can also refer to the
slave’s owner or manumitter.
10 ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar (d. 73/693) was a Companion of the Messenger of God (pbuh) and the
son of the second caliph, ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar is a very important source
for Mālik in the Muwaṭṭaʾ, with his words usually reported to Mālik by Nāfiʿ, ʿAbd Allāh’s
freedman. The chain Mālik  Nāfiʿ  ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar is sometimes called “the golden
chain” by virtue of the high regard Muslim scholars had for the reliability of reports transmit-
ted through this chain.
11 This distance is roughly equivalent to two to three farsakhs. A farsakh is a unit of length equal
to three mīls. A mīl is the equivalent of 3,500 arm’s lengths, or a man’s paces. A farsakh is
76 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

before the sun sets; the Sunset Prayer (ṣalāt al-maghrib) when the sun
sets; and the Evening Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿishāʾ) between the time that twilight
disappears and the end of the first third of the night. Whoever goes to
bed without performing the Evening Prayer—may his night be restless!
Whoever sleeps without performing the Evening Prayer—may his night be
restless! Whoever sleeps without performing the Evening Prayer—may his
night be restless! Perform the Morning Prayer when the stars are clear and
fill the sky.”
7. According to Mālik, his paternal uncle Abū Suhayl b. Mālik reported from
his father that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb wrote to Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī, “Perform the
Noon Prayer when the sun begins its descent from its zenith; the Afternoon
Prayer when the sun is white and clear, before it becomes yellowish-orange;
and the Sunset Prayer when the sun sets. Defer performance of the Evening
Prayer into the night, provided that you do not fall asleep. Perform the
Morning Prayer when the stars are clear and fill the sky, reciting therein
two chapters of the long Mufaṣṣal12 chapters of the Quran.”
8. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa13 reported from his father that ʿUmar
b. al-Khaṭṭāb wrote to Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī, “Perform the Afternoon Prayer
while the sun is white and clear, when there is still enough time for a rider
to travel ten kilometers before the sun sets. Perform the Evening Prayer in
the first third of the night, but if you defer it beyond that, then only until the
middle of the night, and do not be among the heedless.”
9. According to Mālik, Yazīd b. Ziyād reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. Rāfiʿ, the
freedman of Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that he asked
Abū Hurayra about the times for the performance of the obligatory prayers.
Abū Hurayra said, “I’ll tell you. Perform the Noon Prayer when your shadow
equals your height; the Afternoon Prayer when your shadow is double your
height; the Sunset Prayer when the sun sets; the Evening Prayer in the first

thus equal to 10,500 paces, and the distance mentioned in this report is between 21,000 and
31,500 paces. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār al-jāmiʿ li-madhāhib fuqahāʾ al-amṣār wa-ʿulamāʾ
al-aqṭār fīmā taḍammanahu al-Muwaṭṭaʾ min maʿānī al-raʾy wa’l-āthār (Cairo: Muʾassasat
al-Risāla, 1993), 1:237.
12 The “long” Mufaṣṣal chapters of the Quran form a subcategory of the Mufaṣṣal chapters.
These begin with al-Ḥujurāt and conclude with ʿAbasa (chapters 49–80). See Zurqānī, Sharḥ
al-Zurqānī ʿalā Muwaṭṭaʾ al-Imām Mālik (Cairo: Maktabat al-Thaqāfa al-Dīniyya, 2003), 1:86.
Elsewhere, Zurqānī mentions various opinions over the starting point of the more inclusive
category of the Mufaṣṣal chapters, which ends with the Quran’s final chapter. He concludes
that the category starts with al-Ḥujurāt, in accordance with the preponderant view of the
Mālikīs and the Shāfiʿīs. Ibid., 1:306.
13 Hishām b. ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr b. al-ʿAwwām (d. 146/763) was a prominent member of the
second generation of Muslims, known as “the followers of the Followers” (tābiʿū al-tābiʿīn),
and an important source for Mālik in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.
Book 1 77

third of the night; and the Morning Prayer when it is still dark, meaning
when dawn is just breaking.”
10. According to Mālik, Isḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa reported that Anas
b. Mālik said, “We would perform the Afternoon Prayer, and one could then
walk to the dwellings of the tribe of ʿAmr b. ʿAwf and find them still in the
midst of performing the Afternoon Prayer.”
11. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Anas b. Mālik said, “We
would perform the Afternoon Prayer, and one could then set off for Qubāʾ14
and arrive there when the sun was still high in the sky.”
12. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān15 reported that
al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad16 said, “In my experience, the Companions17 always
deferred performance of the Noon Prayer until later in the day, when it was
cooler.”

Chapter 2. The Time of the Friday Congregational Prayer (Jumuʿa)

13. According to Mālik, his uncle Abū Suhayl b. Mālik reported that his
father said, “I used to notice that on Fridays, a cushion belonging to ʿAqīl b.
Abī Ṭālib would be placed along the western wall of the Prophet’s Mosque.
Only when the shadow of the wall had completely covered the cushion
would ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb enter the mosque for the Friday Congregational
Prayer.” Mālik’s grandfather said, “After the prayer, we would return to our
homes and nap, making up for the midmorning nap that we missed by going
to the mosque.”
14. According to Mālik, ʿAmr b. Yaḥyā al-Māzinī reported from Ibn Abī Salīṭ
that ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān18 performed the Friday Congregational Prayer in
Medina and the Afternoon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿaṣr) in Malal.19 Mālik said, “That

14 A place on the outskirts of Medina.

15 Nicknamed “Rabīʿa the legal reasoner” (Rabīʿat al-raʾy), he was an important Medinese jurist
and teacher of Mālik, and an important source in the Muwaṭṭaʾ. Sources differ as to the date
of his death but place it in either the fourth or the fifth decade of the second Islamic century,
in 133/750, 136/753, or 142/759.
16 Al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr al-Ṣiddīq (d. 107/752) was a member of the Followers
and one of the “seven jurists of Medina.” He served as an important source for Mālik in the
Muwaṭṭaʾ.
17 The text literally uses the term “the people,” but here it refers to the Companions, as al-Qāsim
was one of the oldest members of the Followers. Hence, the practices he would have observed
would have been those of the Companions who continued to live in Medina after the death of
the Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh). Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 1:25.
18 ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān (r. 23–35/643–656) was the third of the Rightly Guided caliphs according
to the Sunnīs.
19 A place on the way from Medina to Mecca. Some authorities place it at a distance of approxi-
mately 19 km (18 mīls) from Medina, whereas others say it is approximately 24 km (22 mīls)
78 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

was because he set out during the heat of the day and rode quickly—not
because he performed the Friday prayer before noon.”20

Chapter 3. Regarding a Person Who Performs Only One Cycle (Rakʿa)

of a Prayer (Ṣalāt) with the Congregation
15. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān,21 from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
“Whoever performs one cycle (rakʿa) of a prayer with the congregation has
performed his prayer with the congregation.”
16. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
would say, “If you join the congregational prayer after the imam has already
stood up from bowing, you have also missed the prostration (sajda) for that
cycle of the prayer.”
17. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar and Zayd
b. Thābit would both say, “Whoever joins the congregational prayer before
the imam stands up from bowing validly performs the prostration for that
cycle of the prayer.”
18. According to Mālik, it reached him that Abū Hurayra would say, “Whoever
bows with the imam also validly performs the prostration for that cycle of
prayer. Whoever joins the congregational prayer after the imam recites the
Fātiḥa,22 however, has missed out on a great deal of good.”

Chapter 4. What Has Come Down regarding the Meaning of “Dulūk of

the Sun” and “Ghasaq of the Night”23
19. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
say, “The phrase ‘dulūk of the sun’ means the beginning of its descent
after midday.”
20. According to Mālik, Dāwūd b. al-Ḥuṣayn said, “Someone told me that
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās24 would say, ‘The phrase “dulūk of the sun” is when

away, one mīl comprising 3,500 paces. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 1:254. Other authorities
report the distance as 41 km. Yāqūt al-Ḥamawī, Muʿjam al-buldān (Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 1995),
5:194.
20 Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 1:254–55.
21 Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf (d. 94/712) was a Follower and one of the “seven
jurists of Medina.” He is also an important source for Mālik in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.
22 The Fātiḥa is the first chapter of the Quran and must be recited in each cycle of prayer.
23 These two phrases appear in al-Isrāʾ, 17:78, where they serve to delineate times for the per-
formance of prayers.
24 ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās (d. 68/687) was the paternal first cousin of the Prophet Muḥammad
(pbuh). Although they were first cousins, the Prophet was many years Ibn ʿAbbās’ senior and
Book 1 79

shadows begin to point east; and, the phrase “ghasaq of the night” means
the darkness of the night.’”

Chapter 5. Miscellaneous Matters Related to the Times of the

Obligatory Prayers (Ṣalāt)
21. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “The loss endured by someone who fails to
perform the Afternoon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿaṣr) is the equivalent of losing his
family and all his wealth.”
22. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
departed after performing the Afternoon Prayer. He then ran into someone
who had not attended it. ʿUmar asked the man, “What kept you from the
Afternoon Prayer?” The man offered him an excuse, but ʿUmar replied, “You
have only cheated yourself.” Yaḥyā25 said, “Mālik said, ‘The terms “cheating”
(taṭfīf) and “fidelity” (wafāʾ) may be applied to anything—not just to goods
bought and sold in the market.’”
23. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd would say, “Many a worshipper will
perform an obligatory prayer toward the end of its prescribed time, yet had
he prayed it earlier, his reward for doing so would have been superior to,
and greater than, his family and his wealth.”
24. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘If someone is traveling and the prescribed time
for a prayer comes, but he defers its performance either out of distraction
or out of forgetfulness until he arrives home and remembers it, he should
perform the prayer as a resident would, provided that the prescribed
time for the performance of that prayer has not expired. If, however, he
reaches home and the prescribed time has expired, he should perform the
shortened prayer of a traveler, because his present obligation is to perform
the equivalent of his previous obligation.’ Mālik then said, ‘This is the rule
that I found both the people and the learned of our town26 following’ (al-amr
alladhī adraktu ʿalayhi al-nās wa-ahl al-ʿilm bi-baladinā).”

raised the latter in his household in Medina from a young age. Ibn ʿAbbās later became well
known as one of the scholars among the younger Companions. Muslim tradition assigns to
him an especially prominent role as an expert in the exegesis of the Quran.
25 This Yaḥyā is Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā al-Laythī, Mālik’s student and the narrator of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, not
Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd, Mālik’s source for this hadith. In many instances in the Muwaṭṭaʾ, Yaḥyā b.
Yaḥyā, after transmitting Mālik’s report, includes an additional comment or question directed
to Mālik, which is introduced simply by “Yaḥyā said.” Sometimes the addition appears as a
free-standing report, as in hadith no. 24.
26 That is, Medina.
80 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

25. Mālik said, “The term ‘dusk’ (shafaq) means the redness that appears
at sunset. When that redness disappears, it is time for the Evening Prayer
(ṣalāt al-ʿishāʾ), and the time for the Sunset Prayer (ṣalāt al-maghrib)
has expired.”
26. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar once fainted
and lost consciousness. Once revived, he did not perform the prayers that
he missed while unconscious. Mālik said, “This, in our view, and God knows
best, is because the time for the performance of that prayer had already
passed. If an unconscious person revives, however, and the time to pray has
not yet expired, he should perform that prayer.”

Chapter 6. Missing an Obligatory Prayer (Ṣalāt) Because of

Oversleeping
27. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab27 that
when the Messenger of God (pbuh) returned from Khaybar,28 he marched
throughout the night and set up camp at the night’s end. He said to Bilāl,
“Keep a vigilant watch so you can wake us for the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt
al-ṣubḥ).” The Messenger of God (pbuh) and his companions went to sleep,
and Bilāl kept watch for as long as fate had decreed. Then he leaned against
his mount, seeking some rest while facing the direction of the sunrise, but
his eyelids became heavy, and he fell asleep. Neither the Messenger of God,
nor Bilāl, nor anyone in the camp awoke until the sun was beating down on
them. The Messenger of God was startled, and Bilāl said, “Messenger of God,
the very same thing that overtook me overtook you.” The Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, “Let us decamp,” and so they stirred their mounts and marched
some distance. The Messenger of God (pbuh) then ordered Bilāl to halt so
they could perform the prayer that they had missed. Bilāl gave the immediate
call to prayer (iqāma),29 and the Messenger of God (pbuh) led them in the
Morning Prayer. After completing the prayer, he said, “Anyone who forgets to
perform a prayer should perform it when he remembers it. God, Blessed and
Sublime is He, says in His Book, ‘Establish prayer in remembrance of Me.’”30

27 Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab (d. 94/712) was a prominent member of the Followers, one of the
“seven jurists of Medina,” and an important source for Mālik in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.
28 Khaybar, a fortified oasis town in the Hijaz, had been settled by Arabian Jews. The Muslims
laid siege to the oasis town in year 7 of the Hijra (628 CE), following the conclusion of the
Treaty of al-Ḥudaybiya. Khaybar is located approximately four days’ march north of Medina.
Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 1:141.
29 The immediate call to prayer—the iqāma—is performed directly prior to the performance
of the prayer. It is a shortened version of the general call to prayer—the adhān—which is
made at the beginning of the time for a designated prayer and is intended to announce to the
community that the time for that prayer has started.
30 Ṭāhā, 20:14.
Book 1 81

28. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam said that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
camped late one night on the road to Mecca. He charged Bilāl to awaken
them when it was time for the Morning Prayer, but all of them, including
Bilāl, slept through the dawn. They awoke only after the sun had already
risen above them. The men awoke in a state of distress, so the Messenger
of God ordered them to ride until they exited that valley, saying, “This is a
valley in which a devil dwells.” They rode, therefore, until they left it. The
Messenger of God (pbuh) then ordered them to dismount and to perform
ablutions for prayer. He commanded Bilāl to make the general call to prayer
(adhān). The Messenger of God (pbuh) then led the people in prayer. When
he turned to them and saw their distress, he said, “People, God takes our
souls while we sleep, and had He desired, He would have returned them
to us at a different moment in time. Accordingly, if one oversleeps and as a
result misses a prayer, or forgets it, and then remembers it when he awakes,
he should perform that prayer as he would normally have performed it
during its prescribed time.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) then turned to
Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq31 and said, “The Devil did indeed come to Bilāl while
he was standing in prayer and convinced him to lie down. He continued to
soothe him, just as a baby is soothed, until he went to sleep.” The Messenger
of God (pbuh) then called Bilāl, who reported to the Messenger of God
(pbuh) a version of events similar to what the Messenger of God (pbuh)
had told Abū Bakr. Abū Bakr then said, “I testify that you are indeed the
Messenger of God.’”

Chapter 7. The Prohibition against Performing the Prayer (Ṣalāt)

during the Hottest Part of the Day
29. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Severe heat comes from the breath
of Hell. When it is extremely hot, defer performance of the prayer until it
cools down.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) also said, “Hell complained to
its Lord, saying ‘One part of me has consumed the other,’ so He permitted it
two breaths every year, one in the winter and one in the summer.”32
30. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Yazīd, the freedman (mawlā) of
al-Aswad b. Sufyān, reported from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (and
Mālik also narrated it from Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Thawbān),

31 Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq was one of the earliest converts to Islam, one of the Prophet’s closest
confidants and companions, and the father of ʿĀʾisha, a wife of the Prophet (pbuh). He was
the first caliph (r. 11–13/632–634) of the Muslim community after the Prophet (pbuh) died.
32 This and other narrations draw a connection between extreme weather on earth and Hell.
Both extreme heat and extreme cold are seen as deriving from the two breaths that Hell
takes, one in the summer and one in the winter.
82 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

each from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “When it is
extremely hot, defer performance of the prayer until it cools down, for the
heat’s severity comes from the breath of Hell.” He also mentioned that “Hell
complained to its Lord, so He permitted it two breaths every year, one in the
winter and one in the summer.”
31. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “When it is extremely hot,
defer performance of the prayer until it cools down, for the heat’s severity
comes from the breath of Hell.”

Chapter 8. The Prohibition against Entering the Mosque with the

Odor of Garlic on One’s Breath and against Covering One’s Mouth
While Performing the Prayer (Ṣalāt)
32. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Anyone who eats garlic should keep
away from our mosques, lest he annoy us with its odor.”
33. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Mujabbar reported that he
would notice that whenever Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh33 saw someone using his
cloak to cover his mouth while performing his prayer, he would firmly yank
it from the person’s mouth until he removed it.

33 Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar (d. 106/724) was a prominent member of the Followers and one
of the “seven jurists of Medina.” He is also an important source for Mālik in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.
 Book 2
The Book of Ritual Purity (Ṭahāra)

Chapter 1. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to the Performance of

Ablutions (Wuḍūʾ)
34. According to Mālik, ʿAmr b. Yaḥyā al-Māzinī reported from his father
that the latter said to ʿAbd Allāh b. Zayd b. ʿĀṣim, who was the grandfather of
ʿAmr b. Yaḥyā al-Māzinī and a Companion of the Messenger of God (pbuh),
“Can you show me how the Messenger of God would perform ablutions?”
ʿAbd Allāh b. Zayd said, “Yes, I can.” He called for a basin of water and poured
some on his hands, washing each of them twice. He then rinsed his mouth
and blew his nose three times each; then he washed his face three times; and
then he washed each of his hands twice, up to the elbows. He then wiped his
head with both of his hands, front to back and back to front, starting from
his forehead, then running his hands over the back of his neck, and then
returning them to where he had started. He then washed each of his feet.
35. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “When someone performs
ablutions, he should inhale water into his nose and then expel it. Whoever
uses small stones to remove impurities from his body after defecating or
urinating should use an odd number of them.”
36. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Abū Idrīs al-Khawlānī,
from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Whoever
performs ablutions should expel the water from his nose, and whoever
uses small stones to remove impurities from his body after defecating or
urinating should use an odd number of them.”
37. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘There is nothing objectionable in
someone rinsing his mouth and nose with the same handful of water.’”
38. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakr
visited ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), the day Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ
died. While there, he asked for a basin of water from which to perform

83
84 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

ablutions. ʿĀʾisha said to him, “ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, perform your ablutions

diligently, for I heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) say, ‘Unwashed heels
are doomed to the fire of Hell!’”
39. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Muḥammad b. Ṭaḥlāʾ reported from
ʿUthmān b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān that his father told him that he heard that
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb would use water rather than small stones to clean the
area beneath his undergarment (izār).34
40. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about a man who, when performing
ablutions, forgot and washed his face before rinsing his mouth, or washed
his arms before washing his face. Mālik replied, ‘Someone who washes his
face before rinsing his mouth should go ahead and rinse his mouth, but he
does not need to repeat washing his face. Someone who washes his arms
before his face should go ahead and wash his face; however, he should then
repeat washing his arms, so that he washes them after washing his face,
provided he is in the same place, or nearby, when he remembers the proper
order of ablutions.’”
41. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about a man who forgot to rinse his mouth
or blow his nose, and then prayed. Mālik replied, ‘He is under no obligation
to repeat the performance of his prayer. He should, however, rinse his
mouth and blow his nose prior to performing any subsequent prayers that
he intends to pray.’”

Chapter 2. The Ablutions (Wuḍūʾ) of One Who Is Sleeping and Gets Up

to Perform Prayer (Ṣalāt)
42. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “When someone awakes
from sleep, he should wash his hands before he places them in his ablution
basin. No one knows where his hand passed the night.”
43. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
said, “If someone sleeps lying down, he must perform ablutions prior to
performing any prayer.”
44. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that the verse, “Believers,
when you arise to perform your prayers, wash your faces, your hands up
to the elbows, and your feet up to the heels, and wipe your heads,”35 is
understood to refer to those who awake from their beds, that is, from sleep.

34 This is a reference to the difference of opinion over whether water was effective by itself for puri-
fying the body of feces, or whether pebbles first had to be used to remove feces after defecation.
35 Al-Māʾida, 4:6.
Book 2 85

45. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)36 is that
one does not need to perform ablutions because of a nosebleed, or bleeding,
or pus that seeps from the body. Ablutions are required only for impurities
that exit from the penis or the anus, or on account of sleep.’”
46. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that Ibn ʿUmar would sleep while sitting
and then wake up and perform his prayer without performing ablutions.

Chapter 3. The Substances That May Be Used for Ablutions (Wuḍūʾ)

47. According to Mālik, Ṣafwān b. Sulaym reported from Saʿīd b. Salama,
a man from the people of Banū al-Azraq, from al-Mughīra b. Abī Burda of
the tribe of Banū ʿAbd al-Dār, that al-Mughīra told Saʿīd that al-Mughīra
heard Abū Hurayra say, “A man came to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and
said, ‘Messenger of God, we are a seafaring people and sail with only small
amounts of fresh water. Were we to use that water for ablutions, we would
go thirsty. May we perform our ablutions with seawater?’ The Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, ‘Seawater purifies filth, and even its carrion may be eaten.’”
48. According to Mālik, Isḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa al-Anṣārī reported
from Ḥumayda, the daughter of Abū ʿUbayda b. Farwa, that her maternal
aunt Kabsha, the daughter of Kaʿb b. Mālik, who was married to Ibn Abī
Qatāda, told Ḥumayda that one day Abū Qatāda came to her house, and she
poured some water into an ablution basin for him to use. A cat then came
and wanted to drink from the basin, so he tilted it until the cat could drink.
Kabsha said, “He saw me staring at him and said, ‘Niece, are you surprised
that I would allow the cat to drink from my ablution basin?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He
said, ‘The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Cats are not impure. They come
and go freely among you.”’” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘There is no harm in
letting a cat drink from one’s ablution basin, unless one sees something
impure on its mouth.’”
49. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm
b. al-Ḥārith al-Taymī, from Yaḥyā b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥāṭib, that ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb went out with a riding party that included ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣī. They
rode until they came to a cistern filled with water. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣī said to its
owner, “Do predators drink from your cistern?” ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said,
“You don’t need to answer that, for we certainly each take turns drinking its
water: we drink after them, and they drink after us.”

36 Mālik uses the expression al-amr ʿindanā when the rule represents Mālik’s view on an issue
regarding which there was a predominant opinion among the Medinese legal experts as well
as significant dissent. Umar F. Abd-Allah Wymann-Landgraf, Mālik and Medina: Islamic Legal
Reasoning in the Formative Period (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 283.
86 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

50. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say, “In
the time of the Messenger of God (pbuh), men and women would perform
ablutions together.”37

Chapter 4. Things That Do Not Necessitate Ablutions (Wuḍūʾ)

51. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. ʿUmāra reported from Muḥammad b.
Ibrāhīm, from a handmaiden of Ibrāhīm b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf who bore
him a child (umm walad),38 that she inquired of Umm Salama, the wife of the
Prophet (pbuh), about the following situation: “The trains of my garments
are lengthy, and I walk in filthy places.” Umm Salama said, “The Messenger
of God said, ‘The dust that comes in the filth’s wake purifies the garment’s
train.’”
52. According to Mālik, on several occasions he saw Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān coughing up small amounts of liquid in the mosque.39 He would
not, however, leave the mosque or perform ablutions as a consequence,
until he had first concluded performance of his prayer.
53. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether a man who coughed up a small
amount of food must perform ablutions before performing his prayer. Mālik
replied, ‘He is not obliged to perform ablutions as a consequence, but he
should gargle and wash his mouth.’”
54. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar prepared
the corpse of one of the sons of Saʿīd b. Zayd for burial and carried him in
the funeral procession. He subsequently entered the mosque and prayed,
without first performing ablutions.
55. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether vomiting necessitates ablution.
Mālik replied, ‘No; someone who vomits should gargle and wash his mouth,
but ablution is not necessary.’”

Chapter 5. Not Performing Ablutions (Wuḍūʾ) on Account of Eating

Roasted Food
56. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār, from
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) ate a shoulder of
lamb and then performed his prayer without performing ablutions.

37 Meaning from a single ablution basin, per a marginal note in one of the RME manuscripts.
38 An umm walad was a handmaiden who gave birth to her master’s child. After giving birth to
the child, the mother could not be sold, her child was free, and she would become free upon
the earlier of her express manumission or her master’s death.
39 The Arabic word qalas refers to a small amount of vomit that does not exceed a mouthful.
Book 2 87

57. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Bushayr b. Yasār, the
freedman (mawlā) of the tribe of Ḥāritha, that Suwayd b. al-Nuʿmān told
Bushayr that he went out with the Messenger of God (pbuh) in the year of
Khaybar.40 When they reached al-Ṣahbāʾ, a place just outside Khaybar, the
Messenger of God (pbuh) dismounted and performed the Afternoon Prayer
(ṣalāt al-ʿaṣr). He then asked for the rations to be brought out, but there
was nothing except some dried porridge (sawīq).41 He ordered that it be
prepared, so it was mixed with some water, and then the Messenger of God
(pbuh) ate and we ate.42 He then got up to perform the Sunset Prayer (ṣalāt
al-maghrib), but he first rinsed his mouth, and we did the same. He then
performed the Sunset Prayer without performing ablutions.
58. According to Mālik, both Muḥammad b. al-Munkadir and Ṣafwān b.
Sulaym informed him from Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. al-Ḥārith al-Taymī,
from Rabīʿa b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Hudayr, that Rabīʿa shared an evening
meal with ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, after which ʿUmar prayed without first
performing ablutions.
59. According to Mālik, Ḍamra b. Saʿīd al-Māzinī reported from Abān b.
ʿUthmān43 that ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān ate bread and meat, then rinsed his mouth,
washed his hands, and wiped his face with them. He then prayed without
first performing ablutions.
60. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib and ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿAbbās did not perform ablutions after eating roasted food.
61. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he asked ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿĀmir b. Rabīʿa whether a man who had performed ablutions in preparation
for performing a prayer but then ate roasted food before praying had to
repeat his ablutions. ʿAbd Allāh said, “I saw my father do that very thing,
and he would pray without first repeating his ablutions.”

40 The year of Khaybar was 7/628.

41 Sawīq is a dish described as consisting of either ground wheat or ground barley that is
cooked by itself or fried. It is then mixed into water or milk and eaten as a kind of porridge.
Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 1:141.
42 The text’s switch from the third person to the first person is not an uncommon feature of
early Arabic texts that were originally transmitted orally.
43 Abān b. ʿUthmān served as the governor of Medina from 75/695 to 82/702 during the reign
of the Umayyad caliph ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān (r. 65–86/685–705). ʿAbd al-Malik was cred-
ited with numerous administrative reforms, including Arabizing the language of adminis-
tration and minting the first coins of the caliphate (before his reign, Muslims had simply
adopted the coinage circulating in the conquered territories). He also built the Dome of the
Rock in Jerusalem. For more on his contributions to the emerging Arabic-Islamic civilization,
see Iḥsān ʿAbbās, “ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān wa-dawruhu fī thaqāfat ʿaṣrih,” Dirāsāt 13, no. 1
(1986): 105–13.
88 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

62. According to Mālik, Abū Nuʿaym Wahb b. Kaysān reported that he heard
Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Anṣārī say, “I saw Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq eat meat and then
pray, without first repeating his ablutions.”
63. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. al-Munkadir reported that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) was invited for a meal and offered bread and
meat. So he ate, then performed ablutions and prayed. Later, the leftovers
from that meal were brought to him, so he ate again. This time, however, he
prayed without first performing ablutions.
64. According to Mālik, Mūsā b. ʿUqba reported from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b.
Zayd al-Anṣārī that Anas b. Mālik returned from Iraq to Medina, and Abū
Ṭalḥa and Ubayy b. Kaʿb came to visit him. Anas offered them roasted food,
and so they ate. Anas then got up and performed ablutions. Abū Ṭalḥa and
Ubayy said to him, “What are you doing, Anas? Is this an Iraqi practice?”
Anas said, “I wish I had never done it!” Abū Ṭalḥa and Ubayy both then
prayed without first performing ablutions.

Chapter 6. Miscellaneous Matters Related to Ablutions (Wuḍūʾ)

65. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) was asked about cleaning oneself after defecating.
He said, “Is it really difficult to find three small stones?”
66. According to Mālik, al-ʿAlāʾ b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported from his father,
from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) went to the cemetery
and said, “Peace to you, dwelling place of a believing folk! We shall, God
willing, join you here. How I wish that I could see our brethren!” Those
who had gone with him to the cemetery said, “Messenger of God, are we
not your brethren?” He said, “No; rather, you are my companions. My
brethren are those who have not yet come. I shall lead them to the Pool
in Paradise.” They said, “Messenger of God, how will you recognize those
of your community who come after your death?” He said, “Would a man
whose horses’ foreheads and legs are emblazoned with flashes of white not
recognize them in the midst of a group of dark, black horses?” They said,
“Certainly he would, Messenger of God!” He said, “My future followers will
come on the Day of Judgment, shining and white from ablutions, and I shall
lead them to the Pool in Paradise. Let no one be driven away from my Pool
as though he were a lost camel. I will call out to such people, ‘Come now!
Come now!’ It will be said, ‘Indeed, they deviated after your death,’ so I will
say, ‘So be gone! So be gone! So be gone!’”
67. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father, from
Ḥumrān, a freedman (mawlā) of ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān, that ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān
Book 2 89

was sitting on one of the benches outside the Prophet’s Mosque,44 and
the muezzin came and called him for the Afternoon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿaṣr).
ʿUthmān called for water and performed his ablutions. He then said, “By
God, I shall certainly tell you all something that I would not have narrated,
were it not already in God’s Book.” He said, “I heard the Messenger of God
(pbuh) say, ‘No person performs ablutions diligently and then performs his
prayer without God’s forgiving the sins he commits between that prayer
and the next prayer that he performs.’” Yaḥyā reported from Mālik, “I believe
he was referring to this verse: ‘Establish prayer at the ends of the day and
for a portion of the night. Surely good deeds erase wicked deeds. That is a
reminder for those keen to remember.’”45
68. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār, from ʿAbd
Allāh al-Ṣunābiḥī, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “When a faithful
servant performs ablutions, and gargles and rinses his mouth, sins exit
from his mouth. When he blows his nose, sins leave from his nostrils. When
he washes his face, he cleanses his face of sin, even from under his eyelids.
Sins leave his hands when he washes them, even from under his fingernails.
Sins leave his head when he wipes it, even from his ears. Sins leave his feet
when he washes them, even from under his toenails.” The Messenger of God
(pbuh) then said, “As a result, the faithful servant’s walk to the mosque, and
his performance of the prayer therein, accrue entirely to his credit.”46
69. According to Mālik, Suhayl b. Abī Ṣāliḥ reported from his father, from
Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “When a submitting
(or faithful) servant47 performs ablutions and washes his face, all the sins he
has looked upon with his eyes leave with the water (or ‘with the last drop
of water,’ or a similar expression). When he washes his hands, every sin he
has committed with his hands leaves with the water (or ‘with the last drop
of water’).48 As a result, he emerges absolved of sins.”49

44 The text does not explicitly state that this was the Prophet’s Mosque, but the presence of the
benches and the muezzin indicates that it was a place of communal prayer and therefore
almost certainly the mosque of the Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh). Accordingly, in this case
and in others like it, we have translated “mosque” as “the Prophet’s Mosque” to distinguish it
from local or private places of worship that were also referred to as mosques.
45 Hūd, 11:114.
46 That is, ablution discharges the “debt” of sins that he has accrued, so the performance of the
prayer and the walk to the mosque yield positive credits to his spiritual account.
47 The narrator of the text is uncertain whether the adjective modifying “servant” in the words
attributed to the Prophet (pbuh) was muslim, meaning, literally, “submitting,” or muʾmin,
meaning “faithful.”
48 The parentheses indicate the narrator’s doubt regarding which expression the Prophet
(pbuh) actually used.
49 Most commentators interpret this absolution as being limited to venial sins.
90 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

70. According to Mālik, Isḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa reported that Anas
b. Mālik said, “I saw the Messenger of God (pbuh) when it was time for
the Afternoon Prayer. The people were looking for water for ablutions, but
they could not find any. Some water was brought to the Messenger of God
(pbuh) in a basin for his ablutions. The Messenger of God (pbuh) put his
hand inside that basin, and then he ordered the people to perform their
ablutions from it.” Anas then said, “I saw the water gush out from under his
fingers until the last of them had performed his ablutions.”
71. According to Mālik, Nuʿaym b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Mujmir reported that he
heard Abū Hurayra say, “Whoever performs ablutions diligently and then
sets out intending to perform the prayer is in a state of prayer so long as
he intends to perform the prayer. For every stride he takes, a good deed
is recorded and a sin is absolved. When one hears the immediate call to
prayer (iqāma), one should not hurry, for the one whose home is furthest
away receives the greatest reward.” They said, “Why, Abū Hurayra?” He said,
“Because of the many steps he must take to attend the prayer.”
72. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he heard someone ask
Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab about purification with water after defecation. Saʿīd
said, “That manner of purification is only for women.”
73. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “If a dog drinks from one’s
basin, one should wash it seven times.”
74. According to Mālik, it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “Be upright, even if perfection is unattainable, and perform good deeds
constantly. The best of your deeds is the regular performance of prayer, and
only a faithful servant persists in maintaining his ablutions.”

Chapter 7. What Has Come Down regarding Wiping the Head and Ears
75. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would take
water with two of his fingers to his ears.
76. According to Mālik, it reached him that Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Anṣārī was
asked whether a man could wipe his turban instead of his head. Jābir said,
“No, not until he wipes his hair with water.”
77. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father, ʿUrwa b.
al-Zubayr, would remove his turban and wipe his head with water.
78. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that he saw Ṣafiyya bt. Abī ʿUbayd,
the wife of ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, remove her veil and wipe her head with
water. Nāfiʿ was a child at the time.
Book 2 91

79. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about wiping the turban and the veil
instead of the head. He said, ‘Neither a man nor a woman should wipe the
turban or the veil. Each should wipe his or her head.’”
80. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about a man who performed ablutions
but forgot to wipe his head and remembered only after the water from
his ablutions had dried. Mālik said, ‘I believe he should wipe his head,
and if he has already prayed, he should repeat the performance of his
prayer (ṣalāt).’”

Chapter 8. What Has Come Down regarding Wiping Leather Socks

(Khuff)
81. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿAbbād b. Ziyād, one
of the children of al-Mughīra b. Shuʿba,50 that his father, al-Mughīra b.
Shuʿba, said, “During the Tabūk campaign,51 the Messenger of God (pbuh)
once went to relieve himself, and I went with him, bringing water. After
the Messenger of God (pbuh) finished, I poured water for him, so he
washed his face. Then he tried to extend his hands through the openings
of his cloak’s sleeves but could not do so because of their tightness, so
he brought them out from underneath the outer cloak and then washed
his hands. He then wiped his head and his leather socks (khuff). The
Messenger of God (pbuh) returned to camp to find ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b.
ʿAwf leading them in prayer, having completed one cycle (rakʿa) of the
prayer with them. The Messenger of God (pbuh) therefore joined them
and prayed the remaining cycle of their prayer. The people were startled,
so when the Messenger of God (pbuh) completed the performance of his
prayer, he said, ‘You all did well.’”
82. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ and ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār both told him that
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar visited Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ in Kufa during the latter’s
tenure as its governor. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar saw him wiping his leather socks
and faulted him for doing so. Saʿd said to him, “Ask your father, ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb, about this when you return to him in Medina.” When ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿUmar returned, he forgot to ask his father about it. Later, when Saʿd came
to Medina, he said, “Did you ask your father?” ʿAbd Allāh said, “No.” ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUmar then asked his father about it, and ʿUmar said, “If one puts on
leather socks when one’s feet are pure following ablutions, one thereafter
needs only to wipe them.” ʿAbd Allāh then said, “Even after defecation?”
ʿUmar said, “Indeed, even after one has defecated.”

50 The affiliation of ʿAbbād b. Ziyād to al-Mughīra is an error, committed by either Mālik or Yaḥyā.
51 A campaign to the Levant that took place in 9/630, the final campaign of the Prophet (pbuh).
92 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

83. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar urinated
in the market. He then performed ablutions, washed his face and hands,
and wiped his head. When he entered the mosque, he was asked to lead a
funeral prayer. He wiped his leather socks and led the funeral prayer.
84. According to Mālik, Saʿīd b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ruqaysh al-Ashʿarī said,
“I once saw Anas b. Mālik on a day when he went to Qubāʾ. When he arrived,
he urinated. A basin was brought to him, and he performed his ablutions.
He washed his face and hands to the elbows, and wiped his head and his
leather socks. He then went to the mosque and prayed.”
85. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether a man needs to repeat his
ablutions if he performed the ablutions for prayer, then put on leather
socks, then urinated, then took off his leather socks, and then put them
on again. Mālik replied, ‘He should remove his leather socks and then
perform the ablutions. He should also wash his feet. Only someone who
has put on leather socks when his feet are pure following ablutions
may wipe them. Anyone who puts on leather socks without first having
performed ablutions to ensure that his feet are pure is not permitted to
wipe them.’”
86. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about a man who had performed ablutions
while wearing leather socks but had forgotten to wipe them until the water
from his ablutions had already dried, and then performed his prayer. Mālik
replied, ‘He should wipe his leather socks and repeat the performance of his
prayer, but he need not repeat the ablutions.’”
87. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about a man who had washed his feet, then
put on his leather socks, and then completed his ablutions. Mālik said, ‘He
should remove his leather socks and then perform his ablutions, washing
his feet.’”

Chapter 9. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to Wiping Leather Socks

88. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that he saw his father
wipe his leather socks. He said, “When he wiped his leather socks, he wiped
only their upper portions, not their soles.”
89. According to Mālik, he asked Ibn Shihāb about how one should wipe
leather socks. Ibn Shihāb placed one hand under the leather sock and the
other on top of it, and then moved them along its length. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik
said, ‘Of all the views that I have heard regarding this issue, Ibn Shihāb’s
view is the one I prefer most.’”
Book 2 93

Chapter 10. What Has Come Down regarding Nosebleeds

90. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that if ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar had a
nosebleed while performing the prayer, he would pause his prayer, leave,
and perform ablutions. He would then return and resume his prayer from
where he had left off, without uttering a word.
91. According to Mālik, it reached him that if ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās’ nose
began to bleed while he was performing his prayer, he would pause his
prayer, leave, wash the blood away, and then resume his prayer from where
he had left off.
92. According to Mālik, Yazīd b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Qusayṭ al-Laythī reported
that he saw Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab’s nose bleed while he was performing the
prayer. Saʿīd went to the chamber of Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet
(pbuh). A basin was brought to him, and he performed ablutions. He then
returned and resumed his prayer from where he had left off.

Chapter 11. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to Nosebleeds during

the Performance of Prayer (Ṣalāt)
93. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥarmala al-Aslamī said, “I saw
Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab’s nose bleed, to the point that the blood coming out
his nose stained his fingers; nevertheless, he would perform the prayer
without first performing ablutions.”
94. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Mujabbar reported that he
saw blood coming from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh’s nose, to the point that the
blood stained his fingers. He then would rub the blood off his fingers and
perform his prayer without first performing ablutions.

Chapter 12. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to Someone Overcome

by Blood from a Wound or a Nosebleed
95. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
al-Miswar b. Makhrama informed ʿUrwa that he visited ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
the night he was stabbed and woke ʿUmar for the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt
al-ṣubḥ). ʿUmar then said, “Yes! Those who forsake prayer (ṣalāt) have no
part in Islam.” ʿUmar perfomed his prayer, even though his wound was
oozing blood.
96. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
asked his pupils, “What do you think of someone who is overcome by a
severe nosebleed in the middle of the performance of his prayer, and the
nosebleed does not stop?” Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab then
94 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

said, “I think that such a person should move his head to and fro rather
than bow and prostrate, in order to prevent the blood from polluting his
clothes or the prayer area.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Of all the views that I
have heard regarding this issue, that view is the one I prefer most.’”

Chapter 13. Ablutions (Wuḍūʾ) Due to Pre-Ejaculate (Madhī)52

97. According to Mālik, Abū al-Naḍr, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿUmar
b. ʿUbayd Allāh, reported from Sulaymān b. Yasār,53 from al-Miqdād b.
al-Aswad, that ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib asked him to inquire of the Messenger of God
(pbuh) on his behalf what a man should do if he engages in foreplay with
his wife and pre-ejaculate emerges. ʿAlī said, “Given that I am married to
the Messenger of God’s daughter, I am embarrassed to ask him.” Al-Miqdād
said, “I therefore asked the Messenger of God (pbuh) about that, and he
said, ‘When this happens to someone, he should rinse his penis with water
and perform the ablutions that one would perform in order to pray.’”
98. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from his father that ʿUmar
b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “Sometimes it rolls out of me, like small pearls. If this
happens to someone, let him wash his penis and perform the ablutions that
one does for prayers.” He was referring to pre-ejaculate.
99. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that Jundab, the freedman
of ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAyyāsh al-Makhzūmī, said, “I asked ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
about pre-ejaculate, and he said, ‘If this happens to you, wash your penis
and perform the ablutions that you do for prayers.’”

Chapter 14. The Dispensation (Rukhṣa) to Forego Ablutions (Wuḍūʾ)

as a Result of Pre-Ejaculate (Madhī)
100. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd heard a man ask Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab about pre-ejaculate.
The man said, “Sometimes I notice some moisture while I am praying.
Should I interrupt my prayer (ṣalāt)?” Saʿīd said to him, “Even if it were
flowing down my thighs I would not stop until I completed performance of
my prayer.”
101. According to Mālik, al-Ṣalt b. Zuyayd said, “I asked Sulaymān b. Yasār
what to do if I notice some moisture on my penis. He said, ‘Rinse what is
under your garment with water and ignore it.’”

52 Madhī refers to the pre-ejaculation liquid that emerges from the penis in connection with
foreplay or other sexual arousal.
53 Sulaymān b. Yasār (d. 107/725) belonged to the generation of the Followers and was one of
the “seven jurists of Medina.” He served as an important source for Mālik in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.
Book 2 95

Chapter 15. Performing Ablutions (Wuḍūʾ) on Account of Touching

the Genitalia
102. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr reported from Ibn
Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b. Ḥazm that he heard ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr say, “I met with
Marwān b. al-Ḥakam, and we discussed what necessitates the performance
of ablutions. Marwān said, ‘Touching one’s penis necessitates ablutions.’
ʿUrwa said, ‘I did not know that.’ Marwān b. al-Ḥakam then said, ‘Busra bt.
Ṣafwān informed me that she heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) say, “If
someone touches his penis, he should perform ablutions.”’”
103. According to Mālik, Ismāʿīl b. Muḥammad b. Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ
reported that Muṣʿab b. Saʿd b. Abī al-Waqqāṣ said, “I was holding pages
of the Quran for Saʿd b. Abī al-Waqqāṣ, and I scratched myself. Saʿd said,
‘Perhaps you touched your penis?’” Muṣʿab said, “I said, ‘Yes, I did,’ so Saʿd
said, ‘Go and perform ablutions.’ I did and then came back.”
104. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“If someone touches his penis, he must perform ablutions.”
105. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father would
say, “Whoever touches his penis must perform ablutions.”
106. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh said,
“I saw my father, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, bathe and then perform ablutions, so I
said to him, ‘My dear father, doesn’t bathing obviate the need for ablutions?’
He said, ‘Certainly, but sometimes I touch my penis while bathing, so I
perform ablutions.’”
107. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh said, “I
accompanied ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar on a journey. I saw him perform ablutions
after the sun had risen and then pray.” Sālim said, “I then said to him, ‘I have
not previously seen you pray at this time!’ ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, ‘After I
performed ablutions for the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ), I touched my
penis but then forgot to repeat my ablutions, so I performed ablutions and
repeated my prayer once I remembered.’”

Chapter 16. Ablutions (Wuḍūʾ) after a Man Kisses His Wife

108. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh
that his father, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, would say, “A man’s kissing his wife or
touching her with his hand is a kind of intimate contact. Anyone who kisses
his wife or touches her with his hand must perform ablutions.”
96 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

109. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd would say,
“Kissing one’s wife necessitates ablution.”
110. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb would say, “Kissing one’s wife
necessitates ablution.”

Chapter 17. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to the Removal of

Ritual Preclusion (Janāba)54
111. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father, from
ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, that when the Messenger of God (pbuh)
would bathe on account of ritual preclusion, he would start by washing his
hands. He would then perform ablutions as he would for the performance
of prayer (ṣalāt). He would then dip his fingers into a basin of water and run
his fingers through the roots of his hair. Then, scooping up water with both
hands, he would pour it on his head three times. Finally, he would pour the
basin’s remaining water over his entire body.
112. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr, from
ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, that when the Messenger of God (pbuh)
would bathe on account of ritual preclusion, he would use a single basin of
water containing approximately six liters of water.55
113. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that when ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
bathed on account of ritual preclusion, he would begin by pouring water
into his right hand and washing it. Then he washed his penis. Then he
rinsed his mouth and blew his nose. Then he washed his face and sprinkled
water in his eyes. Then he washed his right hand and then his left. Then he
washed his head. Then he bathed and poured water over himself.
114. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the
Believers, was asked about how a woman bathes on account of ritual

54 Islamic ritual law came to divide the impurities that result from bodily functions into two
kinds, major (ḥadath akbar) and minor (ḥadath aṣghar). The latter involves any excretion
from the genitalia or the anus, including the passing of gas. The former involves secretions
related to the body’s sexual functions, such as ejaculation for males and ejaculation, menstru-
ation, and lochia (postpartum discharge) for females. The jurists refer to the state associated
with these latter functions as janāba, translated here as “ritual preclusion.” A person who is
in a condition of ritual preclusion may not resume ordinary ritual life simply by performing
ablutions (wuḍūʾ) but rather must complete a ritual bath (ghusl) and, in the case of a men-
struating woman or a postpartum mother, must also wait for the blood or lochia, as applica-
ble, to cease flowing before bathing. During this time, she is excused from the observance of
ordinarily applicable ritual requirements. A person subject to ritual preclusion is known as
junub. See Chapter 19 of the Book of Purity.
55 The editors of the RME explain that the unit specified in the report, faraq, is the equivalent of
three measures (ṣāʿ). A measure is made up of four mudds, a mudd measuring approximately
500 grams. A faraq, therefore, contains approximately six kilograms of water, or six liters.
Book 2 97

preclusion. She said, “She should pour three handfuls of water on her head
and rub her head with her hands.”

Chapter 18. The Obligation to Bathe When the Genitalia Touch

115. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab that
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān, and ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet
(pbuh), would all say, “When one genital organ penetrates56 another, bathing
becomes obligatory.”
116. According to Mālik, Abū al-Naḍr, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿUmar b.
ʿUbayd Allāh, reported that Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf said, “I
asked ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), ‘What necessitates a ritual
bath (ghusl)?’ She said, ‘Do you know what you remind me of, Abū Salama?
You are like a chick who hears the roosters crowing, so he crows with them.57
When one genital organ penetrates another, bathing becomes obligatory.’”
117. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that Abū Musā al-Ashʿarī went to ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet, and said
to her, “A disagreement among the Companions of the Messenger of God
(pbuh) over a certain question has brought me grief, but it is extremely
embarrassing for me to bring it up with you.” She asked, “What is it?
Whatever you would ask your mother, you may ask me.” He said, “Is bathing
necessary if a man has intercourse with his wife but then loses his erection
and does not ejaculate?” She said, “If one genital organ penetrates the other,
bathing becomes obligatory.” Abū Mūsā said, “I will never ask anyone else
about this again.”
118. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. Kaʿb,
the freedman of ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān, that Maḥmūd b. Labīd al-Anṣārī asked
Zayd b. Thābit about a man who has intercourse with his wife but loses his
erection and does not ejaculate. Zayd said to him, “He must bathe.” Maḥmūd
then said to him, “But Ubayy b. Kaʿb was of the opinion that bathing is not
obligatory in that case.” Zayd said to him, “Ubayy b. Kaʿb changed his mind
about that before he died.”
119. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“When one genital organ penetrates another, bathing becomes obligatory.”

56 The literal word used for sexual organ in this report and the next one is khitān, a reference to
circumcision, and it thus functions as a euphemism for penetrative sexual intercourse.
57 The point of ʿĀʾisha’s analogy is that the narrator is too young to understand the question.
98 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 19. The Ablutions (Wuḍūʾ) of One Ritually Precluded (Junub)

When He Wishes to Sleep or Eat before He Bathes
120. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported that ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar said, “ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb mentioned to the Messenger of God (pbuh)
that sometimes he might have a wet dream at night. The Messenger of
God (pbuh) said to him, ‘Wash your penis, perform ablutions, and go back
to sleep.’”
121. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father
that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), would say, “If someone has
intercourse with his wife and wishes to sleep before bathing, he should not
sleep until he first performs ablutions as he would for the performance of
prayer (ṣalāt).”
122. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, when he
wanted to sleep or eat when in a state of ritual preclusion, would wash his
face and his hands to the elbows and then wipe his head. He would then eat
or sleep.

Chapter 20. Repetition of Prayer (Ṣalāt) by One Ritually Precluded

(Junub); His Bath If He Prayed and Did Not Remember; and His
Washing of His Clothes
123. According to Mālik, Ismāʿīl b. Abī Ḥakīm reported that ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār
informed him that the Messenger of God (pbuh) one day began performance
of an obligatory prayer but then signaled to the congregation with his hand
to wait in their places, and left. He then returned, and traces of water were
still on his body.
124. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that Zuyayd b. al-Ṣalt
said, “I went out one day with ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb to the Juruf,58 only for him
to realize that he had had a wet dream and prayed without first bathing.
ʿUmar said, ‘By God, it seems that I had a wet dream and didn’t realize it,
and I prayed without first bathing.’ So he bathed, and washed the stains that
he saw on his clothes, and sprinkled water on the rest. Then he made the
general call to prayer (adhān) (or the immediate call to prayer, iqāma), and
prayed after the morning sun had risen high.”
125. According to Mālik, Ismāʿīl b. Abī Ḥakīm reported from Sulaymān b.
Yasār that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb set out early in the morning to his land in
Juruf and noticed stains from a wet dream on his clothes. He said, “I have
been afflicted with wet dreams ever since I became responsible for the

58 An agricultural village approximately 3–5 km outside of Medina.

Book 2 99

people’s affairs.” He therefore bathed and washed the stains that he saw on
his clothes. He then prayed after the sun had already risen.
126. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Sulaymān b. Yasār
that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb led the people in the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt
al-ṣubḥ) and then set out while it was still early in the morning to his land in
Juruf. He later discovered the stains of a wet dream on his clothes. He said,
“Since we have been eating well, our vigor has been restored.” So he bathed,
and washed the stains from his clothes, and repeated the performance of
his prayer.
127. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father, from
Yaḥyā b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥāṭib, that he performed the Visitation (ʿumra)59
with ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb and a band that included ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣī. ʿUmar set
up camp at night on the road near a well, and he had a wet dream. It was
nearly dawn, and none of them had any water. He rode off until he reached
the well, and began to wash all visible stains from his clothes. He continued
to do so until morning arrived. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣī said to ʿUmar, “It is now
morning, and we have other clothes you can wear, so put aside your clothes
to be washed later.” ʿUmar then said to him, “How strange that you should
say this, Ibn al-ʿĀṣī! Maybe you have a change of clothes, but not everyone
else does! By God, if I were to do that, it would become the rule. Instead, I
will wash the visible stains, and sprinkle water on the rest.”
128. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a man who finds stains from a wet
dream on his clothes but does not know when it happened, nor does he
remember his dream, ‘He should bathe on the assumption that the wet
dream occurred the last time he slept. If he subsequently performed any
prayers, he should repeat the prayers performed since he last awoke,
because a man may ejaculate without having had an erotic dream, or he
may have an erotic dream without ejaculating. Accordingly, if he discovers
stains from a wet dream on his clothes, he must bathe. That is because
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb repeated whatever prayer he had performed since he
last slept, but not anything prior to that.”

Chapter 21. A Woman’s Obligation to Bathe If She Has an Erotic

Dream Similar to a Man’s
129. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr that
Umm Sulaym said to the Messenger of God, “If a woman has an erotic dream
like a man, must she bathe (ghusl)?” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Yes,

59 The Visitation (ʿumra) is a truncated pilgrimage to Mecca in which the pilgrim performs only
some of the rites associated with the Pilgrimage (ḥajj).
100 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

she must.” ʿĀʾisha said to her, “Woe to you! As if women have such dreams!”
The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to ʿĀʾisha, “What a strange thing for you
to say! Where else does a child’s resemblance to its mother come from?”
130. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father, from
Zaynab bt. Abī Salama, that Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh),
said, “Umm Sulaym, the wife of Abū Ṭalḥa al-Anṣārī, went to the Messenger
of God (pbuh) and said, ‘Messenger of God, God is not embarrassed by the
truth! Must a woman bathe when she has an erotic dream?’ He said to her,
‘Yes, if she notices any ejaculate.’”

Chapter 22. Miscellaneous Matters Related to Bathing (Ghusl) on

Account of Ritual Preclusion (Janāba)
131. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“There is nothing objectionable in someone bathing with water left over
from a woman’s bath, provided she was not menstruating or otherwise
ritually precluded (junub).”
132. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would perform
prayers while wearing the very clothes he had worn while in a state of ritual
preclusion, even though he had sweated profusely while wearing them.
133. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that Ibn ʿUmar’s handmaidens would
wash his feet and bring him his prayer mat even when they were menstruating.
134. Mālik was asked whether a man with multiple wives and handmaidens
may have intercourse with one and then another without bathing in
between. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable in his having
intercourse with another one of his handmaidens while he is still in a state
of ritual preclusion. He is prohibited from having intercourse with one of
his wives on the day of another wife.60 It is not objectionable, however, if
he has intercourse with one handmaiden and then, while still in a state of
ritual preclusion, has intercourse with another.”
135. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about a man in a state of ritual preclusion
for whom a bath was drawn. Without giving any thought to it, he put his
finger into the water to see whether it was hot or cold. Mālik said, ‘So long
as there was no impure substance on his fingers, I do not believe that
rendered the water impure.’”

60 That is, without that other wife’s consent.

Book 2 101

Chapter 23. Dry Ablutions (Tayammum)61

136. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported from his
father that ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, said, “We went with the
Messenger of God (pbuh) on one of his journeys. When we arrived at
Baydāʾ, or Dhāt al-Jaysh, I lost my necklace.62 The Messenger of God (pbuh),
along with everyone else, stopped to search for it. There was no water
there, and they were short of water. People went to Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq and
said, ‘Have you seen what ʿĀʾisha has done? She has forced the Messenger
of God (pbuh) and ourselves to halt our march in a waterless place, and
we ourselves are running out of water.’ Then Abū Bakr came to see me,
and the Prophet was sleeping with his head on my lap. He berated me,
saying, ‘You have detained the Messenger of God (pbuh) and the people in a
waterless place, and at a time when they are running out of water.’ Abū Bakr
reproached me sharply and without any restraint. He began to shove me at
the waist with his hand, and I would have gotten up to leave, but for the fact
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) was asleep with his head on my lap. The
Messenger of God continued sleeping, waking up the next morning without
any water for ablutions. God, Blessed and Sublime is He, then revealed the
verse regarding dry ablutions. Usayd b. al-Khuḍayr said, ‘This isn’t the first
of your many blessings, family of Abū Bakr!’ We stirred the camel that I had
been riding and found my necklace beneath it.”
137. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about a man who performed dry ablutions
for a prayer (ṣalāt) that was due. Then the time for the next prayer came.
Must he perform dry ablutions again, or do the first ablutions suffice for
him? Mālik said, ‘He must perform dry ablutions for every prayer, for he
is obliged to seek out water for every prayer. Only one who has sought out
water and failed to find it is permitted to perform dry ablutions.’”
138. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether a man who had performed dry
ablutions may lead his companions in the performance of prayer, if they
have performed their ablutions with water (wuḍūʾ). Mālik said, ‘I prefer
that someone else lead them, but were he to do so, I would not believe it to
be objectionable.’”
139. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a man who could not find water
and consequently performed dry ablutions in its place, stood up to pray,
performed the opening magnification of God (takbīr),63 and had begun to

61 Tayammum is an alternative means of performing ablution using sand or dirt in circum-

stances in which water is not reasonably available.
62 Baydāʾ and Dhāt al-Jaysh are vast desert expanses in the Hijaz.
63 Ritual prayer is begun when the worshipper raises his hands to his ears and states, “God is
great” (Allāhu akbar).
102 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

pray when suddenly another man appeared with water—whether such a

man should interrupt the performance of his prayer to perform ablutions:
‘The first man should not interrupt his prayer but rather complete it in
reliance on his dry ablutions. He should then perform ablutions for his
subsequent prayers.’”
140. Mālik said, “When someone intends to pray but cannot find water and
so acts in conformity with God’s command by performing dry ablutions, he
has faithfully obeyed God. Someone who performed ablutions with water is
not any purer than the one who performed dry ablutions, nor is his prayer
any better, because each of them was subject to a particular command, and
each of them acted in accordance with what God ordered. The obligation to
act in accordance with God’s command to perform ablutions applies only
to someone with water, and the command to perform dry ablutions applies
only to someone who does not have water. Either ablution or dry ablution
must be performed before anyone begins to pray.”
141. Mālik said, regarding a man in a state of ritual preclusion (junub),
“He may perform dry ablutions, read his daily portion of the Quran, and
perform his supererogatory prayers, as long as he cannot find water. This is
permissible only in situations in which it would have been permissible for
him to perform an obligatory prayer with dry ablutions.”

Chapter 24. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to Performance of Dry

Ablutions (Tayammum)
142. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that he and ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar were
returning from Juruf. When they reached al-Mirbad, ʿAbd Allāh dismounted
and performed dry ablutions with some pure dust, wiping his face and his
hands up to the elbows. Then he performed the prayer.
143. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
perform dry ablutions by wiping up to the elbows.
144. Mālik was asked, “How is dry ablution performed, and how extensive
is it?” He said, “A person performing dry ablutions strikes the ground once
to stir up dust for the face, and strikes it again for the hands, wiping them
up to the elbows.”

Chapter 25. The Dry Ablutions (Tayammum) of Someone in a State of

Ritual Preclusion (Janāba)
145. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥarmala reported that a man
asked Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab about a man in a state of ritual preclusion
Book 2 103

(junub) who performs dry ablutions and then prays, but later finds water.
Saʿīd said, “Once he finds water, he must bathe to perform future prayers.”
146. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a man who has a wet dream while
traveling and has only enough water to perform ablutions but will not
go thirsty before he reaches a source of water, ‘He should wash his penis
and anything else that has been stained using that water. He should then
perform dry ablutions with pure dust, as God, Mighty and Exalted is He, has
ordered, prior to praying.’”
147. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether a man who can find only hard,
salty soil and is in a state of ritual preclusion is permitted to perform dry
ablutions. Further, is it forbidden to perform prayer on hard, salty soil?
Mālik said, ‘There is nothing objectionable in performing prayers (ṣalāt)
on hard, salty soil or in using it for dry ablutions, because God, Blessed
and Sublime is He, says in the Quran, “And seek out pure soil.”64 Whatever
qualifies as “soil” may be used to perform dry ablutions, whether or not it is
hard and salty or anything else.’”

Chapter 26. Permissible Sexual Intimacy between Husband and Wife

during Menstruation
148. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that a man asked
the Messenger of God (pbuh), “What intimacy is permissible with my
menstruating wife?” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Let her wrap her
undergarment (izār) tightly, and do what you wish with her upper body.”
149. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported that ʿĀʾisha,
the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), was lying next to him under one cover when
she suddenly jumped up, startled. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to her,
“What’s wrong? Are you bleeding?”—by which he meant “menstruating.”
She said, “Yes.” He said, “Wrap your undergarment around yourself tightly,
and then come back to bed.”
150. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
sent a messenger to ʿĀʾisha, asking her whether a man may be intimate with
his menstruating wife. She said, “She should wrap her undergarment tightly
around her waist, and he may then be intimate with her, if he wishes.”
151. According to Mālik, it reached him that Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh and
Sulaymān b. Yasār were both asked whether the husband of a menstruating
woman may have intercourse with her after the end of her period but before
she bathes. They both said, “No, not until she bathes.”

64 Al-Māʾida, 5:6.
104 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 27. The Cessation of a Menstruating Woman’s Bleeding

152. According to Mālik, ʿAlqama b. Abī ʿAlqama reported that his mother,
the freedwoman (mawlāt) of ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, said,
“Women would send to ʿĀʾisha bits of cotton they had used during their
periods, with a slight yellow discoloration, asking whether they could now
resume performing prayer (ṣalāt). She would say to them, ‘Don’t be hasty;
wait until the discharge is completely clear,’ meaning thereby that bleeding
had stopped entirely.”
153. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr reported from his paternal
aunt, from the daughter of Zayd b. Thābit, that it had reached her that women
would call for lamps in the middle of the night to determine whether they
had stopped menstruating. She was critical of that, saying, “Women did not
do this in the time of the Prophet (pbuh).”
154. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether a woman whose period comes
to an end but who cannot find water should instead perform dry ablutions.
Mālik said, ‘Yes, she should. She is in the same position as a ritually
precluded man (junub): if he cannot find water, his obligation is to perform
dry ablutions.’”

Chapter 28. Miscellaneous Matters regarding Menstruation

155. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet
(pbuh), said that a pregnant woman who is bleeding should refrain from
the performance of prayers (ṣalāt).
156. According to Mālik, he asked Ibn Shihāb about a pregnant woman who
is bleeding. The latter said, “She should refrain from the performance of
prayers.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘That is the rule among us (dhālika al-amr
ʿindanā).’”65
157. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said, “I would comb the hair of the
Messenger of God (pbuh) even when I was menstruating.”
158. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father, from
Fāṭima bt. al-Mundhir b. al-Zubayr, that Asmāʾ bt. Abī Bakr al-Ṣiddīq said,
“A woman asked the Messenger of God (pbuh), ‘What should a woman do
if menstrual blood stains her clothes?’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said,

65 We distinguish Mālik’s more common use of “the rule in our view is (al-amr ʿindanā) . . .”
from his less frequent use of the phrase “that is the rule among us (dhālika al-ʿamr ʿindanā),”
insofar as the latter is a complete statement of the law, whereas the former is the subject of a
nominal sentence that introduces the rule. The latter usage is less common in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.
Book 2 105

‘She should rub the stain with moistened fingers and then splash it with
water. She may then perform her prayer wearing those clothes.’”

Chapter 29. A Woman Who Suffers from Chronic Nonmenstrual

Bleeding
159. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said, “Fāṭima bt. Abī Ḥubaysh said,
‘Messenger of God, I do not stop bleeding. Should I stop praying?’ The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said to her, ‘This is just blood from a vein, and not
menstrual blood. When it’s time for your period, refrain from praying, and
when you believe your period has run its course, wash any blood from your
body and resume performance of your prayers.’”
160. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from Sulaymān b. Yasār, from
Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that during the time of the
Messenger of God (pbuh) there was a woman who suffered from chronic
bleeding. The woman asked Umm Salama to inquire about her condition
with the Messenger of God. He said, “She should estimate the number of
days and nights that she menstruated each month before she had this
condition. She should refrain from prayer each month for that length of
time. When the time ends, she should bathe, tighten her undergarments,
and resume performance of her prayers.”
161. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father, from
Zaynab bt. Abī Salama, that she knew Zaynab bt. Jaḥsh, who was married
to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf.66 She suffered from chronic bleeding, but she
would bathe and pray.
162. According to Mālik, Sumayy, the freedman (mawlā) of Abū Bakr,
reported that al-Qaʿqāʿ b. Ḥakīm and Zayd b. Aslam sent him to Saʿīd b.
al-Musayyab to ask him how a woman suffering from chronic bleeding
should bathe in order to pray. Saʿīd said, “She should bathe once daily and
perform ablutions for every prayer (ṣalāt), and if the bleeding is substantial,
she should change her undergarment.”
163. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father said, “A
woman who suffers from chronic bleeding needs to bathe only once (per
menstrual cycle), and after that she should perform ablution prior to every
obligatory prayer.”

66 The majority of the Muwaṭṭaʾ’s transmitters believe that this is an error, and that it was
Ḥabība bt. Jaḥsh, not Zaynab, who suffered from this condition.
106 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

164. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that the
husband of a woman suffering from chronic bleeding may have intercourse
with her during the time in which she is eligible to pray. The same applies in
the case of a woman with postpartum bleeding, once the maximum length
of time during which women ordinarily experience postpartum bleeding
has elapsed. If she continues to bleed after that, her husband may have
intercourse with her, and she is deemed to be the equivalent of a woman
who suffers from chronic bleeding.’”
165. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule in our view, regarding a woman
suffering from chronic bleeding, is in accord with the report of Hishām b.
ʿUrwa from his father. Of all the views that I have heard regarding this issue,
it is the one I prefer most.’”

Chapter 30. What Has Come Down regarding the Urine of an

Infant Boy
166. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said, “One day a baby boy was
brought to the Messenger of God (pbuh), and the baby urinated on his
clothes. The Messenger of God (pbuh) asked for water and poured it on
the stain.”
167. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd,67 from Umm Qays bt. Miḥṣan, that she brought her
infant son, who had not yet started to eat food, to the Messenger of God
(pbuh). He sat the boy on his lap, and the baby urinated on his clothes. The
Messenger of God (pbuh) called for water, and he sprinkled it on the stain
but did not wash it.

Chapter 31. What Has Come Down regarding Urinating While

Standing and Other Matters
168. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “A bedouin entered the
Prophet’s Mosque in Medina, lifted up his clothes, and took out his penis to
urinate. The people shouted at him, and a great commotion broke out. The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Leave him alone!’ So they did, and the man
urinated. When the man finished, the Messenger of God (pbuh) asked for a
bucket of water, which was poured on that spot.”

67 ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd (d. 98/716) belonged to the generation of the
Followers and was one of the “seven jurists of Medina.” He served as an important source for
Mālik in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.
Book 2 107

169. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār said, “I saw ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
urinate while he was standing.”
170. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether there were any precedents about
washing the genitalia after urination or the anus after defecation. Mālik
said, ‘It reached me that some of those in the past would wash themselves68
after defecating, and I prefer that the genitalia be rinsed after urination.’”

Chapter 32. What Has Come Down regarding Use of the Toothbrush
(Siwāk)69
171. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Ibn al-Sabbāq that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said in one of his Friday sermons, “Assembly of
Muslims! This is a day that God has made a feast, so bathe. Whoever has
perfume should not be reluctant to use it, and use of the toothbrush is
commended to you all.”
172. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “If I were not afraid
of overburdening my community, I would have ordered them to use
the toothbrush.”
173. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Ḥumayd b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf that Abū Hurayra said, “Had the Prophet (pbuh) not been
fearful of overburdening his community, he would have ordered them to
brush their teeth every time they performed ablutions (wuḍūʾ).”

68 Although the verb used is the same as that used for the performance of ablutions, it is being
used in its ordinary sense of “to wash” in this context. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 1:254.
69 Siwāk is a twig used as a toothbrush.
 Book 3
The First Book of Prayer (Ṣalāt)

Chapter 1. What Has Come Down regarding the Call to Prayer (Ṣalāt)
174. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “The Messenger of God
(pbuh) wanted to take two pieces of wood that would be struck together
to produce a sound, so the people could be gathered for the performance
of prayer. ʿAbd Allāh b. Zayd al-Anṣārī, of the tribe of Banū al-Ḥārith b.
al-Khazraj, dreamed that he saw two pieces of wood, so he said to himself,
‘These two pieces of wood are similar to what the Messenger of God (pbuh)
desires.’ Someone in the dream said, ‘Why don’t you instead use your voice
to make the call to prayer?’ When he awoke, he went to the Messenger of
God (pbuh) and mentioned the dream to him. The Messenger of God (pbuh)
then ordained the use of the general call to prayer (adhān) instead of the
two pieces of wood.”
175. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yazīd al-Laythī,
from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “When
you hear the general call to prayer, repeat the words of the muezzin.”70
176. According to Mālik, Sumayy, the freedman (mawlā) of Abū Bakr b.
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, reported from Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Sammān, from Abū Hurayra,
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “If people only knew the blessings of
the general call to prayer and of praying in the first row of the mosque, they
would draw lots to prevent themselves from fighting over those blessings.
If they knew of the blessings of attending the prayer early, they would race
to it. If they knew of the blessings of the Evening Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿishāʾ) and
the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ), they would have come crawling to the
mosque to perform them.”
177. According to Mālik, al-ʿAlāʾ b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Yaʿqūb reported
that both his father and Isḥāq Abū ʿAbd Allāh told him that they heard Abū
Hurayra say, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘If an obligatory prayer is

70 In Arabic muʾadhdhin, that is, the one making the call to prayer (adhān).

109
110 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

about to begin, do not come in a rush, but rather solemnly and calmly. Pray
what you can with the congregation, and complete what you have missed
when the prayer is finished. Anyone setting out to the mosque with the
intention to pray is already in a state of prayer.”
178. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
b. Abī Ṣaʿṣaʿa al-Anṣārī al-Māzinī reported that his father told him that Abū
Saʿīd al-Khudrī said to him, “I’ve noticed that you love sheep and the desert.
When you are with your flock or out in the desert and you make the general
call to prayer, raise your voice. Everyone and everything, human or jinn,
who hears your call will testify in your favor on the Day of Judgment.” Abū
Saʿīd said, “I heard it from the Messenger of God (pbuh).”
179. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God said, “When the general call to prayer
is made, the Devil flees, farting loudly so that he cannot hear the call to
prayer. When the call to prayer is over, he returns until the immediate
call to prayer (iqāma) is made, and then he again flees. When the latter is
completed, he returns so as to penetrate a man’s inner thoughts, saying,
‘Remember this and that,’ reminding him of things that he ordinarily would
not remember, to the point that the man will even forget how much of the
prayer he has performed.”
180. According to Mālik, Abū Ḥāzim b. Dīnār reported that Sahl b. Saʿd
al-Sāʿidī said, “There are two occasions on which the gates of Heaven are
open, and rare is the supplicant whose petition is rejected: the general call
to prayer, and lining up for battle for the sake of God.”
181. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether the general call to prayer on
Fridays should be made before the time of the prayer itself. He said, ‘It should
not be made until the sun has reached its zenith and begun its decline.’”
182. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about the doubling of certain phrases in
the general call to prayer and the immediate call to prayer, and the precise
moment when people should stand up when the immediate call to prayer
is made. Mālik said, ‘No report has reached me about the general call to
prayer or the immediate call to prayer. My view is based entirely on what
I have seen the people do here in Medina. As for the immediate call to
prayer, its phrases are not to be doubled.71 That is the rule that the people of

71 According to the Mālikīs the phrases in the immediate call to prayer (iqāma) are said only once,
with the exception of the magnification of God, which is said twice, both at the beginning and
at the conclusion of the call. Accordingly, the Mālikī formula for the immediate call to prayer
is as follows: “God is great, God is great; I testify that there is no god except God; I testify that
Muḥammad is the Messenger of God; Hasten to perform prayer; Hasten to attain success;
Book 3 111

knowledge in our town have always followed (wa-dhālika alladhī lam yazal
ʿalayhi ahl al-ʿilm bi-baladinā). As for the moment when people should line
up to perform the prayer after the immediate call to prayer has been made,
I have not heard of any specific rule regarding when they should stand. I
believe that this is a matter of each individual’s capacity, for some can stand
and join the line only slowly, whereas others can stand and join the line
quickly. They cannot act as a single body in such a matter.’”
183. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether some townspeople may perform
an obligatory prayer together as a congregation, making only the immediate
call to prayer but not the general call to prayer. Mālik said, ‘That is sufficient.
The general call to prayer is an obligation only for congregational mosques
in which public worship is performed.’”
184. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about the practice of the muezzin’s
greeting the ruler and inviting him to enter the mosque to perform the
prayer, and also about who was the first ruler to be greeted in this fashion.
Mālik said, ‘I have no evidence that greeting the ruler in this fashion took
place in the early days of Islam.’”
185. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about a muezzin who made the general
call to prayer for a specific group of people and then waited, but when no
one came, he made the immediate call to prayer and prayed alone. Then,
after he had finished, some people came. Should he repeat his prayer with
them? Mālik said, ‘He should not repeat his prayer, and whoever came after
he had finished should pray on his own.’”
186. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about a muezzin who made the general
call to prayer for a group of people and then began to pray supererogatory
prayers. The others wanted to perform the obligatory prayer without waiting
for the muezzin to complete his supererogatory prayers. Accordingly, they
invited someone else to make the immediate call to prayer. Mālik said,
‘That is fine; anyone can perform the immediate call to prayer, not just
the muezzin.’”
187. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘It has always been the case (lam tazal) that
the general call to the Morning Prayer is made before dawn. As for the
other prayers, we have never heard their call being made before their time
has commenced.’”

Performance of the prayer is due; God is great, God is great; There is no god except God” (Allāhu
akbar, allāhu akbar; ashhadu an lā ilāha illā ’llāh; ashhadu anna Muḥammadan rasūlu ’llāh; ḥayy
ʿalā ’l-ṣalāt; ḥayy ʿalā ’l-falāḥ; qad qāmat al-ṣalāt; allāhu akbar, allāhu akbar; lā ilāha illā ’llāh).
112 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

188. According to Mālik, it reached him that the muezzin went to ʿUmar
b. al-Khaṭṭāb and announced to him the Morning Prayer. He found ʿUmar
asleep, so he said, “Prayer is better than sleep.” ʿUmar then admonished
him, saying that this phrase should be used only when making the general
call to the Morning Prayer.72
189. According to Mālik, his paternal uncle Abū Suhayl b. Mālik reported
that his father said, “Nothing that the people do today is familiar to me,
except the general call to prayer.”
190. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar heard the
immediate call to prayer while he was in al-Baqīʿ, so he walked quickly to
the Prophet’s Mosque.73

Chapter 2. Making the General Call to Prayer While Traveling or

without Having Performed Ablutions (Wuḍūʾ)
191. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar made the
general call to prayer (ṣalāt) on a cold, windy night. He added the phrase,
“Pray in your saddles!” Then he said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) would
tell the muezzin on cold and rainy nights to say, as part of the general call to
prayer, ‘Pray in your saddles!’”
192. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that when traveling, ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿUmar would make only the immediate call to prayer (iqāma), not the
general call to prayer, except for the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ),
for which he would make both. He also said, “The general call to prayer
is the responsibility of those who lead the public in the performance of
congregational prayer.”
193. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father told him,
“When you are traveling, you may make the general call to prayer and the
immediate call to prayer, if you so wish. Otherwise, you may dispense with
the general call and just make the immediate call.”
194. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘There is nothing objectionable in
making the general call to prayer while mounted.’”

72 Sulaymān b. Khalaf al-Bājī, al-Muntaqā sharḥ al-Muwaṭṭaʾ, 7 vols. (Cairo: Dār al-Kitāb
al-Islāmī, n.d.), 1:138. Our translation follows the view of the majority of the Muwaṭṭaʾ’s com-
mentators, even though it is contrary to the apparent sense of the report, which implies that
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb introduced the phrase “Prayer is better than sleep” into the call to the
Morning Prayer.
73 Al-Baqīʿ is the cemetery of Medina, located next to the Prophet’s Mosque.
Book 3 113

195. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab

would say, “When someone prays alone in a desolate stretch of desert, an
angel prays on his right and another on his left; and when he makes the
general call to prayer and the immediate call to prayer (or just the immediate
call to prayer),74 an angelic host, arrayed like mountains, prays behind him.”

Chapter 3. The Length of Pre-Dawn after the General Call to the

Morning Prayer (Ṣalāt al-Ṣubḥ)
196. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported from ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Bilāl calls to the Morning
Prayer when it is still dark and before dawn has broken, so eat and drink
until Ibn Umm Maktūm makes the general call to prayer again.”
197. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Bilāl calls to the Morning Prayer when
it is still dark and before dawn has broken, so eat and drink until Ibn Umm
Maktūm makes the general call to prayer again.” He said, “Ibn Umm Maktūm
was blind, and he would make the call to prayer only after someone told
him, ‘It is morning, it is morning.’”

Chapter 4. Commencement of the Prayer (Ṣalāt)

198. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh, from
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, that when the Messenger of God (pbuh) commenced
performance of the prayer, he would raise both of his hands to the level of
his shoulders, and when he stood up after bowing, he raised them again
in a similar manner and said, “God hears those who praise Him. All praise
belongs to You, our Lord!”75 He did not do that, however, when he stood up
following prostration.
199. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that ʿAlī b. Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b.
Abī Ṭālib76 said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) would magnify God (say
“God is great,” Allāhu akbar) each time he changed position in the prayer.
That was how he always performed the prayer until he met God.”
200. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Sulaymān b. Yasār
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) would raise his hands during prayer.

74 The narrator is unsure whether the report specifies both calls or just the immediate call.
75 Samiʿa ’llāhu li-man ḥamidah, rabbanā wa-laka ’l-ḥamd.
76 He is also known as Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn (d. 95/713) and was the great-grandson of the Prophet
(pbuh). The Shīʿa consider him their fourth imām.
114 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

201. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf that Abū Hurayra would lead them in the performance
of prayer and would magnify God each time he changed position. When he
finished, he would say, “By God, none of you perform your prayers in the
manner of the Messenger of God (pbuh) as much as I do.”
202. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh that
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would magnify God each time he changed position
during the performance of prayer.
203. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that when ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
commenced the prayer, he would raise his hands to his shoulders, but when
he stood up from bowing, he raised them to a point below them.
204. According to Mālik, Abū Nuʿaym Wahb b. Kaysān reported from Jābir
b. ʿAbd Allāh that Jābir taught them to magnify God when performing the
prayer. He said, “He commanded us to magnify God each time that we
changed position in prayer.”
205. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb would say, “If a man joins the
congregation in time to complete one cycle (rakʿa) of the prayer and
magnifies God once, that one declaration of God’s greatness is sufficient to
render his performance of the prayer valid.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘That is
only the case if he intended by that declaration (takbīra) the magnification
of God that commences the prayer.’”
206. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about a man who joined the congregational
prayer but forgot to magnify God both at the prayer’s commencement and
at the first instance of bowing. Then, after completing one cycle of the
prayer, he remembered that he had not made a declaration magnifying God
on either occasion. He therefore magnified God in the second cycle of the
prayer. Mālik said, ‘I prefer that he deems his prayer to have begun with the
second cycle of the prayer, not the first. If, however, he began the prayer with
the imam, forgot to make a declaration magnifying God at the beginning of
the prayer, but then said it at the first instance of bowing, that is sufficient
to render his performance of the prayer valid, provided that he intended
that declaration to be the one that is said at the prayer’s commencement.’”
207. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding someone who prays by himself and
forgets to magnify God when he commences his prayer, ‘He must begin his
prayer anew.’”
208. Mālik said, regarding an imam who forgets to commence the prayer
by magnifying God and does not remember until he finishes the prayer,
“I believe that he and the congregation must repeat performance of the
Book 3 115

prayer. Even if the congregants magnified God, they must nevertheless

repeat the prayer.”

Chapter 5. Recitation of the Quran in the Sunset Prayer (Ṣalāt al-

Maghrib) and the Evening Prayer (Ṣalāt al-ʿIshāʾ)
209. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Muḥammad b. Jubayr b.
Muṭʿim that his father said, “I heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) reciting
from ‘The Mount’ (al-Ṭūr)77 during the Sunset Prayer (ṣalāt al-maghrib).”
210. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd, from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās, that Umm al-Faḍl bt.
al-Ḥārith heard Ibn ʿAbbās reciting ‘The Emissaries’ (al-Mursalāt),78 so she
said to him, “My dear son, your recitation of this chapter reminded me that
this was the last thing I heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) recite during
the Sunset Prayer.”
211. According to Mālik, Abū ʿUbayd, the freedman (mawlā) of Sulaymān b.
ʿAbd al-Malik, reported from ʿAbbād b. Nusayy, from Qays b. al-Ḥārith, that
Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Ṣunābiḥī said, “I came to Medina during the caliphate of
Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq and I prayed the Sunset Prayer behind him. In each of
the first two cycles, he recited the Fātiḥa and a short chapter chosen from
the Mufaṣṣal chapters of the Quran.79 He then stood for the third cycle of the
prayer. I inched up so close to him that my clothes almost touched his, and I
heard him recite the Fātiḥa and then this verse: ‘Our Lord! Do not cause our
hearts to go astray after You have guided us, and grant us mercy from Your
presence! You are certainly the Granter of Favor!’”80
212. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, when
performing by himself the daily prayers that consist of four cycles,81
would recite in each cycle the Fātiḥa and another chapter from the Quran.
Sometimes he would recite two or three chapters in one cycle of an
obligatory prayer. In the first two cycles of the Sunset Prayer, he would also
recite the Fātiḥa and one chapter of the Quran.

77 Chapter 52 of the Quran.

78 Chapter 77 of the Quran.
79 On the Mufaṣṣal chapters, see note 12 above.
80 Āl ʿImrān, 3:8.
81 These prayers are the Noon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ẓuhr), the Afternoon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿaṣr), and
the Evening Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿishāʾ).
116 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

213. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from ʿAdī b. Thābit

al-Anṣārī that al-Barāʾ b. ʿĀzib said, “I prayed the Evening Prayer with the
Messenger of God (pbuh), and he recited ‘By the Fig and the Olive’ (al-Tīn
wa’l-zaytūn).”82

Chapter 6. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to Recitation of the Quran

214. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from Ibrāhīm b. ʿAbd Allāh b.
Ḥunayn, from his father, from ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) prohibited the wearing of silk-lined clothes and gold rings, or
reading the Quran when bowing during performance of the prayer.83
215. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Muḥammad b.
Ibrāhīm b. al-Ḥārith al-Taymī, from Abū Ḥāzim al-Tammār, from al-Bayāḍī,
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) came across people loudly reciting the
Quran while performing their prayers. He said, “A praying man is in intimate
conversation with his Lord, so he should think carefully about the means he
uses to converse with Him. Therefore, do not raise your voices above one
another when reciting the Quran.”
216. According to Mālik, Ḥumayd al-Ṭawīl reported that Anas b. Mālik said,
“I stood in prayer behind Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq, ʿUmar, and ʿUthmān, and none
of them recited ‘In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate’ when
they commenced the prayer (ṣalāt).”
217. According to Mālik, his paternal uncle Abū Suhayl b. Mālik reported
that his father said, “When ʿUmar performed the prayer, we could hear
him reciting the Quran while we were in the house of Abū Jahm in the
neighborhood of al-Balāṭ.”84
218. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that if ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar missed
any portion of the congregational prayer in which the imam recited audibly
from the Quran, he would, once the imam had finished performance of the
prayer, stand and recite aloud for himself that portion of the prayer that he
was making up.
219. According to Mālik, Yazīd b. Rūmān said, “I would pray standing next
to Nāfiʿ b. Jubayr b. Muṭʿim, and he would nudge me when he faltered in his
recition of the Quran, so I would jog his memory while we were in the midst
of praying.”

82 Chapter 95 of the Quran.

83 The first two prohibitions apply only to men.
84 Balāṭ was a place in Medina between the Prophet’s Mosque and the market. Muḥammad
Zakariyyā al-Kāndihlawī, Awjaz al-masālik ilā Muwaṭṭaʾ Mālik, 17 vols. (Damascus: Dār
al-Qalam, 2003), 2:144.
Book 3 117

Chapter 7. Recitation of the Quran in the Morning Prayer (Ṣalāt al-Ṣubḥ)

220. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that Abū
Bakr al-Ṣiddīq performed the Morning Prayer and recited from ‘The Cow’
(al-Baqara)85 in each of its two cycles (rakʿa).
221. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father, ʿUrwa,
that he heard ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿĀmir b. Rabīʿa say, “We performed the Morning
Prayer behind ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb and he slowly recited ‘Joseph’ (Yūsuf)
and ‘The Pilgrimage’ (al-Ḥajj).”86 I, ʿUrwa, said, “By God, in that case he must
have begun to pray at dawn’s first light!” ʿAbd Allāh said, “Indeed.”
222. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd and Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
reported from al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad that al-Furāfiṣa b. ʿUmayr al-Ḥanafī
said, “I would have never learned Yūsuf but for the fact that ʿUthmān b.
ʿAffān recited it so many times during the Morning Prayer.”
223. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, when
traveling, would recite, in each cycle of the Morning Prayer, the Fātiḥa and a
chapter from the first ten Mufaṣṣal chapters.

Chapter 8. What Has Come Down regarding the Fātiḥa

224. According to Mālik, al-ʿAlāʾ b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Yaʿqūb reported
that Abū Saʿīd, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿĀmir b. Kurayz, told him that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) called out to Ubayy b. Kaʿb while the latter was
performing his prayer (ṣalāt). When he finished his prayer, the Messenger
of God (pbuh) caught up with Ubayy and put his hand on Ubayy’s hand just
as Ubayy was trying to leave through the Mosque’s door. The Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, “I implore you not to leave the mosque until you learn a
chapter the like of which was not revealed in the Torah or the Gospels or
the Furqān.”87 Ubayy said, “I slowed down in the hope of accomplishing that,
so I said, ‘Messenger of God, what is this chapter you have promised me?’
He said, ‘What do you recite when you commence your prayer? I recited to
him, ‘All praise belongs to God, Lord of the Worlds’ (Al-ḥamdu lillāhi rabb
al-ʿālamīn),88 until I had completed the Fātiḥa. The Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, ‘It is this very chapter. These are the seven oft-repeated verses (al-sabʿ
al-mathānī), the Great Recitation (al-qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm),89 that I was given.’”

85 Chapter 2 of the Quran.

86 Chapters 12 and 22 of the Quran, respectively.
87 Furqān is another name for the Quran, and it means the criterion that separates truth from
falsehood.
88 The first verse of the Fātiḥa.
89 According to Bājī, the phrase al-qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm refers specifically to the Quran’s first chap-
ter, the Fātiḥa, on account of its numerous virtues. The phrase al-sabʿ al-mathānī wa’l-qurʾān
al-ʿazīm is a reference to al-Ḥijr, 15:87. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 1:155.
118 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

225. Yaḥyā told me, from Mālik, from Wahb b. Kaysān, that he heard Jābir
b. ʿAbd Allāh say, “Anyone who performs one cycle (rakʿa) of prayer without
reciting therein the Fātiḥa has not prayed, unless he is praying behind
an imam.”

Chapter 9. Recitation of the Quran behind the Imam When He

Recites Silently
226. According to Mālik, al-ʿAlāʾ b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Yaʿqūb reported that
he heard Abū al-Sāʾib, the freedman (mawlā) of Hishām b. Zuhra, say, “I
heard Abū Hurayra say, ‘I heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) say, “If anyone
prays without reciting the Fātiḥa, his prayer is incomplete; it is incomplete;
it is incomplete.”’ I said, ‘Abū Hurayra, sometimes I am standing behind
the imam, so how can I recite it?’ Abū Hurayra poked me in the arm and
said, ‘Recite it silently, you Persian! I indeed heard the Messenger of God
(pbuh) say, “God, Blessed and Sublime is He, said, ‘I have divided prayer
between Myself and my servant into two halves, half for Me and half for My
servant, and My servant gets what he has requested.’” The Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, “Recite, all of you! The worshipper says, ‘All praise belongs
to God, Lord of the Worlds,’ and God says, ‘My servant has glorified Me.’
The worshipper says, ‘The Merciful, the Compassionate,’ and God says, ‘My
servant has praised Me.’ The servant says, ‘King of the Day of Judgment,’
and God says, ‘My servant has exalted Me.’ The servant says, ‘Only You do
we worship and only from You do we seek help,’ and God says, ‘This verse is
between Me and My servant, and My servant shall have what he requests.’
The servant then says, ‘Guide us to the righteous path, the path of those
whom You have blessed, not of those upon whom is Your wrath or those
who are astray,’ and God says, ‘These verses are for My servant, and My
servant shall have what he requests.’”’”
227. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that he
would recite the Quran silently behind the imam in those prayers in which
the imam does not recite audibly.
228. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān that al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad would recite the Quran silently
behind the imam in those prayers in which the imam does not recite audibly.
229. According to Mālik, Yazīd b. Rūmān reported that Nāfiʿ b. Jubayr b.
Muṭʿim would recite the Quran silently behind the imam in those prayers in
which the imam does not recite audibly. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Of all the
views that I have heard regarding this issue, that is the one I prefer most.’”
Book 3 119

Chapter 10. Abstention from Recitation When Standing behind the

Imam in Those Prayers in Which the Imam Recites Audibly
230. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, when
asked whether the congregants behind the imam should recite the Quran,
said, “The imam’s recitation is sufficient for the congregants, but anyone
who prays alone should recite for himself.” Nāfiʿ said, “ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
did not recite from the Quran when he prayed behind an imam.”
231. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
is that one recites from the Quran silently while standing behind the
imam in those prayers in which the imam does not recite audibly, and one
refrains from recitation altogether in those prayers in which the imam
recites audibly.”
232. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Ibn Ukayma al-Laythī,
from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) concluded performance
of a prayer (ṣalāt) in which he had recited from the Quran audibly and then
said, “Did any of you recite along with me during the previous prayer?” A
man said, “Yes, I did, Messenger of God.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
“Indeed, I was saying to myself, ‘It is as if there were something tugging
at my recitation.’” Thereafter, the people refrained from reciting from the
Quran along with the Messenger of God (pbuh) in those prayers in which
the Messenger of God (pbuh) recited audibly.

Chapter 11. What Has Come Down regarding the Saying of “Amen”
after the Imam
233. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab and
also from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān that they both told Ibn Shihāb from
Abū Hurayra that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “When the imam says
‘Amen,’ say ‘Amen.’ If it happens that someone says ‘Amen’ at the moment
the angels say ‘Amen,’ his previous sins are forgiven.” Ibn Shihāb said, “The
Messenger of God (pbuh) would say āmīn (amen).”
234. According to Mālik, Sumayy, the freedman (mawlā) of Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān, reported from Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Sammān, from Abū Hurayra, that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “When the imam recites the last verse of
the Fātiḥa, say ‘Amen,’ for whoever happens to say it when the angels say it
will have his previous sins forgiven.”
235. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Prophet (pbuh) said, “If someone says ‘Amen,’ and the
angels in Heaven say ‘Amen’ at the same time, his previous sins are forgiven.”
120 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

236. According to Mālik, Sumayy, the freedman of Abū Bakr, reported from
Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Sammān, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “When the imam says, ‘God listens to those who praise Him,’ say, ‘God,
our Lord, to You belongs all praise,’ for whoever says it the moment the
angels say it will have his previous sins forgiven.”

Chapter 12. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to Sitting during

Performance of the Prayer (Ṣalāt)90
237. According to Mālik, Muslim b. Abī Maryam reported that ʿAlī b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān al-Muʿāwī said, “ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar saw me playing with
pebbles while I was performing the prayer. When he finished the prayer, he
commanded me not to do that, and said, ‘Do instead as the Messenger of God
(pbuh) did.’ I said, ‘And what did the Messenger of God (pbuh) do?’ He said,
‘When he sat in prayer, he would put his right palm on his right thigh, making
a fist with his fingers, and pointing with his index finger; and he would place
his left palm on his left thigh.’ ʿAbd Allāh said, ‘That is what he would do.’”
238. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported that ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar once sat next to a man who had squatted and crossed his legs to one
side during a four-cycle (rakʿa) prayer. ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār heard ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿUmar reproach the man for his poor posture after he finished the prayer.
The man said, “But you do the same thing!” ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar replied, “Yes,
but I am old and frail.”
239. According to Mālik, Ṣadaqa b. Yasār reported from al-Mughīra b. Ḥakīm
that he saw ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar lean on the front part of his feet when he
sat up after prostrating in the prayer. When he finished, someone asked him
about that, and ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar explained, “This is not the correct way
to pray; I do this only because I am old and frail.”
240. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported that ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar informed him that he would see ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar cross his legs in the sitting position of the prayer. He said, “I therefore
did as he did, but I was young at the time, and ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar forbade
me to do that. He said, ‘The correct way to perform the prayer is to raise
your right foot and fold your left foot.’” ʿAbd Allāh said, “I said to him, ‘But
you yourself do that.’ He said, ‘My feet are too weak to bear me.’”

90 In the Muslim prayer, the worshipper sits down between prostrations, at the end of the sec-
ond cycle (rakʿa) of the prayer, and at the end of the prayer’s concluding cycle. The worship-
per recites a short prayer while seated between prostrations, the tashahhud, the attestation
of faith, while seated at the conclusion of the second and concluding cycles of the prayer. The
testimony of faith consists of the statement “I testify that there is no god except God, and that
Muḥammad is His servant and messenger.”
Book 3 121

241. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad

showed them how to sit when reciting the attestation of faith (tashahhud).
He raised his right foot and folded his left, and sat on his left haunch, not on
his left foot. Then he said, “ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar showed this to
me, and he told me that his father would do that.”

Chapter 13. The Attestation of Faith (Tashahhud) in the Prayer (Ṣalāt)

242. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr, from
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd al-Qārī,91 that he heard ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb say from
the pulpit, teaching the people the attestation of faith:
Greetings belong to God; pure actions belong to God; good words
and prayers belong to God. Peace be upon you, Prophet, and His
mercy. Peace be upon us and upon God’s righteous servants. I attest
that there is no god except God, and I attest that Muḥammad is His
servant and messenger.92
243. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that when ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
performed the attestation of faith, he would say:
In the name of God. Greetings belong to God; prayers belong to God;
pure actions belong to God. Peace be upon the Prophet, and God’s
mercy and blessings. Peace be upon us and upon God’s righteous
servants. I attest that there is no god except God. I attest that
Muḥammad is the Messenger of God.93
He would say this at the end of the first two cycles of prayer. When he
completed the attestation of faith, he would invoke God in whatever manner
suited him. When he sat at the end of his prayer, he repeated the attestation
of faith in a like manner, except that he would begin with the attestation
of faith and then would invoke God in whatever manner suited him. When
he had completed the attestation of faith and he wanted to conclude the
prayer, he would say, “Peace be upon the Prophet, and God’s mercy and His
blessings. Peace be upon us and on God’s righteous servants.” He would
then say “Peace be upon you” to whomever was on his right side, and he
would reply to the imam. If someone said “Peace be upon you” from his left
side, he would reply to him.

91 The name Ibn ʿAbd al-Qārī means “son of a slave from the Qārī tribe of Kināna.”
92 Al-taḥiyyātu lillāh, al-zākiyātu lillāh, al-ṭayyibātu wa’l-ṣalawātu lillāh. Al-salāmu ʿalayka
ayyuhā ’l-nabiyyu wa-raḥmatu ’llāhi wa-barakātuh. Al-salāmu ʿalaynā wa-ʿalā ʿibādi ’llāhi
’l-ṣāliḥīn. Ashhadu an lā ilāha illā ’llāhu wa-ashhadu anna Muḥammadan ʿabduhu wa-rasūluh.
93 Bismi ’llāh. Al-taḥiyyātu lillāh, al-ṣalawātu lillāh, al-zākiyātu lillāh. Al-salāmu ʿalā ’l-nabiyyi
wa-raḥmatu ’llāhi wa-barakātuh. Al-salāmu ʿalaynā wa-ʿalā ʿibādi ’llāhi ’l-ṣāliḥīn. Shahidtu an
lā ilāha illā ’llāh. Shahidtu anna Muḥammadan rasūlu ’llāh.
122 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

244. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported from his

father, from ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that she would say in
the attestation of faith:
Greetings, good words, prayers, and pure actions belong to God. I
attest that there is no god except God, alone without partner, and
that Muḥammad is God’s servant and messenger. Peace be upon
you, Prophet, and God’s mercy and His blessings. Peace be upon us
and upon God’s righteous servants.94
She would then conclude performance of the prayer and say, “Peace be
upon you.”
245. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad
informed him that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of God’s Prophet (pbuh), would say in
the attestation of faith:
Greetings, good words, prayers, and pure actions belong to God.
I attest that there is no god except God, and that Muḥammad is
God’s servant and messenger. Peace be upon you, Prophet, and
God’s mercy and His blessings. Peace be upon us and upon God’s
righteous servants.”
She would then conclude the prayer and say, “Peace be upon you.”
246. According to Mālik, he asked Ibn Shihāb and Nāfiʿ, the freedman
(mawlā) of Ibn ʿUmar, whether a man who joins a congregational prayer
after the imam has already performed one of the prayer’s cycles (rakʿa)
should say the attestation of faith with the imam in the second and fourth
cycles of that prayer, even though these cycles are, for him, the first and
third. They both said, “Yes, he should say the attestation of faith with him.”
Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘That is the rule among us (dhālika al-amr ʿindanā).’”

Chapter 14. What Someone Should Do If He Changes Positions in

Prayer Prior to the Imam
247. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b. ʿAlqama reported from
Malīḥ b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Saʿdī that Abū Hurayra said, “As for the one who
changes positions in prayer prior to the imam, a demon has grabbed him
by the forelock.”

94 Al-taḥiyyāt, al-ṭayyibāt, al-ṣalawāt, al-zākiyātu lillāh. Ashhadu an lā ilāha illā ’llāhu waḥdahu
lā sharīka lahu wa-anna Muḥammadan ʿabdu ’llāhi wa-rasūluh. Al-salāmu ʿalayka ayyuhā
’l-nabiyyu wa-raḥmatu ’llāhi wa-barakātuh. Al-salāmu ʿalaynā wa-ʿalā ʿibādi ’llāhi ’l-ṣāliḥīn.
Book 3 123

248. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding someone who mistakenly stands
up before the imam has completed his bowing or prostration, ‘The
long-established ordinance (al-sunna)95 with respect to this issue is that
he should return to the imam’s position and not wait for the imam to
catch up with him. Whoever waits for the imam to catch up has erred in
the performance of his prayer, because the Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
“The position of imam was established only so that he would be followed;
therefore, do not contravene what he does.” Also, Abū Hurayra said, “As for
the one who changes positions in prayer prior to the imam, a demon has
grabbed him by the forelock.”’”

Chapter 15. What Someone Should Do If He Mistakenly Concludes His

Prayer after Two Cycles (Rakʿa)96
249. According to Mālik, Ayyūb b. Abī Tamīma al-Sakhtiyānī reported from
Muḥammad b. Sīrīn, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
once finished the prayer after two cycles, and Dhū al-Yadayn97 asked him,
“Has the length of the prayer (ṣalāt) been reduced or did you forget to
complete it, Messenger of God?” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Is Dhū
al-Yadayn correct?” The people said, “Yes!” So the Messenger of God (pbuh)
stood up and prayed another two cycles and said, “Peace be upon you,” to
conclude the prayer.98 Then, however, he magnified God (said “God is great,”
Allāhu akbar) and prostrated in his usual fashion (or slightly longer), then
sat up, then magnified God again and prostrated in his usual fashion (or
slightly longer), then sat up.
250. According to Mālik, Dāwūd b. al-Ḥuṣayn reported that Abū Sufyān, the
freedman (mawlā) of Ibn Abī Aḥmad, said, “I heard Abū Hurayra say, ‘The
Messenger of God (pbuh) performed the Afternoon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿaṣr),
finishing after completing only two cycles. Then Dhū al-Yadayn stood up and
said, “Has the length of the prayer been reduced, Messenger of God, or did you
forget to complete it?” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Neither happened.”

95 Mālik refers to this rule using the term sunna rather than the alternative term amr. We have
translated sunna as “long-established ordinance” and amr as “rule” following the argument
of Wymann-Landgraf, who concluded that when Mālik describes a rule as sunna, the rule
is usually contrary to analogy and derived from historical precedent, whereas he uses amr
for rules that are derived through legal interpretation (ijtihād) and are therefore consis-
tent with analogy.
96 Of the five obligatory daily prayers, only the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ) consists of only
two cycles (rakʿa).
97 Literally, “the man with two hands.” His actual name was al-Khirbāq b. ʿAmr, from the Hijazi
tribe of Banū Sulaym.
98 The prayer is concluded when the worshipper or, in a group prayer, the imam turns to his
right while seated and says, “Peace be upon you” (al-salām ʿalaykum).
124 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Dhū al-Yadayn then said, “One or the other certainly happened, Messenger
of God!” The Messenger of God (pbuh) then turned to the congregation and
asked them, “Is Dhū al-Yadayn correct?” They replied, “Yes!” The Messenger of
God (pbuh) therefore stood up and completed what remained of the prayer,
and then, after completing performance of the prayer by saying “Peace be
upon you,” prostrated twice from a sitting position.’”
251. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Abū Bakr b. Sulaymān
b. Abī Ḥathma said, “It reached me that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
once performed only two cycles of either the Noon (ṣalāt al-ẓuhr) or the
Afternoon Prayer, concluding the prayer after only two cycles. Then Dhū
al-Shamālayn,99 a man from the tribe of Banū Zuhra b. Kilāb, said, ‘Has the
length of the prayer been reduced, Messenger of God, or did you forget to
complete it?’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Neither has the length of
the prayer been reduced, nor did I forget to complete it.’ Dhū al-Shamālayn,
however, said, ‘One of those certainly happened, Messenger of God!’ The
Messenger of God (pbuh) turned to the congregation and said, ‘Is Dhū
al-Yadayn correct?’ They said, ‘Yes!’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) therefore
completed what remained of the prayer and then said ‘Peace be upon you’
to conclude performance of the prayer.”
252. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
and Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported something similar to the previous
report.
253. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Every instance of forgetfulness that reduces
the length of the prayer is remedied by the performance of a prostration
before the conclusion of the prayer; and every instance of forgetfulness that
lengthens the prayer is remedied by the performance of a prostration after
its conclusion.’”

Chapter 16. Completing the Prayer When the Worshipper Has Doubts
about His Performance of It
254. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “If someone has doubts about his performance
of the prayer and is unable to remember whether he has performed three
or four cycles, he should perform one additional cycle (rakʿa) and prostrate
twice from a sitting position before concluding the prayer. If the additional
cycle is actually the fifth, the two additional prostrations are the equivalent
of an additional cycle, rendering the number of cycles even. If the additional

99 A marginal note on the principal source manuscript of the RME identifies Dhū al-Shamālayn
as ʿUmayr b. ʿAbd ʿAmr, an ally of the Banū Zuhra. He died in the Battle of Badr.
Book 3 125

cycle is actually the fourth, the two additional prostrations offend and
humiliate Satan.”
255. According to Mālik, ʿUmar b. Muḥammad b. Zayd reported from Sālim b.
ʿAbd Allāh that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say, “If someone has doubts about
his performance of the prayer, he should determine what he believes he has
omitted from it and perform it. He should then perform two prostrations
from a sitting position on account of his forgetfulness.”
256. According to Mālik, ʿAfīf b. ʿAmr al-Sahmī reported that ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār
said, “I asked ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣī and Kaʿb al-Aḥbār100 about
someone who is unable to remember whether he has performed three or
four cycles of the prayer. They both said, ‘He should perform an additional
cycle and then perform two prostrations from a sitting position.’”
257. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, when asked
about forgetfulness in prayer, said, “He should determine what he thinks he
has omitted from his prayer and perform it.”

Chapter 17. Mistakenly Standing Up after Completing the Prayer or

after Two Cycles (Rakʿa)
258. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from al-Aʿraj that ʿAbd Allāh
b. Buḥayna said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) led us in the performance
of two cycles of prayer, then got up and did not sit down before beginning
the third cycle.101 The people stood up with him, and when he finished his
prayer (ṣalāt), we waited for him to conclude it by saying ‘Peace be upon
you.’ Instead, however, he magnified God (said “God is great,” Allāhu akbar)
and performed two prostrations from a sitting position, then concluded by
saying ‘Peace be upon you.’”
259. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b.
Hurmuz that ʿAbd Allāh b. Buḥayna said, “Once the Messenger of God (pbuh)

100 Kaʿb al-Aḥbār, according to Muslim accounts, was a Jewish scholar from Yemen who con-
verted to Islam after the death of the Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh). Accordingly, he is reckoned
among the Followers (tābiʿūn) rather than among the Companions (ṣaḥāba) of the Prophet
Muḥammad (pbuh). According to Muslim tradition, he was responsible for introducing many
elements of Jewish lore into Muslim understandings of the Quran, particularly Quranic sto-
ries of the prophets. His name was Kaʿb b. Mātiʿ al-Ḥimyarī, and after his conversion to Islam
he left Yemen and migrated to the Levant.
101 According to the rules of ritual prayer, after performing the second prostration at the conclu-
sion of the second prayer cycle (rakʿa) the worshipper sits and recites the attestation of faith
(tashahhud). The worshipper should not stand to begin performance of the third rakʿa of the
prayer until he has completed this recitation. According to this report, the Prophet (pbuh)
erroneously omitted the sitting and stood up immediately upon conclusion of the second
prostration at the end of the second rakʿa.
126 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

led us in the Noon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ẓuhr), and he stood up after the first two
cycles, without sitting down. After he finished his prayer, he performed two
prostrations, and only then did he conclude the prayer by saying ‘Peace be
upon you.’”
260. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding someone who makes a mistake in
his prayer out of absent-mindedness by performing an additional prayer
cycle after already completing four, meaning that he stands up, recites
the Fātiḥa, and bows but then, upon standing up after bowing, realizes
that he has already completed the prayer: ‘Such a person should resume
a sitting position and not perform any additional prostrations. If he has
already performed one of the two prostrations, I do not think he should
perform the other. After he has finished his prayer by saying “Peace be
upon you,” he should then perform two additional prostrations from a
sitting position.’”

Chapter 18. Looking at Distracting Things during Performance of the

Prayer (Ṣalāt)
261. According to Mālik, ʿAlqama b. Abī ʿAlqama reported that ʿĀʾisha, the
wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said, “Abū Jahm b. Ḥudhayfa gave the Messenger
of God (pbuh) a fine, patterned Levantine cloak, and he went to the mosque
to pray while wearing it. When he finished praying, he said to me, ‘Return
this cloak to Abū Jahm. I glanced at its patterns during performance of the
prayer, and they nearly distracted me.’”
262. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) wore a fine, patterned cloak, then gave it to Abū
Jahm and took from Abū Jahm a plain, rough cloak in exchange. Abū Jahm
said, “Messenger of God, why?” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Because
I looked at its patterns during prayer.”
263. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr reported that Abū Ṭalḥa
al-Anṣārī was praying in his orchard of date palms when a wild pigeon began
flying to and fro, trying to find a way out. Pleased at the sight, he permitted
his eyes to follow the bird as it fluttered around for a while. Then, when he
set his mind back to his prayer, he found that he could not remember how
much of it he had already completed. He said to himself, “This property of
mine has surely become a trial for me,” so he went to the Messenger of God
(pbuh) and mentioned to him the trial that had befallen him on account of
his orchard. He said, “Messenger of God! I freely give this orchard of mine to
God as a gift, so dispose of it as you wish.”
Book 3 127

264. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr reported that a Medinese102
man was praying in an orchard of his in the neighborhood of the Quff, a
valley in Medina, during date season, and the branches of the palm trees
were hanging down, laden with dates. He glanced at them, and the sight of
the abundant fruit delighted him. When he set his mind back to his prayer,
he found that he could not remember how much of his prayer he had already
completed. He said to himself, “This property of mine has surely become a
trial for me,” whereupon he went to ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān, who was the caliph at
that time, and mentioned to him what had happened. He said, “My orchard
is a gift, so use it for any godly purpose.” ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān sold it for 50,000,
so that property became known as “The Fifty.”

102 We use the adjective “Medinese” for the Arabic term anṣār, literally, “helpers,” which refers to
the Arabs who lived in Medina before the immigration of the Prophet (pbuh) and embraced
Islam. They hailed from the tribes of Aws and Khazraj, but when they embraced Islam after
inviting the Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh) to move there from Mecca, they became known as
al-Anṣār to distinguish them from the Meccans and other non-Medinese Arabs who immi-
grated to Medina and who were known as the Emigrants (muhājirūn). Not all the Medinese
embraced Islam immediately upon the Prophet’s arrival to the town.
 Book 4
Forgetfulness in Prayer (Sahw)

Chapter 1. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to Forgetfulness

in Prayer
265. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “Whenever a person stands to pray, Satan comes to him and confuses
him so that he is unable to recall how much he has prayed. Whoever finds
himself in that situation should perform two prostrations from a sitting
position.”
266. According to Mālik, it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “I forget (or ‘I am made to forget’)103 in order that I may establish
a precedent.”
267. According to Mālik, it reached him that a man asked al-Qāsim b.
Muḥammad, “When I perform my prayers (ṣalāt), my imagination gets the
better of me, and as a result I have no confidence regarding how much I
have prayed.” Al-Qāsim replied, “Continue praying, for these doubts will
never cease. Even when you finish praying, you will say to yourself, ‘I haven’t
completed my prayer.’”

103 The commentators on the Muwaṭṭaʾ disagree as to the meaning of the alternative phrases in
this report. Some say that the narrator was not sure which of the two phrases the Prophet
used, whereas others contend that the Prophet intentionally used both, because both situa-
tions occurred.

129
 Book 5
The Book of the Friday Congregational Prayer
(Ṣalāt al-Jumuʿa)

Chapter 1. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to Bathing (Ghusl) for

the Friday Congregational Prayer (Ṣalāt al-Jumuʿa)
268. According to Mālik, Sumayy, the freedman (mawlā) of Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān, reported from Abū Ṣāliḥ, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger
of God said, “Whoever bathes on Friday as he would on account of ritual
preclusion (janāba) and then sets out to the Friday Congregational Prayer
in the first part of the day, it is as if he has offered a camel as a charitable
sacrifice; if he sets out in the second part of the day, it is as if he has offered
a cow as a charitable sacrifice; if he sets out in the third part of the day, it is
as if he has offered an adult ram as a charitable sacrifice; if he sets out in the
fourth part of the day, it is as if he has offered a hen as a charitable sacrifice;
and if he sets out in the fifth part of the day, it is as if he has offered an egg
as a charitable sacrifice. Then, when the imam comes to preach, the angels
attend and listen to the lesson.”
269. According to Mālik, Saʿīd b. Abī Saʿīd al-Maqburī reported that Abū Hurayra
would say, “Bathing on Friday is obligatory for every male who has reached
puberty, just as bathing to remove the state of ritual preclusion is obligatory.”104
270. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh
said, “One of the Companions of the Messenger of God (pbuh) entered the
Prophet’s Mosque on Friday while ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb was delivering the
sermon. ʿUmar said to the man, ‘What time do you think it is?’ The man
said, ‘Commander of the Faithful, I was in the market, and when I heard the
general call to prayer (adhān), I came immediately, stopping only to perform
ablutions.’ ʿUmar said, ‘Ablutions, when you know that the Messenger of
God (pbuh) commended bathing on Friday?’”

104 The four schools of Sunnī jurisprudence agree that bathing is recommended but not obliga-
tory for attending the Friday prayer.

131
132 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

271. According to Mālik, Ṣafwān b. Sulaym reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār,

from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Bathing
on Friday is obligatory for every male who has reached puberty.”
272. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from Ibn ʿUmar that the Messenger
of God (pbuh) said, “Whoever attends the Friday Congregational Prayer
should first bathe.”
273. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Whoever bathes early in the day on Friday,
intending that bath to satisfy his obligation to bathe for the Friday
Congregational Prayer, is not relieved of that obligation unless he bathes
and departs directly for the mosque. That is because the Messenger of God
said in Ibn ʿUmar’s report, “Whoever attends the Friday Congregational
Prayer should first bathe.”’”
274. Mālik said, “If someone bathes on Friday, early or late, with the
intention of bathing for the Friday Congregational Prayer, and something
happens that invalidates his ablutions, he should repeat his ablutions, but
he need not bathe again.”

Chapter 2. What Has Come Down regarding Listening While the Imam
Preaches on Friday
275. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from
Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “If you say to your
companion, ‘Listen!’ (while the imam is preaching on Friday),105 you have
spoken out of order.”
276. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Thaʿlaba b. Abī Mālik
al-Quraẓī told him that it was their practice during the time of ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb to pray supplementary prayers on Friday until ʿUmar came out.
Once he came out and sat on the pulpit and the muezzin made the general
call to prayer (adhān), they would stop praying. Thaʿlaba said, “We would
sit and talk. When the general call to prayer was finished and ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb stood to give the sermon, we listened, and none of us would say
a word.” Ibn Shihāb said, “The entry of the imam brings to an end all other
prayers, and his speech preempts all other conversations.”
277. According to Mālik, Abū al-Naḍr, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿUmar b.
ʿUbayd Allāh, reported from Mālik b. Abī ʿĀmir that ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān would
regularly say in his sermon, rarely omitting it, “When the imam begins to
preach on Friday, listen and pay attention. Certainly, the reward of someone

105 The parenthetical words are Mālik’s, not the Prophet Muḥammad’s (pbuh), according to a
marginal note on the principal source manuscript of the RME.
Book 5 133

who pays attention but cannot hear is similar to that of one who pays
attention and hears. When the immediate call to prayer (iqāma) is made,
straighten the rows and align your shoulders, because straightening the
rows is part of perfecting the prayer.” ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān would not begin
the prayer by magnifying God (saying “God is great,” Allāhu akbar) until the
men to whom he had delegated the task of straightening the rows returned
to him and reported that the rows were straight. Only then would he begin
the prayer and magnify God.
278. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar saw two
men talking while the imam preached on Friday, so he tossed some pebbles
at them in order to quiet them.
279. According to Mālik, it reached him that a man sneezed while the imam
was preaching on Friday. A man sitting next to him invoked God’s mercy on
the man who sneezed. The man later asked Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab whether
that had been appropriate. Saʿīd prohibited the man from doing so, saying,
“Don’t do it again.”
280. According to Mālik, he once asked Ibn Shihāb about talking on Friday
during the interval after the imam descends from the pulpit but before
he commences the prayer by magnifying God. Ibn Shihāb said, “There is
nothing objectionable in that.”

Chapter 3. What Has Come Down regarding Someone Who Joins the
Friday Congregational Prayer (Ṣalāt al-Jumuʿa) in Time to Complete
One Cycle (Rakʿa)
281. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb would say, “If someone joins the Friday
Congregational Prayer in time to complete one cycle, he should pray an
additional cycle.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said that Ibn Shihāb said, ‘That is the
long-established ordinance (al-sunna).’”
282. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘That rule is what I found the learned people of
our town following (wa-ʿalā dhālika adraktu ahl al-ʿilm bi-baladinā). That is
because the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Whoever performs one cycle of
prayer with the imam has perfomed the prayer with the imam.”’”
283. Mālik said, regarding someone who is stuck in the midst of a great
crowd during the Friday Congregational Prayer and is able to bow but cannot
prostrate, either until the imam stands after performing his prostrations or
until the imam has finished the prayer in its entirety, “He should prostrate
when the people stand, if he is able to do so, provided that he has already
bowed; however, if he is unable to prostrate at all until the imam has finished
134 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

the prayer, then I prefer that he begin performance of his prayer anew and
perform the Noon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ẓuhr), with four complete cycles.”

Chapter 4. What Has Come Down regarding Someone Whose Nose

Bleeds during the Friday Congregational Prayer (Ṣalāt al-Jumuʿa)
284. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Whoever has a nosebleed on Friday while the
imam is preaching and leaves, but does not return until the imam has finished
the prayer, should instead pray the four cycles of the Noon Prayer.’”106
285. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding someone who performs one cycle
(rakʿa) of the Friday Congregational Prayer with the imam and then
experiences a nosebleed, so he leaves and comes back, but only after the
imam has completed the two cycles of the Friday Congregational Prayer
in their entirety, ‘He should complete the performance of the Friday
Congregational Prayer from where he left off and perform the second cycle
on his own, as long as he did not speak in the interval between the time he
left the prayer and his return.’”
286. Mālik said, “Someone who suffers a nosebleed or any other condition
that forces him to leave the Friday Congregational Prayer prior to its
completion does not need the imam’s permission to do so.”

Chapter 5. What Has Come Down regarding the Meaning of the

Word Saʿy in Connection with the Friday Congregational Prayer
(Ṣalāt al-Jumuʿa)
287. According to Mālik, he asked Ibn Shihāb about the words of God, Blessed
and Sublime is He, “When the call to prayer on Friday is proclaimed, hasten
earnestly (isʿaw) to remember God.”107 Ibn Shihāb said, “ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
would recite it thus: ‘When the call to prayer on Friday is proclaimed, go to
remember God.’”108
288. Mālik said, “The meaning of saʿy in the Book of God is limited to ‘deeds
and actions.’ God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says, ‘And when he turns

106 In other words, the worshipper should pray the regular Noon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ẓuhr), which
consists of four cycles (rakʿa), rather than make up the Friday Congregational Prayer, which
consists of the sermon and only two cycles of prayer.
107 Al-Jumuʿa, 62:9.
108 The verse as found in the written rendition of the Quran uses the second-person masculine
plural imperative of the verb saʿā, isʿaw, which means “to run” or “to hasten”; but according
to Ibn Shihāb’s report as narrated by Mālik, ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb recited this verse using the
second-person masculine plural imperative of the verb maḍā, imḍaw, which means simply
“to go,” without the sense of haste. Early sources attribute to various Companions nonstan-
dard readings of the Quran that are not consistent with its written text (muṣḥaf). These non-
standard readings are not part of the recited text of the Quran, but they may be used as
evidence of the text’s intended meaning.
Book 5 135

away, he acts (saʿā) in the land,’109 and He says, ‘But as for him who comes
to you, acting (yasʿā) out of fear (of God),’110 and He says, ‘Then he turned
his back, acting (yasʿā),’111 and He says, ‘Indeed, your deeds (saʿyakum)
are diverse.’112 The saʿy that God mentions in His Book, therefore, does not
mean ‘running on the feet’ or ‘severe exertion.’ He intended specifically
‘deeds and actions.’”

Chapter 6. What Has Come Down regarding the Ruler (Imām)113 Who,
While Traveling, Alights in a Village on Friday (Jumuʿa)
289. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘If the ruler (imām) is traveling and alights
in a town in which the Friday Congregational Prayer (ṣalāt al-jumuʿa) is
obligatory, and he leads the people there in the Friday prayer and preaches
the sermon, the people of that village, and everyone else present, should
perform the Friday Congregational Prayer with him.”
290. Mālik said, “If the ruler, while traveling, gathers the people to perform
the Friday Congregational Prayer in a village in which that prayer is not
obligatory, it is not permissible for him to pray the Friday Congregational
Prayer there, nor is it permissible for the villagers or for anyone else present
there. The villagers and whoever else is present there who is not traveling
should instead perform the Noon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ẓuhr) in its entirety.”
291. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The traveler is not eligible to pray the Friday
Congregational Prayer. Instead, he performs two cycles of the Noon Prayer.’”

Chapter 7. What Has Come Down regarding the Special Moment

on Friday
292. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) mentioned Friday and said,
“There is a moment on Friday when God grants to any Muslim who is
standing in prayer, beseeching Him for something at that very moment,
whatever he asks.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) used his hand to indicate
how fleeting that moment is.

109 Al-Baqara, 2:205. The full text of the verse is Wa-idhā tawallā saʿā fī ’l-arḍi li-yufsida fīhā
wa-yuhlika ’l-ḥartha wa’l-nasla wa’llāhu lā yuḥibbu ’l-fasād (“When he turns away, he acts to
corrupt the earth and to destroy crops and people; and God does not love destruction”).
110 ʿAbasa, 80:8–9. The full text of the verses is Wa-ammā man jāʾaka yasʿā wa-huwa yakhshā.
111 Al-Nāziʿāt, 79:22. The full text of the verse is Thumma adbara yasʿā. The next verse reads
Fa-ḥashara fa-nādā, which means “So he called out and gathered his forces,” referring to the
Pharaoh.
112 Al-Layl, 92:4. The full text of the verse is Inna saʿyakum la-shattā.
113 In this context, imām does not mean a prayer leader but rather a public official, such as the
caliph or the governor.
136 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

293. According to Mālik, Yazīd b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Hādī reported from

Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. al-Ḥārith al-Taymī, from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān, that Abū Hurayra said, “I went to Mount Sinai and there met
Kaʿb al-Aḥbār. I sat with him, and he related to me teachings of the Torah,
and I related to him teachings of the Messenger of God (pbuh). One of the
things I told him was that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘The most
auspicious day upon which the sun rises is Friday. Adam was created on that
day, and on it he fell from the Garden to the Earth; repentance was granted
to him on that day, and on that day he died. The Hour of Divine Judgment is
on that day. Every moving creature is attentive on Friday, from morning to
sunset, in fear of the Hour, except for jinn and humans. There is a moment
of time on Friday when God grants to any Muslim who is standing in prayer,
beseeching Him for something at that very moment, whatever he asks.’ Kaʿb
said, ‘That is one day every year.’ I said, ‘No, it is every Friday.’ Kaʿb searched
the Torah and said, ‘The Messenger of God (pbuh) has spoken the truth.’ I
later met Baṣra b. Abī Baṣra al-Ghifārī, who said, ‘Where are you coming
from?’ I said, ‘From Mount Sinai.’ Baṣra said, ‘Had I seen you before you
set out on your journey, you would never have left. I heard the Messenger
of God (pbuh) say, “No one should set out on the back of a camel114 to any
mosque save for three: the Sacred Mosque (al-masjid al-ḥarām) of Mecca,
this mosque of mine in Medina, or the Mosque of Jerusalem.115”’ Later I met
ʿAbd Allāh b. Salām.116 I told him about my meeting with Kaʿb al-Aḥbār and
what I had related to him regarding Friday. I also told him that Kaʿb had said,
‘That is one day every year.’ ʿAbd Allāh b. Salām said, ‘Kaʿb was mistaken.’ I
said, ‘Kaʿb later searched the Torah carefully and said, “Indeed, it is every
Friday.”’ ʿAbd Allāh b. Salām said, ‘Kaʿb has spoken the truth.’ Then ʿAbd
Allāh b. Salām said, ‘I know which portion of the day it is.’ I said, ‘In that
case, tell me, and don’t keep it from me.’ ʿAbd Allāh b. Salām said, ‘It is the
last moments of Friday.’ I then asked, ‘How can it be the last moments of
Friday, when the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “If a Muslim is standing in
prayer, beseeching Him for something at that very moment?” That is not
a time of prayer.’ ʿAbd Allāh b. Salām said, ‘Didn’t the Messenger of God
(pbuh) say, “Anyone who sits, awaiting the time of prayer, is in prayer until
he prays”?’ I said, ‘Certainly.’ He said, ‘That is it, then.’”

114 The implication is that no conveyance should be used because one should go to the nearest
possible mosque.
115 The Arabic text provides two different names for Jerusalem, Īliyāʾ and Bayt al-Maqdis. The
Arabic version includes the gloss yashukku, meaning that the narrator is unsure which word
was used for Jerusalem in the original report attributed to Abū Hurayra. It is unclear, how-
ever, which narrator this is.
116 ʿAbd Allāh b. Salām was a prominent Medinese Jew who converted to Islam during the
Prophet Muḥammad’s lifetime.
Book 5 137

Chapter 8. Physical Appearance, Trampling over People in the

Mosque, and Facing the Imam on Friday
294. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that it reached him that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “There is nothing objectionable in having
two garments that are worn only for the Friday Congregational Prayer
(ṣalāt al-jumuʿa) in addition to the two garments one wears daily for work.”
295. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would set
out for the Friday Congregational Prayer only after applying oil to his hair
and perfume to his body, unless he was in the consecrated state (muḥrim) for
the performance of either the Pilgrimage (ḥajj) or the Visitation (ʿumra).117
296. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Ḥazm reported from
someone who related it to him that Abū Hurayra would say, “It is better
for someone to pray on the lava field outside of Medina than to sit in the
mosque waiting for the imam to appear to deliver the sermon and then,
when he does appear, to trample over people to reach the front rows.”
297. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The long-established ordinance among us
(al-sunna ʿindanā) is that everyone faces the imam on Friday when he
intends to give the sermon, whether they be seated in front of the imam,
facing the direction of prayer (qibla),118 or elsewhere.”

Chapter 9. Recitation of the Quran in the Friday Congregational

Prayer (Ṣalāt al-Jumuʿa), Sitting with One’s Knees Drawn and
Supported,119 and Missing the Friday Congregational Prayer without
an Excuse
298. According to Mālik, Ḍamra b. Saʿīd al-Māzinī reported that ʿUbayd Allāh
b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd said that al-Ḍaḥḥāk b. Qays asked al-Nuʿmān
b. Bashīr, “What would the Messenger of God (pbuh) recite in the second

117 Mālik discusses the special rules regarding what a pilgrim may wear and use for personal
hygiene and grooming, including perfume, in detail in the Book of Pilgrimage below.
118 In ordinary circumstances, the congregants are seated in front of the imam as he stands
on the pulpit and gives the sermon during the Friday Congregational Prayer. The imam is
positioned with his back to the direction of prayer, facing the congregants. Accordingly,
the congregants are typically seated facing the imam and the direction of prayer (qibla). In
some mosques, however, the pulpit may be so far from the qibla wall of the mosque that
some congregants are seated behind the pulpit, not in front of it. In this case, according to
Mālik, these congregants should turn and face the imam rather than continue facing the
direction of prayer.
119 The title of this section mentions iḥtibāʾ, translated here as “sitting with one’s knees drawn
and supported,” but the section contains no narrations about this practice despite the title.
Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 1:408.
138 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

cycle of the Friday prayer after reciting ‘The Congregation’ (al-Jumuʿa)120 in

the first?” He said, “He would recite ‘The Enveloping’ (al-Ghāshiya).”121
299. According to Mālik, Ṣafwān b. Sulaym—and Mālik said, “I do not know
whether this is from the Prophet (pbuh) or not”—said, “God places a seal
upon the heart of anyone who misses the Friday Congregational Prayer
three times without an excuse or illness.”
300. According to Mālik, Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad reported from his father,
“The Messenger of God (pbuh) would give two sermons during the Friday
Congregational Prayer and would sit down between them.”122

120 Chapter 62 of the Quran.

121 Chapter 88 of the Quran.
122 Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad, also known as Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (d. 148/765), was the great-great-
great-grandson of the Prophet (pbuh) and the sixth imām of the Shīʿa. His father is Muḥam-
mad b. ʿAlī Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn, known as Muḥammad al-Bāqir (d. 114/733), the fifth imām of the
Shīʿa.
 Book 6
The Book of Prayer (Ṣalāt) during Ramadan

Chapter 1. Encouraging People to Perform Prayers (Ṣalāt) during

Ramadan
301. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr, from
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
prayed in the mosque one night, and some people performed their prayers
behind him. The next night he prayed in the mosque, and a good crowd
of people showed up. They gathered again on the third and fourth nights,
but the Messenger of God (pbuh) did not join them. In the morning, he
said to them, “I saw what you did, and the only thing that stopped me from
joining you was my fear that it would become obligatory for you.” That was
in Ramadan.
302. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf, from Abū Hurayra, “The Messenger of God (pbuh)
encouraged people to pray during the nights of Ramadan without ever
definitively ordering it. He would say, ‘Whoever spends the night in prayer
during Ramadan, having faith in God and seeking reward exclusively from
Him, shall have all his prior sins forgiven.’” Ibn Shihāb said, “When the
Messenger of God (pbuh) died, that was still the case, and it continued in
that fashion throughout the caliphate of Abū Bakr and for a period of time
in the beginning of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb’s caliphate.”

Chapter 2. What Has Come Down regarding Prayer at Night during

Ramadan
303. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr that
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd al-Qārī said, “I went with ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb to
the Prophet’s Mosque in Ramadan, and people were scattered and spread
out in groups, one man or another praying by himself and groups of people
performing their prayers (ṣalāt) behind different individuals. ʿUmar said,
‘By God, I certainly believe that were I to bring everyone together into one

139
140 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

group behind one reciter, it would be better.’ So he gathered them all into
one group behind Ubayy b. Kaʿb.” ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said, “I then went out
with him to the mosque on another night, and the people were praying
together behind one reciter. ʿUmar said, ‘What a blessed innovation this is!
But that part of the night that you miss while you sleep is more virtuous
than that part of the night during which you pray,’ meaning the last part of
the night—for people would pray in the first part of the night.”
304. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. Yūsuf reported that al-Sāʾib b. Yazīd
said, “ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb ordered Ubayy b. Kaʿb and Tamīm al-Dayrī123 to
lead the people in prayer and to perform eleven cycles (rakʿa).”124 Al-Sāʾib b.
Yazīd said, “The reciter of the Quran would recite from the moderately long
chapters of the Quran (the Miʾūn)125 to the point that we would have to lean
on our staves because of exhaustion from standing for so long in prayer. We
would not leave until the break of dawn.”
305. According to Mālik, Yazīd b. Rūmān said, “During the time of ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb, people would pray twenty-three cycles during the night prayer
in Ramadan.”
306. According to Mālik, Dāwūd b. al-Ḥuṣayn reported that he heard
al-Aʿraj say, “It was always the case in my experience that people cursed
their enemies during Ramadan.” He said, “The reciter of the Quran would
recite ‘The Cow’ (al-Baqara)126 in eight cycles, and if he finished it in twelve
cycles, people would think he had made the prayer easy.”
307. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr said, “I heard my father
say, ‘After finishing the nighttime prayer during Ramadan we would urge
the servants to hurry with the preparation of food out of fear that dawn
would break.’”
308. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that Abū
ʿAmr Dhakwān, a slave of ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Messenger of God (pbuh),
whom she manumitted upon her death, would stand in prayer and recite
the Quran for her during Ramadan.”

123 Narrators of the Muwaṭṭaʾ other than Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā call him “Tamīm al-Dārī,” not “Tamīm
al-Dayrī.”
124 Mālik’s narration of this report is unique in specifying eleven cycles; other narrations have
twenty-one.
125 Literally “the hundreds,” these verses begin with chapter 19 of the Quran (Maryam) and con-
tain approximately one hundred verses each. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 1:420.
126 The second and longest chapter of the Quran, with 286 verses.
 Book 7
The Book of the Night Prayer (Ṣalāt al-Layl)

Chapter 1. What Has Come Down regarding the Night Prayer (Ṣalāt
al-Layl)
309. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. al-Munkadir reported from Saʿīd
b. Jubayr that a man agreeable to him told him that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the
Prophet (pbuh), told him that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “If anyone
regularly performs prayer during the night but is sometimes overcome by
sleep, God grants him the reward for the prayer he missed, and his sleep is
a gift from God.”
310. According to Mālik, Abū al-Naḍr, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿUmar b.
ʿUbayd Allāh, reported from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān that ʿĀʾisha,
the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said, “I would be sleeping next to the
Messenger of God (pbuh) with my legs outstretched, lying between him and
the direction of prayer (qibla). Accordingly, when he prostrated, he would
nudge me and I would fold my legs, and when he stood up, I would stretch
them out again.” She said, “In those days, houses did not have lamps.”
311. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father, from
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “When someone becomes drowsy during the performance of prayer, he
should lie down until he is rested. When someone prays while he is drowsy,
he may not realize what he is saying. He may intend to seek forgiveness for
himself but may end up cursing himself.”
312. According to Mālik, Ismāʿīl b. Abī Ḥakīm reported that it reached
him that the Messenger of God (pbuh) heard a woman praying at night,
so he said, “Who is that?” Someone said, “It is al-Ḥawlāʾ bt. Tuwayt; she
does not sleep at night.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) disapproved, and
it was clear from his face. He then said, “God, Blessed and Sublime is
He, does not weary of rewarding good deeds before you grow weary of
performing them. Therefore, only undertake for yourselves rites that you
can reasonably sustain.”

141
142 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

313. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from his father that
during the night ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb would pray as much as he could,127
but when the last hours of the night came, he would rouse his household
for prayer, saying to them, “The prayer! The prayer!” Then he would recite
the verse “Summon your family to pray, and be constant therein. We ask no
sustenance from you; rather, we provide it for you, and the reward of the
Hereafter is for righteousness.”128
314. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab would
say, “Sleep before the Evening Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿishāʾ) should be avoided, as
should conversation afterward.”
315. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
say, “Voluntary prayers, whether performed during the day or during the
night (ṣalāt al-layl), are performed in pairs of cycles (rakʿa), and each pair
of cycles should be concluded by saying ‘Peace be upon you.’” Yaḥyā said,
“Mālik said, ‘That is the rule among us (dhālika al-amr ʿindanā).’”

Chapter 2. The Prophet’s (pbuh) Performance of the Witr129 Prayer

(Ṣalāt al-Witr)
316. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr, from
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
would perform eleven cycles (rakʿa) of prayer in the night, five pairs of two
cycles and then a single cycle at the end, thereby rendering the lot an odd
number. When he had finished, he would lie down on his right side and sleep.
317. According to Mālik, Saʿīd b. Abī Saʿīd al-Maqburī reported from
Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf that he asked ʿĀʾisha, the wife of
the Prophet (pbuh), “How did the Messenger of God (pbuh) pray during
Ramadan?” She said, “Whether during Ramadan or at any other time, the
Messenger of God (pbuh) would never exceed eleven cycles. He would pray
four cycles—do not ask about their beauty or length!—and then he would
pray another four—do not ask about their beauty or length!—and then he
would pray three.” ʿĀʾisha then said, “So I said, ‘Messenger of God, do you
sleep before you perform the last cycle?’ He said, ‘ʿĀʾisha, my eyes sleep, but
not my heart.’”

127 Literally, “as much as God willed for him.”

128 Ṭāhā, 20:132.
129 Witr is the name for the last cycle of a nighttime prayer. Unlike the rest of the nighttime
prayer, the witr prayer consists of just one prayer cycle. It is usually preceded by the per-
formance of at least one prayer consisting of two cycles. These paired cycles are referred to
collectively as shafʿ.
Book 7 143

318. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, said, “The Messenger of God would
pray thirteen cycles during the night, and then, when he heard the call to
the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ), he would pray two quick cycles.”
319. According to Mālik, Makhrama b. Sulaymān reported from Kurayb, the
freedman (mawlā) of Ibn ʿAbbās, that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās informed Kurayb
that he spent a night in the house of Maymūna, the wife of the Prophet
(pbuh) and his maternal aunt. He said, “I was lying down along the breadth
of the pillow, and the Messenger of God (pbuh) and his wife were lying
down along its length. The Messenger of God (pbuh) slept until midnight
or thereabouts, and when he woke up, he sat down and began to wipe away
the sleep from his face with his hands. He then recited the last ten verses of
‘The Family of ʿImrān’ (Āl ʿImrān).130 He then got up and proceeded to an old
waterskin that was suspended from a hook and meticulously performed his
ablutions from it. He then stood and prayed.” Ibn ʿAbbās said, “I therefore
stood up and did as he did, and went and stood by his side. The Messenger
of God (pbuh) put his right hand on my head and affectionately rubbed my
right ear. He then prayed two cycles, and another two, and another two,
and another two, and another two, and another two. Then he performed
a single cycle of prayer, at the conclusion of which he lay down until the
muezzin came to him at the time of the Morning Prayer. He then prayed two
quick cycles, went out, and performed the Morning Prayer.”
320. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr reported from his father
that ʿAbd Allāh b. Qays b. Makhrama informed him that Zayd b. Khālid
al-Juhanī said, “Tonight, I shall carefully observe how the Messenger
of God (pbuh) performs the Night Prayer.” He said, “I rested my head on
the threshold of his house (or his tent).131 The Messenger of God (pbuh)
awoke and prayed two very, very long cycles. Then he prayed two cycles
that were shorter than the previous two. Then he prayed two cycles that
were shorter than the previous two. Then he prayed two cycles that were
shorter than the previous two. Then he prayed two cycles that were shorter
than the previous two. Then he prayed two cycles that were shorter than
the previous two. Then he performed one cycle of prayer, making thirteen
cycles in all.”

130 The third chapter of the Quran. The last ten verses of this chapter begin with “Indeed, in the
creation of the heavens and the earth and in the alternation of night and day are signs for
those with understanding.”
131 Zurqānī quotes Bājī as saying that the uncertainty regarding whether Zayd rested on the
threshold of his house or on that of the tent is on the part of the narrator, but that the more
likely version is “his house.” Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 1:440.
144 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 3. The Command to Pray the Witr Prayer

321. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ and ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported from ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUmar that a man asked the Messenger of God (pbuh) about the
Night Prayer (ṣalāt al-layl), so the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “The
Night Prayer is performed two cycles at a time, and if someone fears that
the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ) is approaching, he should conclude the
prayer by performing one cycle (rakʿa) so as to make the number of cycles
that he has performed odd.”
322. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Muḥammad b.
Yaḥyā b. Ḥabbān, from Ibn Muḥayrīz, that a man of the Banū Kināna
called al-Mukhdajī heard a man in the Levant named Abū Muḥammad say,
“Performance of the witr prayer is obligatory.” Al-Mukhdajī said, “I therefore
sought out ʿUbāda b. al-Ṣāmit. I approached him as he was heading to the
mosque and informed him of what Abū Muḥammad had said. ʿUbāda said,
‘Abū Muḥammad is mistaken. I heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) say,
“The performance of five prayers is what God has imposed on His servants.
Whoever performs them all, not missing any of them out of indifference
to their obligatory character, has a covenant from God that He will cause
him to enter Heaven. Whoever does not perform them lacks this covenant
with God. Accordingly, if God wishes, He punishes him, and if He wishes, He
admits him to Heaven.”’”
323. According to Mālik, Abū Bakr b. ʿAmr reported that Saʿīd b. Yasār said,
“I was traveling with ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar along the road to Mecca. I grew
anxious that dawn was approaching, so I dismounted and performed the
witr prayer. I then caught up with ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, and he asked me,
‘Where were you?’ I said to him, ‘I grew anxious that dawn was approaching,
so I dismounted and performed the witr prayer.’ ʿAbd Allāh said, ‘Isn’t the
Messenger of God (pbuh) an example for you?’ I said, ‘By God, he certainly
is.’ He said, ‘The Messenger of God (pbuh) would perform the witr prayer
while mounted on his camel.’”
324. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
said, “Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq would perform the witr prayer before going to bed,
and ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb would perform the witr prayer in the last hours of
the night.” Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab said, “As for me, I perform the witr prayer
right before I go to bed.”
325. According to Mālik, it reached him that a man asked ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar whether the witr prayer was obligatory. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said,
“The Messenger of God (pbuh) performed the witr prayer, and the Muslims
performed the witr prayer.” The man kept on questioning him, and ʿAbd
Book 7 145

Allāh b. ʿUmar continued to give him the same answer—“The Messenger

of God (pbuh) performed the witr prayer, and the Muslims performed the
witr prayer.”
326. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet
(pbuh), would say, “Whoever is anxious that he might sleep until dawn, let
him perform the witr prayer before he sleeps, and whoever believes he will
awake during the last hours of the night, let him defer the performance of
his witr prayer.”
327. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ said, “I was with ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar in Mecca,
and the sky was cloudy. ʿAbd Allāh grew anxious that dawn was approaching,
so he performed one cycle of the witr prayer. Then the clouds dissipated,
and he realized that it was still night, so he performed an additional cycle
of prayer, thus making the total number of cycles that he had prayed that
night even. He then performed additional cycles of prayer, two at a time,
and when he became anxious that dawn was approaching, he performed
one cycle of the witr prayer.”
328. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
conclude the last two cycles of the Night Prayer by saying, “Peace be upon
you,” and he would then perform one cycle of the witr prayer. Sometimes
he would even ask for something he needed before completing the witr
prayer.132
329. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ
would perform one cycle of the witr prayer immediately after completing
the Evening Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿishāʾ). Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The practice
(ʿamal) among us is not in accord with this; rather, the minimum length of
the witr prayer is three cycles.’”133
330. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported that ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar would say that the Sunset Prayer (ṣalāt al-maghrib) was the witr
prayer of the daytime prayers.134
331. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Whoever performs the witr prayer at the
beginning of the night, then sleeps, and then awakes and decides to perform
additional cycles of prayer should perform two cycles at a time. Of all the
views that I have heard, this is the one I prefer most.’”

132 In other words, the witr prayer, according to ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, consisted of one cycle of prayer,
which was distinct from the pairs of cycles that were prayed previously through the night.
133 In other words, the odd cycle of the witr prayer should be preceded by at least one even pair
(shafʿ) of cycles. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 1:451.
134 The Sunset Prayer consists of an odd number of cycles, in contrast to the other four daily
prayers, all of which have an even number of cycles.
146 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 4. Performing the Witr Prayer after the Break of Dawn

332. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Karīm b. Abī al-Mukhāriq al-Baṣrī reported
from Saʿīd b. Jubayr that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās was asleep and then awoke,
so he said to his servant, “Go see whether the people have prayed,” his sight
having left him by that time. The servant went out to have a look, and when
he returned, he said, “The people have finished performance of the Morning
Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ).” ʿAbd Allāh got up, performed the witr prayer, and
then performed the Morning Prayer.
333. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās, ʿUbāda b.
al-Ṣāmit, al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad, and ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿĀmir b. Rabīʿa had all
performed the witr prayer after dawn broke.
334. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd said, “When I am performing the witr prayer, not even
the immediate call (iqāma) to the Morning Prayer will interrupt me.”
335. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “ʿUbāda b. al-Ṣāmit acted as the
imam for a group of people. One day, he went out to perform the Morning
Prayer, and the muezzin began to make the immediate call to the Morning
Prayer. ʿUbāda, however, told him to desist until he, ʿUbāda, had finished
performing the witr prayer. Then ʿUbāda led them in the Morning Prayer.”
336. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim said, “I heard ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿĀmir b. Rabīʿa say, ‘I perform the witr prayer even when I hear the
immediate call to the Morning Prayer’ or ‘after the break of dawn.’” ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān was not certain which of the two expressions he had used.
337. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported that he
heard his father, al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad, say, “I do indeed perform the witr
prayer, even after dawn breaks.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Only someone who
oversleeps and fails to perform the witr prayer before the break of dawn
should perform it after dawn breaks. No one should plan to perform it after
dawn breaks.”

Chapter 5. What Has Come Down regarding the Two Cycles (Rakʿa) of
the Dawn Prayer (Ṣalāt al-Fajr)
338. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that
Ḥafṣa, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), told him that once the muezzin had
finished the general call (adhān) to the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ), the
Messenger of God (pbuh) would perform two quick cycles (rakʿa) of prayer
before the immediate call (iqāma) to the Morning Prayer was made.
Book 7 147

339. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the
Prophet (pbuh), said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) would perform the
two cycles of the Dawn Prayer (ṣalāt al-fajr) so quickly that I would wonder
whether or not he had even recited the Fātiḥa.”
340. According to Mālik, Sharīk b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Namir reported that
Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said, “A group of people heard the immediate
call to prayer, so they stood to pray.135 Then the Messenger of God (pbuh)
came and said, ‘Are you performing two prayers at the same time? Are you
performing two prayers at the same time?’ That referred to the Morning
Prayer and the two cycles that precede the Morning Prayer.”
341. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar once missed
the two cycles of the Dawn Prayer, so he made them up by performing them
after sunrise.
342. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported from al-Qāsim
b. Muḥammad something similar to that which Ibn ʿUmar had done.

135 According to Bājī, this group of people, instead of joining the congregation to pray the obliga-
tory Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ), began to pray the two cycles of the supererogatory Dawn
Prayer (ṣalāt al-fajr) that precedes it. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 1:227.
 Book 8
The Book of the Congregational Prayer
(Ṣalāt al-Jamāʿa)

Chapter 1. The Superiority of Congregational Prayers (Ṣalāt al-Jamāʿa)

over Individual Prayers
343. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “A prayer (ṣalāt) performed with a congregation
is twenty-seven times more virtuous than a prayer performed alone.”
344. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab,
from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “A prayer
performed with a congregation is twenty-five times more virtuous than a
prayer performed alone.”
345. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “By Him whose hand holds
my soul! I am on the verge of ordering that wood be gathered, and it would
be gathered; then I would make a command for prayer, and it would be
held; then I would command a man to lead the prayer, and he would lead it;
then I would search out those men who did not come to pray, and burn their
houses down with them inside. By Him whose hand holds my soul! If any of
them had believed that he would find at the mosque a meaty bone or two
fine, small arrows,136 he would have come to the mosque for the Evening
Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿishāʾ).”

136 The Arabic term in the text is mirmātayn, the dual form of mirmāt. Arab lexicographers iden-
tify two meanings for the term. The first refers to the meat from a cloven-hooved animal,
and the second refers to a kind of arrow that was used by pre-Islamic Arabs either to learn
archery or for sports such as target practice. The majority of the commentators seem to pre-
fer the second interpretation of mirmātayn. Zurqānī, for example, concludes his commen-
tary on this report by stating that it “entails condemnation of those who neglect to attend
the [congregational] prayer by describing them as covetous of trivial things such as food or
sport.” Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 1:464. Bājī also prefers the second interpretation (Bājī,
al-Muntaqā, 1:230), as do the editors of the RME.

149
150 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

346. According to Mālik, Abū al-Naḍr, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿUmar b.

ʿUbayd Allāh, reported from Busr b. Saʿīd that Zayd b. Thābit said, “The most
virtuous prayer is one performed in your home, except for the obligatory
prayers.”137

Chapter 2. What Has Come Down regarding the Evening Prayer (Ṣalāt
al-ʿIshāʾ) and the Morning Prayer (Ṣalāt al-Ṣubḥ)
347. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥarmala al-Aslamī reported
from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “What
separates us from the hypocrites is our attendance at the Evening Prayer
(ṣalāt al-ʿishāʾ) and the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ). They cannot bear
them,” or something to that effect.
348. According to Mālik, Sumayy, the freedman (mawlā) of Abū Bakr, reported
from Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Sammān, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, “A man was once walking along a road when he discovered a
thorny branch in the way, so he removed it from the road. God was so pleased
by the man’s act that He forgave his prior sins.” The Messenger of God (pbuh)
also said, “There are five kinds of martyrs: those who die of the plague, those
who die of disease, those who die by drowning, those who die because of a
collapsed building, and those killed for the sake of God.”138
349. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Abū Bakr b. Sulaymān b.
Abī Ḥathma that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb noticed that Sulaymān b. Abī Ḥathma
did not attend the Morning Prayer. Later that day, when ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
went to the market—Sulaymān’s house was between the mosque and the
marketplace—he walked past al-Shaffāʾ, Sulaymān’s mother. He said to her,
“I didn’t see Sulaymān at the Morning Prayer,” and she replied, “He spent the
night praying and overslept.” ʿUmar said, “I would rather perform the Morning
Prayer with the congregation than spend the whole night standing in prayer.”
350. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Muḥammad b.
Ibrāhīm that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī ʿAmra al-Anṣārī said that ʿUthmān
b. ʿAffān once attended the Evening Prayer in the Prophet’s Mosque, and

137 I.e., the five obligatory daily prayers.

138 The narration on which the RME is based—that of ʿUbayd Allāh b. Yaḥyā, the son of Yaḥyā
b. Yaḥyā—contains this report in a form that has no relevance to the chapter heading. Other
narrators of the Muwaṭṭaʾ from Yaḥyā, however, include the following addition after the
report about the five kinds of martyrs: “If people only knew the blessings of the general call
to prayer (adhān) and of praying in the first row of the mosque, they would draw lots to pre-
vent themselves from fighting over those blessings. If they knew of the blessings of attend-
ing the prayer early, they would race to it. And if they knew of the blessings of the Evening
Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿishāʾ) and the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ), they would come crawling to
the mosque to perform them.”
Book 8 151

noticing that only a few people were there, he lay down in the back and
waited for more people to come. Ibn Abī ʿAmra came and sat down beside
him. ʿUthmān asked him who he was, and he told him. ʿUthmān asked him
how much of the Quran he had memorized, and he told him. Then ʿUthmān
said to him, “If someone attends the evening congregational prayer, it is as
if he had prayed half the night, and if he attends the morning congregational
prayer, it is as if he had prayed the entire night.”

Chapter 3. Repeating Performance of the Prayer (Ṣalāt) with the Imam

351. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from a man of the Banū
al-Dīl called Busr b. Miḥjan, from his father, Miḥjan, that the latter had been
in a gathering sitting with the Messenger of God (pbuh) when the general
call to prayer (adhān) was made. The Messenger of God (pbuh) left and
prayed and then returned, and Miḥjan was still sitting there. The Messenger
of God (pbuh) asked him, “What kept you from praying with us? Aren’t you
a Muslim?” He said, “Yes I am, Messenger of God, but I already prayed with
my family.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to him, “When you’re with
the congregation, pray with them, even if you’ve already prayed.”
352. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that a man asked ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar, “I often perform the prayer in my house, and then I find the imam
performing that very same prayer. Should I perform it again with him?”
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said to him, “Yes!” The man asked, “Which of the two
prayers should I deem to be my obligatory prayer?” Ibn ʿUmar said to him,
“Is that up to you? That decision belongs only to God. He decides which of
the two was the obligatory prayer, as He wishes.”
353. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that a man asked Saʿīd b.
al-Musayyab, “I perform the prayer in my house, and then I go to the mosque
and find the imam praying that very same prayer. Should I perform it again
with him?” Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab said, “Yes!” The man asked him, “Which of
the two is my obligatory prayer?” Saʿīd said, “Is it you who decides which of
the two is the obligatory prayer? That decision belongs only to God.”
354. According to Mālik, ʿAfīf b. ʿAmr al-Sahmī reported from a man of the
tribe of Banū Asad that he asked Abū Ayyūb al-Anṣārī, “I perform the prayer
in my house, and then I go to the mosque and find the imam performing
that very same prayer. Should I perform it again with him?” Abū Ayyūb said,
“Yes, perform it with him, for whoever does so earns the reward of praying
with a congregation, or its near equivalent.”
355. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“Whoever performs the Sunset Prayer (ṣalāt al-maghrib) or the Morning
152 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ) and then finds the imam performing either of them
should not pray either of them again.”
356. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘There is nothing objectionable in someone
repeating the performance of an obligatory prayer with the imam, even if
he has already prayed it at home. The sole exception is the Sunset Prayer: if
someone prays that twice, he makes its cycles even-numbered.’”

Chapter 4. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to the Performance of

the Congregational Prayer (Ṣalāt al-Jamāʿa)
357. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “When someone leads a
congregational prayer, he should be brief, because some congregants will
be weak, some will be ill, and some will be aged. When someone performs a
prayer (ṣalāt) alone, however, he may pray for as long as he wishes.”
358. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ said, “I stood behind ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar for
the performance of one of the prayers, and there was no one else except me.
ʿAbd Allāh therefore gestured with his hand, motioning me to stand beside
him on his right.”
359. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that once there was a man
who led people in prayer in al-ʿAqīq.139 ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz summoned
him and prohibited him from continuing to do so. Mālik said, “The only
reason he forbade him was that his paternity was unknown.”

Chapter 5. The Imam’s Performance of the Prayer (Ṣalāt) from a

Sitting Position
360. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Anas b. Mālik, “The
Messenger of God (pbuh) was riding a horse and was thrown off, suffering
a deep bruise on his right side. Because of that, he performed one of the
prayers from a sitting position, and we prayed behind him, also seated.
When he completed the prayer, he said, ‘The sole reason for having an imam
lead the prayer is that the congregants have someone to follow. Therefore,
when he prays standing, pray standing; when he bows, bow with him; when
he gets up, get up with him; when he says, “God hears those who praise
Him,” say “Our Lord, unto you belongs all praise”; and when he prays from a
sitting position, you should all pray from a sitting position.’”
361. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Messenger of God (pbuh), said, “The Messenger of

139 Al-ʿAqīq is a place near Medina. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 6:28.

Book 8 153

God (pbuh) once performed the prayer from a sitting position because he
was in pain. A group of congregants, however, stood as they prayed behind
him, but he signaled them to sit down. When he finished, he said, ‘The sole
reason for having an imam lead the prayer is that the congregants have
someone to follow. When he bows, bow with him; when he gets up, get up
with him; and when he prays from a sitting position, you should pray from
a sitting position.’”
362. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) once went to the mosque when he was ill. There he
found Abū Bakr leading the congregation in the performance of an obligatory
prayer. When he noticed the arrival of the Messenger of God (pbuh), Abū
Bakr began to retreat, but the Messenger of God (pbuh) signaled him to stay
put, and he sat down beside Abū Bakr. Abū Bakr followed the lead of the
Messenger of God (pbuh) and the congregants followed Abū Bakr.”

Chapter 6. The Superiority of Prayer (Ṣalāt) Performed Standing over

Prayer Performed from a Sitting Position
363. According to Mālik, Ismāʿīl b. Muḥammad b. Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ
reported from a freedman (mawlā) of ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣī or of ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣī, from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣī, that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, “A prayer performed from a sitting position is equivalent to half
of a prayer performed while standing.”
364. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣī
said, “When we arrived in Medina from Mecca, we came down with a severe
bout of the fever endemic to Medina.140 The Messenger of God (pbuh) then
came to see the people and found them performing their supplementary
prayers from a sitting position. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘A prayer
performed from a sitting position is equivalent to half of a prayer performed
while standing.’”

Chapter 7. What Has Come Down regarding the Performance of

Supplementary Prayers (Ṣalāt) from a Sitting Position
365. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sāʾib b. Yazīd, from
al-Muṭṭalib b. Abī Wadāʿa al-Sahmī, that Ḥafṣa, the wife of the Messenger of
God (pbuh), said, “I had never seen the Messenger of God (pbuh) perform
supplementary prayers from a sitting position until the year prior to his
death, when he performed them seated. He would recite a chapter of the

140 Tradition holds that fever (likely malaria) was endemic to Medina and that many of the Emi-
grants (muhājirūn) contracted this disease soon after their arrival there.
154 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Quran so slowly that it would take longer than lengthier chapters recited at
his usual pace.”
366. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), told him that she had never seen
the Messenger of God (pbuh) perform the Night Prayer (ṣalāt al-layl) from
a sitting position until he grew old. He would then recite the Quran while
seated; when he wanted to bow, he would stand up and recite approximately
thirty or forty additional verses, and then he would bow.
367. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Yazīd and Abū al-Naḍr, the freedman
(mawlā) of ʿUmar b. ʿUbayd Allāh, reported from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān, from ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that the Messenger
of God (pbuh) would perform the prayer from a sitting position. He would
first recite while seated, and when he had about thirty or forty verses of
the Quran left of his daily recitation, he would get up and recite them while
standing. Then he would bow and prostrate, and would do the same in the
second cycle.
368. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr and Saʿīd b.
al-Musayyab would perform the supplementary prayers while in a sitting
position.

Chapter 8. The Middle Prayer (al-Ṣalāt al-Wusṭā)

369. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from al-Qaʿqāʿ b. Ḥakīm
that Abū Yūnus, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the
Believers, said, “ʿĀʾisha ordered me to write out a copy of the Quran for her
and said, ‘When you get to this verse, “Strictly observe the performance
of your prayers, especially the middle prayer, and stand devoutly before
God,”141 tell me.’ When I reached it, I told her, and she dictated to me, ‘Strictly
observe the performance of your prayers, especially the middle prayer and
the Afternoon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿasr), and stand devoutly before God.’ Then
she said, ‘I heard it from the Messenger of God (pbuh).’”
370. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that ʿAmr b. Rāfiʿ said, “I
was writing a copy of the Quran for Ḥafṣa, the Mother of the Believers, and
she said, ‘When you get to this verse, “Strictly observe the performance
of your prayers, especially the middle prayer, and stand devoutly before
God,”142 tell me.’ So I told her when I reached it, and she dictated to me,
‘Strictly observe the performance of your prayers, especially the middle
prayer and the Afternoon Prayer, and stand devoutly before God.’”

141 Al-Baqara, 2:238.

142 Al-Baqara, 2:238.
Book 8 155

371. According to Mālik, Dāwūd b. al-Ḥuṣayn reported that Ibn Yarbūʿ

al-Makhzūmī said, “I heard Zayd b. Thābit say, ‘The middle prayer is the
Noon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ẓuhr).’”
372. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib and ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿAbbās would say, “The middle prayer is the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ).”
Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Of all the views that I have heard regarding this issue,
the view of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib and ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās is the one I prefer most.’”

Chapter 9. The Dispensation to Perform Prayers (Ṣalāt) Wearing Only

a Single Garment
373. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father, from
ʿUmar b. Abī Salama, that he had seen the Messenger of God (pbuh) perform
prayers while wrapped in a single garment, putting both ends over his
shoulders, in Umm Salama’s house.
374. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab,
from Abū Hurayra, that a man asked the Messenger of God about performing
prayers while wearing only a single garment. The Messenger of God (pbuh)
asked rhetorically, “Does everyone have two garments?”143
375. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
said, “Abū Hurayra was asked, ‘Can a man pray while wearing only a single
garment?’ He said, ‘Yes!’ Then he was asked, ‘Do you yourself do that?’ He
said, ‘Yes, I do indeed pray while wearing only a single garment whenever
my other garments are hanging out to dry.’”
376. According to Mālik, it reached him that Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh would pray
wearing only a single garment.
377. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported that Muḥammad
b. ʿAmr b. Ḥazm would pray wearing a single long tunic.
378. According to Mālik, it reached him from Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Whoever cannot find two garments should
pray wearing one garment, wrapped around him. If the garment is short, let
him wrap it around his waist.”
379. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘In the case of a man who is praying wearing
only a tunic, I prefer that he drape a garment, or the cloth from his turban,
about his shoulders.’”

143 The Messenger (pbuh) is implying that some people possess only one garment, which neces-
sarily is worn as an outer garment.
156 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 10. The Dispensation Permitting a Woman to Perform

Prayers (Ṣalāt) Wearing a Wrap and a Headcover
380. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet
(pbuh), would pray in a wrap and a headcover.
381. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. Zayd b. Qunfudh reported that his
mother asked Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), about the kinds
of clothes a woman may wear when praying. Umm Salama said, “She should
pray in a headcover and a long wrap, provided that it reaches down to her
ankles and covers them.”
382. According to Mālik, a source that he deemed to be reliable reported
from Bukayr b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Ashajj, from Busr b. Saʿīd, from ʿUbayd Allāh
al-Khawlānī, that when ʿUbayd Allāh was in the care of Maymūna, the wife
of the Messenger of God (pbuh), she would pray while wearing a long wrap
and a headcover, without an undergarment around her waist.
383. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
a woman sought his opinion regarding appropriate clothing for praying,
saying, “Wearing a girdle around my waist is unbearable for me, so can I
pray wearing only a wrap and a headcover?” He said, “Certainly, if the dress
is long.”
 Book 9
The Book of Shortening the Prayer (Ṣalāt)

Chapter 1. Combining Two Prayers (Ṣalāt) When at Home and

When Traveling
384. According to Mālik, Dāwūd b. al-Ḥuṣayn reported from al-Aʿraj that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) combined performance of the Noon Prayer
(ṣalāt al-ẓuhr) and the Afternoon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿaṣr) when traveling to
Tabūk.
385. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zubayr al-Makkī reported from Abū
al-Ṭufayl ʿĀmir b. Wāthila that Muʿādh b. Jabal told him that they set out
with the Messenger of God (pbuh) to Tabūk, and that the Messenger of
God combined performance of the Noon and Afternoon Prayers and of
the Sunset (ṣalāt al-maghrib) and Evening (ṣalāt al-ʿishāʾ) Prayers during
that campaign. He said, “One day, the Messenger of God (pbuh) deferred
performing the prayer. He then went out and performed the Noon and
Afternoon Prayers together. Then he went inside. Then he went out
and performed the Sunset and Evening Prayers together. Then, he said,
‘Tomorrow, God willing, you will arrive at the spring of Tabūk, but you
will not get there before midmorning. Whoever gets there must not touch
its water until I arrive.’ When we arrived, we discovered that two men
had gotten there ahead of us and that very little water was trickling from
the spring. The Messenger of God (pbuh) therefore asked the two men,
‘Did you put your hands in its water?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ The Messenger
of God (pbuh) cursed them, saying whatever God wished for him to say.
Then everyone scooped up whatever water remained with their hands
from the spring, little by little, until a small amount had been collected.
The Messenger of God (pbuh) was able to wash his face and hands with
that water and returned what was left of it to the spring. Then the spring
began to flow profusely, and everyone was able to draw water from it. The
Messenger of God (pbuh) then said, ‘If you live long enough, Muʿādh, you
will soon see this place filled with gardens.’”

157
158 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

386. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “When
he was marching quickly, the Messenger of God (pbuh) would combine the
Sunset and Evening Prayers.”
387. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zubayr al-Makkī reported from Saʿīd b.
Jubayr that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās said that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
performed the Noon and Afternoon Prayers together and the Sunset and
Evening Prayers together even when he was neither exposed to danger nor
traveling.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘I believe it must have been raining.’”
388. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that whenever it rained and a local
governor combined performance of the Sunset and Evening Prayers, ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUmar would pray in the congregation behind him.
389. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that he asked Sālim b. ʿUbayd
Allāh whether performance of the Noon and Afternoon Prayers could be
combined while traveling. He said, “Yes, there is nothing objectionable in
that. Haven’t you noticed how people perform their prayers at ʿArafāt?”144
390. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAlī b. Ḥusayn would say, “When
the Messenger of God (pbuh) wished to travel throughout the day, he would
combine performance of the Noon and Afternoon Prayers, and when he
wished to travel throughout the night, he would combine performance of
the Sunset and Evening Prayers.”

Chapter 2. Shortening the Prayer (Ṣalāt) While Traveling

391. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that a man of the family of
Khālid b. Asīd said to ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, “Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, in the Quran
we find mentioned the Prayer of Danger (ṣalāt al-khawf) and the prayer when
at home, but nothing about the prayer while traveling.” ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
said, “Nephew, God, Mighty and Majestic is He, sent us Muḥammad (pbuh),
and we knew nothing of the divine law—so we do exactly as we saw him do.”
392. According to Mālik, Ṣāliḥ b. Kaysān reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr
that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said, “When originally ordained,
each prayer consisted of only two cycles (rakʿa) for both residents and
travelers. Later, the prayer for travelers was maintained as it was in the
beginning, but the prayer for residents was lengthened.”145
393. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he said to Sālim b.
ʿAbd Allāh, “What was the latest you saw your father defer performance of

144 A mountain near Mecca where the central rites of the Pilgrimage are performed.
145 The Morning Prayer, however, still consists of two cycles.
Book 9 159

the Sunset Prayer (ṣalāt al-maghrib) when traveling?” Sālim said, “The sun
was setting when we were in Dhāt al-Jaysh, and he prayed the Sunset Prayer
in al-ʿAqīq.”146

Chapter 3. The Circumstances in Which Shortening the Prayer (Ṣalāt)

Is Obligatory
394. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, when he
set out for the Pilgrimage (ḥajj) or the Visitation (ʿumra), would begin to
shorten his prayers at Dhū al-Ḥulayfa.147
395. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh, from
his father, that he rode to Rīm and shortened his prayers on that trip. Yaḥyā
said, “Mālik said, ‘That distance is about four mail stages.’”148
396. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh that ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUmar rode to Dhāt al-Nuṣub and shortened his prayers on that trip.
Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The distance between Dhāt al-Nuṣub and Medina
is four mail stages.’”
397. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from Ibn ʿUmar that he would
shorten prayers when he traveled to Khaybar.
398. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh that
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would shorten the prayers whenever he traveled for an
entire day.
399. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that when he would travel with
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar a distance of one mail stage or less, ʿAbd Allāh would
not shorten his prayers.
400. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās would
shorten his prayers whenever he traveled a distance equivalent to that
between Mecca and Ṭāʾif, that between Mecca and ʿUsfān, or that between
Mecca and Jeddah. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘That is four mail stages.’” Yaḥyā
said, “Mālik said, ‘This is the opinion I prefer most regarding the minimum
distance one must travel before shortening the prayers.’”

146 Dhāt al-Jaysh and al-ʿAqīq are places outside of Medina. The distance between the two is
approximately 10.5 km (ten mīls).
147 An abandoned village on the way from Medina to Mecca. It lay at a distance of nine or ten
days’ march from Mecca. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 2:356.
148 This is equivalent to approximately 52 km. A “mail stage,” called a barīd in Arabic, is defined
as twelve mīls, and a mīl is between 3,500 and 4,000 arm’s lengths or man’s paces. A distance
of four mail stages, then, is roughly between 168,000 and 192,000 paces, or forty-eight mīls.
See Edward Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, 8 vols. (London: Williams, 1863), 1:185.
160 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

401. Mālik said, “Someone who intends to travel should not shorten his
prayers until he leaves the outskirts of the village, and he should not perform
the prayers in full until he has reached the outskirts of his destination, or
nearly so.”

Chapter 4. The Prayer (Ṣalāt) of a Traveler Who Is Uncertain Whether

He Will Stay or Go
402. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh that
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say, “I perform the prayers of a traveler so long as
I have not conclusively decided to stay in a location, even if I remain in the
same town for twelve nights, undecided whether to stay or to go.”
403. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that Ibn ʿUmar spent ten nights in
Mecca, shortening the performance of his prayers, except when he prayed
behind the imam, in which case he prayed as the imam did.

Chapter 5. The Prayer (Ṣalāt) of a Traveler Who Decides to Stay

404. According to Mālik, ʿAṭāʾ al-Khurasānī reported that he heard Saʿīd b.
al-Musayyab say, “Whoever decides to stay in a place for at least four nights
when traveling should perform the prayer in full.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said,
‘Of all the views that I have heard, this is the one I prefer most.’”
405. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about the prayers of a captive. He
answered, ‘He prays in the manner of someone who resides there.’”

Chapter 6. The Prayer (Ṣalāt) of the Traveler Who Is a Ruler or Who

Is Praying behind an Imam
406. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh,
from his father, that when ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb arrived in Mecca during his
term as caliph, he would lead the Meccans in the performance of two cycles
(rakʿa) of prayer, and then he would say, “People of Mecca! Complete your
prayer in full, for we are a band of travelers.”
407. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from his father, from ʿUmar
b. al-Khaṭṭāb, a similar report.
408. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would pray
four cycles behind the imam at Minā,149 but when he performed the prayer
by himself there, he would perform only two cycles.

149 Minā is a plain located outside of Mecca where many of the rites of the Pilgrimage, including
the symbolic stoning of the Devil, take place.
Book 9 161

409. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Ṣafwān b. ʿAbd Allāh b.
Ṣafwān said, “ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar came to pay a visit to ʿAbd Allāh b. Ṣafwān
when he was ill, and he led us in the performance of two cycles of prayer, at
which point he finished and we stood up and completed it.”

Chapter 7. Performing Supplementary Prayers (Ṣalāt) While

Traveling during the Day and While Riding a Beast of Burden
410. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that he
would not perform any prayer beyond the obligatory prayers, whether
before or after them, while traveling. In the dead of night, however, he
might pray on the ground or in the saddle of his camel, whichever way it
was facing.
411. According to Mālik, it reached him that al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad, ʿUrwa
b. al-Zubayr, and Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd al-Rahmān would perform supplementary
prayers while traveling.
412. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about the performance of supplementary
prayers while traveling. He said, ‘There is nothing objectionable in that,
whether at night or during the day. It has reached me that some of the
people of knowledge did so.’”
413. Mālik said, “It reached me that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would see his
son, ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh, performing supplementary prayers while
traveling, and he did not criticize him for it.”
414. According to Mālik, ʿAmr b. Yaḥyā al-Māzinī reported from Saʿīd b.
Yasār that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “I saw the Messenger of God (pbuh)
praying while seated on a donkey on his way to Khaybar.”
415. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported from ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar that the Messenger of God (pbuh) would pray in his saddle while
traveling, whichever direction his camel was facing. ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār said,
“ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would also do that.”
416. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “I once saw Anas b. Mālik
perform the prayer while seated on his donkey. He did not face the direction
of Mecca. He bowed and prostrated by motioning, without putting his face
on anything.”

Chapter 8. The Midmorning Prayer (Ṣalāt al-Ḍuḥā)

417. According to Mālik, Mūsā b. Maysara reported from Abū Murra,
the freedman (mawlā) of ʿAqīl b. Abī Ṭālib, that Umm Hānī, Abū Ṭālib’s
162 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

daughter, told him that in the year of the conquest of Mecca (ʿām al-fatḥ),150
the Messenger of God (pbuh) performed eight cycles (rakʿa) of prayer while
wrapped in a single garment.
418. According to Mālik, Abū al-Naḍr, the freedman of ʿUmar b. ʿUbayd Allāh,
reported that Abū Murra, the freedman of ʿAqīl b. Abī Ṭālib, told him that he
heard Umm Hānī, Abū Ṭālib’s daughter, say, “I went to the Messenger of God
(pbuh) in the year of the conquest of Mecca, and I found him bathing. His
daughter Fāṭima was screening him with a piece of cloth.” Umm Hānī said, “I
greeted him, and he said, ‘Who is that?’ I said, ‘I am Umm Hānī, Abū Ṭālib’s
daughter.’ He said, ‘Welcome, Umm Hānī.’ When he finished bathing, he got
up and performed eight cycles of prayer, wrapped in a single piece of cloth.
When he finished, I said, ‘Messenger of God, my brother, ʿAlī, has declared
his intention to kill a man whom I have placed under my protection, so-and-
so, the son of Hubayra.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘We have granted
our protection to whomever you have granted protection, Umm Hānī.’ Umm
Hānī said, ‘That was in the morning.’”
419. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr that
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said, “I never once saw the Messenger
of God (pbuh) perform the Midmorning Prayer (subḥat al-ḍuḥā),151 but I
myself like to do it. At times, the Messenger of God (pbuh) would abstain
from a practice he loved out of fear that the people might perform it and it
would become obligatory.”
420. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of
the Believers, would perform the Midmorning Prayer, which consisted of
eight cycles, and she would say upon their completion, “Even if my parents
were brought back to life for me, I would not give these up.”

Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Matters Related to the Midmorning Prayer

(Ṣalāt al-Ḍuḥā)
421. According to Mālik, Isḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa reported from
Anas b. Mālik that his grandmother, Mulayka, invited the Messenger of God
for food, and he ate some. Then the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Stand,
for I shall lead you in prayer.” Anas said, “I therefore stood up and brought
out a mat that had turned black from prolonged use, and sprinkled it with

150 The year of the conquest refers to the year in which the Prophet (pbuh) returned triumphant
to Mecca, year 9 of the Hijra (630 CE).
151 This text and others use the term subḥa in place of the more common word for prayer, ṣalāt,
to distinguish this prayer from the obligatory ones. However, subḥa seems to have become
archaic already by the time of Mālik, as indicated by the fact that he uses the more common
term ṣalāt to refer to the Midmorning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ḍuḥā) in the title of this chapter.
Book 9 163

some water. The Messenger of God (pbuh) stood on it, and the orphan and
I made a line behind him, and the old woman stood behind us. He led us in
the performance of two cycles (rakʿa) of prayer and then he left.”
422. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd that his father said, “I went to see ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
when the day was at its hottest and found him performing supplementary
prayers. I stood up behind him, and he motioned for me to stand beside
him, on his right. When Yarfaʾ came, I stepped back, and we formed a row
behind him.”

Chapter 10. The Admonition against Walking in Front of a Person

Performing Prayer
423. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b.
Abī Saʿīd al-Khudrī, from his father, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
“When someone is praying, he should not let anyone pass in front of him. He
should repel such a person to the extent he can; and if the person refuses,
he should fight him, for the person is most certainly a demon.”
424. According to Mālik, Abū al-Naḍr, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿUmar b.
ʿUbayd Allāh, reported from Busr b. Saʿīd that Zayd b. Khālid al-Juhanī
sent him to Abū Juhaym, asking him what he had heard the Messenger of
God (pbuh) say about a person who walks in front of someone performing
the prayer. Abū Juhaym said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘If the
person passing in front of someone praying knew the enormity of his
action, he would find it preferable to wait forty .  .  . rather than pass in
front of him.’” Abū al-Naḍr said, “I do not know whether he said forty days,
months, or years.”
425. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār that
Kaʿb al-Aḥbār said, “If the person passing in front of someone praying knew
the enormity of his action, he would prefer to have the earth swallow him
so as not to pass in front of him.”
426. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar did not like
to pass in front of women while they were praying.
427. According to Mālik, from Nāfiʿ, that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would not pass
in front of anyone who was praying, nor would he permit anyone to pass in
front of him while he prayed.
164 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 11. The Dispensation to Pass in Front of Someone

Performing Prayer
428. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās said, “I arrived riding a
female donkey—and I had just about come of age—while the Messenger
of God (pbuh) was leading the people in prayer at Minā. There was a row
of people praying, and I passed in front of some of them. I dismounted,
sent the donkey off to graze, and joined the row of worshippers. No one,
however, chided me for what I did.”
429. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ would pass
in front of some of the rows of worshippers while the prayer (ṣalāt) was in
progress. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘I believe there is a broad dispensation to
do that if the immediate call to prayer (iqāma) has been made, the imam
has just begun the prayer by magnifying God (saying “God is great,” Allāhu
akbar), and it is impossible to enter the mosque and join the congregation
without walking between the rows of worshippers.’”
430. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib said, “Nothing
that passes in front of a worshipper invalidates his prayer.”
431. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh that
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say, “Nothing that passes in front of a worshipper
invalidates his prayer.”

Chapter 12. The Traveler’s Barrier152 during Prayer

432. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would use
his camel as a barrier when performing his prayer.
433. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father would
pray in the desert without a barrier.

Chapter 13. Brushing Away Small Stones during Performance of the

Prayer (Ṣalāt)
434. According to Mālik, Abū Jaʿfar al-Qārī said, “I saw ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar,
when he prostrated during the prayer, gently brush away pebbles from the
place where his forehead would touch the ground.”
435. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that it reached him that
Abū Dharr would say, “Brushing away pebbles during performance of the

152 The Arabic term is sutra, and it refers to something that a worshipper uses as a kind of
marker to signal to others to avoid walking in front of him while he is performing his prayer.
Book 9 165

prayer may be done in only one sweep; but leaving them as they are is
better than having red camels.”153

Chapter 14. What Has Come Down regarding Straightening the Rows
for the Performance of Prayer
436. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb would
take care to ensure that the rows of worshippers were straight and would
magnify God (say “God is great,” Allāhu akbar) and begin performance of
the prayer only after he had been told that the rows had been straightened.
437. According to Mālik, his paternal uncle Abū Suhayl b. Mālik reported
that his father said, “I was with Uthmān b. ʿAffān when it was time to pray. I
was talking to him, asking him to give me an allowance from the treasury. I
continued to talk to him even as he busied himself by stamping down some
pebbles with his sandals. Finally, the men to whom he had delegated the
task of straightening the rows returned and informed him that the rows had
been straightened. He then said to me, ‘Join a line of worshippers,’ and then
he magnified God and began the prayer.”

Chapter 15. On Placing One Hand over the Other during Performance
of the Prayer (Ṣalāt)
438. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Karīm b. Abī al-Mukhāriq al-Baṣrī said,
“Some of the teachings of the prophets are ‘If you feel no shame, then do
as you please’; placing one hand on the other during the performance of
prayer, the right hand on the left; breaking the fast promptly; and delaying
the pre-dawn meal.”
439. According to Mālik, Abū Ḥāzim b. Dīnār reported that Sahl b. Saʿd
al-Sāʿidī said, “People were told to place the right hand on the left forearm
during the performance of prayer.” Abū Ḥāzim said, “I am certain that Sahl
attributed this to the Messenger of God (pbuh).”

Chapter 16. The Qunūt154 Supplication during the Morning Prayer

(Ṣalāt al-Ṣubḥ)
440. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar did not
utter the qunūt supplication during the performance of any prayer (ṣalāt).

153 “Red camels” (ḥumr al-naʿam) is an Arabic expression signifying good fortune.
154 Qunūt is the name of a supplication which, according to the Mālikīs, is made in the second
cycle of the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ) while the worshipper is standing upright after
finishing recitation of the Quran but before bowing.
166 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 17. The Prohibition against Performing the Prayer (Ṣalāt)

When One Needs to Relieve Oneself
441. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that ʿAbd
Allāh b. al-Arqam would lead his companions in prayer. One day, when they
were about to perform a prayer, he went to relieve himself, and when he
returned, he said, “I heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) say, ‘Should anyone
need to defecate, he should do so before praying.’”
442. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
said, “Let no one pray while squeezing his thighs tightly together.”

Chapter 18. Waiting for the Prayer (Ṣalāt) and Walking to the Mosque
to Perform It
443. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “The angels invoke God’s
blessings on anyone who lingers in the place where he performs his prayers,
as long as he does not do anything to change his condition (mā lam yuḥdith).
The angels say, ‘God, forgive him! God, have mercy on him!’” Yaḥyā said,
“Mālik said, ‘I think his words “as long as he does not change his condition”
refer to any act that invalidates ablutions.’”155
444. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “A person is in a continuous
state of prayer even if he is not performing a prayer as long as the thought of
prayer preoccupies him, there being nothing stopping him from returning
to his family other than his decision to wait to pray.”
445. According to Mālik, Sumayy, the freedman (mawlā) of Abū Bakr,
reported that Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān would say, “A person who sets
out for the mosque in the morning or in the afternoon, with no other
intention than to learn or to teach something good there, and then returns
to his house is like a warrior fighting for the sake of God who has returned
victorious with spoils.”
446. According to Mālik, Nuʿaym b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Mujmir reported that he
heard Abū Hurayra say, “If someone prays and then sits down in the place in
which he prayed, the angels continue to bless him, saying, ‘God, forgive him!
God, have mercy on him!’ If he gets up and leaves that place and sits down
elsewhere in the mosque to await the next prayer, he remains in a state of
prayer until he performs it.”

155 Such acts include passing gas and relieving oneself.

Book 9 167

447. According to Mālik, al-ʿAlāʾ b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Yaʿqūb reported from

his father, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Shall
I not tell you about the deeds through which God absolves your sins and
raises your spiritual rank?156 Performing your ablutions diligently when you
are beset by adverse circumstances; walking great distances to the mosque;
and waiting for one prayer after another. That indeed is vigilant defense of
your outpost! That indeed is vigilant defense of your outpost! That indeed
is vigilant defense of your outpost!”157
448. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab said, “It
is said that anyone who leaves the mosque after the call to prayer has been
made without intending to return to join the congregation is a hypocrite.”
449. According to Mālik, ʿĀmir b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr reported from
ʿAmr b. Sulaym al-Zuraqī, from Abū Qatāda al-Anṣārī, that the Messenger
of God (pbuh) said, “When someone enters the mosque, he should perform
two cycles of prayer before he sits down.”
450. According to Mālik, Abū al-Naḍr, the freedman of ʿUmar b. ʿUbayd
Allāh, reported that Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said to him, “Didn’t I
see your master sit down without praying when he entered the mosque?”
Abū al-Naḍr said, “He was referring to ʿUmar b. ʿUbayd Allāh, whom he was
criticizing because ʿUmar entered the mosque and sat down before praying.”
Mālik said, “When someone enters the mosque, it is good for him to perform
two cycles (rakʿa) of prayer before he sits down, but it is not obligatory.”

Chapter 19. Placing the Hands on the Surface on Which One Places
One’s Face during Prostration
451. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that when ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
prostrated, he would place the palms of his hands on the very surface on
which he would put his face. Nāfiʿ said, “I saw him on a very cold day take
his hands out from under his cloak and place them on the stony ground.”
452. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“Whoever places his forehead on the ground in prostration should also
place the palms of his hands there; and when he sits up, he should lift them
from the ground, for the hands prostrate just like the face.”

156 In Islamic eschatology, there are levels of punishment and reward. The closer one is to God in
this life, the higher one’s spiritual rank in the next life will be.
157 “Outpost” is the English translation of ribāṭ, which means a frontier outpost. Here the word is
an allusion to the virtue of those serving in frontier outposts, guarding the frontiers of Islam
against enemy attack.
168 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 20. Turning and Clapping during the Performance of Prayer

(Ṣalāt) When There Is a Need
453. According to Mālik, Abū Ḥāzim b. Dīnār reported from Sahl b. Saʿd
al-Sāʿidī that the Messenger of God (pbuh) went to the clan of Banū ʿAmr b.
ʿAwf to resolve a dispute that had broken out among them. The time to pray
came, and the muezzin went to Abū Bakr and said, “Are you going to lead the
people in the prayer, in which case I will make the immediate call to prayer
(iqāma)?” Abū Bakr said, “Yes,” and he began to pray. The Messenger of God
(pbuh) then came and found the people praying. He continued walking
until he stood in the first row. The people clapped when they noticed the
Messenger of God (pbuh), but Abū Bakr was not one to turn around in his
prayer. Only after the congregants’ clapping became intense did Abū Bakr
turn around and see the Messenger of God (pbuh). The Messenger of God
(pbuh) motioned for him to stay put. Abū Bakr raised his hands and praised
God in response to the command of the Messenger of God (pbuh). Then he
stepped back until he stood in the first row. Then the Messenger of God
(pbuh) stepped forward and led the prayer. When he finished, he said,
“Abū Bakr, why didn’t you stay where you were, as I instructed you?” Abū
Bakr said, “It is not appropriate for Ibn Abī Quḥāfa158 to pray in front of
the Messenger of God (pbuh).” The Messenger of God (pbuh) then said to
the congregants, “Why did you all clap so much? When something happens
during the prayer, the men should say, ‘Glory be to God’ (Subḥāna ’llāh).
When the men say, ‘Glory be to God,’ the imam will pay attention. Only
women should clap.”
454. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that Ibn ʿUmar did not turn around
when performing his prayer.
455. According to Mālik, Abū Jaʿfar al-Qārī said, “I was praying, and ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUmar was behind me, but I did not realize it. I then turned around,
and he prodded me disapprovingly.”

Chapter 21. What One Should Do When Joining the Prayer While the
Imam Is Bowing
456. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Abū Umāma b. Sahl b.
Ḥunayf said, “Zayd b. Thābit entered the mosque and found the people
bowing, so he bowed and then advanced slowly until he reached the row
of worshippers.”

158 “Ibn Abī Quḥāfa” is a tongue-in-cheek reference by Abū Bakr to himself. “Abū Quḥāfa” was the
name of his father, so “Ibn Abī Quḥāfa” is the “son of Abū Quḥāfa,” i.e., Abū Bakr.
Book 9 169

457. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd would
move forward slowly while bowing.

Chapter 22. What Has Come Down regarding Invocation of God’s

Grace on the Prophet (pbuh)
458. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Ḥazm reported from his
father that ʿAmr b. Sulaym al-Zuraqī said, “Abū Ḥumayd al-Sāʿidī told me
that they said, ‘Messenger of God, how do we invoke God’s grace upon you?’
He said, ‘Say, “God, grace Muḥammad and his wives and his offspring, just
as You graced the family of Abraham; bless Muḥammad and his wives and
his offspring, just as You blessed the family of Abraham. You are worthy of
praise and glorious.”’”159
459. According to Mālik, Nuʿaym b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Mujmir reported that
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Zayd al-Anṣārī told him that Abū Masʿūd
al-Anṣārī said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) came to us when we were
at Saʿd b. ʿUbāda’s gathering.160 Bashīr b. Saʿd said to the Messenger of God
(pbuh), ‘God has commanded us to invoke His grace upon you, Messenger of
God, but how should we do that?’” Abū Masʿūd said, “The Messenger of God
(pbuh) remained so silent that we wished Bashīr had not asked him. The
Messenger of God (pbuh) then said, ‘Say, “God, grace Muḥammad and the
family of Muḥammad, just as You graced Abraham, and bless Muḥammad
and the family of Muḥammad, just as You blessed the family of Abraham,
among all creatures; You are worthy of praise and glorious,” and then say
the “peace,”161 as you have already learned it.’”162
460. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār said, “I saw ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
standing at the grave of the Messenger of God (pbuh), invoking God’s grace
on the Messenger of God (pbuh) and on Abū Bakr and ʿUmar.”

159 Allāhumma ṣalli ʿalā Muḥammadin wa-azwājihi wa-dhurriyyatihi kamā ṣallayta ʿalā āli
Ibrāhīm, wa-bārik ʿalā Muḥammadin wa-azwājihi wa-dhurriyyatihi kamā bārakta ʿalā āli
Ibrāhīm, innaka ḥamīdun majīd.
160 Saʿd b. ʿUbāda was the chief of the Khazraj, one of the two leading tribes of Medina before the
Prophet Muḥammad’s arrival. As the tribal chief, he would regularly meet with the leading
men of the tribe.
161 That is, “And peace be upon you, Prophet, and God’s mercy and His blessings.” The editors
of the RME note that the principal source manuscript included a note on the margin stating
that the “peace” was a reference to this phrase, which is taken from the attestation of faith
(tashahhud). See Book 3 (The First Book of Prayer), chapter 13.
162 The Arabic text of the prayer is Allāhumma ṣalli ʿalā Muḥammadin wa-ʿalā āli Muḥamma-
din kamā ṣallayta ʿalā Ibrāhīm, wa-bārik ʿalā Muḥammadin wa-ʿalā āli Muḥammadin kamā
bārakta ʿalā āli Ibrāhīm, fī ’l-ʿālamīn, innaka ḥamīdun majīd.
170 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 23. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to Miscellaneous

Matters Related to Prayer (Ṣalāt)
461. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from Ibn ʿUmar that the Messenger of
God (pbuh) would perform two cycles (rakʿa) of prayer before and after the
Noon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ẓuhr), and after the Sunset Prayer (ṣalāt al-maghrib)
he would perform two cycles at home. He would also perform two cycles of
prayer after the Evening Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿishāʾ). He would not, however, pray
after the Friday Congregational Prayer (ṣalāt al-jumuʿa) until he had left the
mosque and gone home, where he would perform two cycles of prayer.
462. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “You see me standing
in prayer in front of you. By God, neither your inner reverence nor your
outward actions163 during prayer are concealed from me, for I can see you
from behind my back.”
463. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from Ibn ʿUmar that the Messenger of
God (pbuh) would go to Qubāʾ, sometimes riding and at other times walking.
464. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from al-Nuʿmān b. Murra that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “What do you all believe about a drunkard,
a thief, and a fornicator?” That was before specific rules about them had been
revealed. They said, “God and His Messenger know best.” He said, “These are
vile deeds, and they warrant punishment. But the worst of thieves is the one
who steals his prayer.” They said, “How does one steal his prayer, Messenger
of God?” He said, “He neither bows nor prostrates diligently.”
465. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Perform some of your prayers at home.”
466. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“If a man is too ill to prostrate, he should motion with his head, not raise
something to his forehead.”
467. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported that if ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿUmar arrived at the mosque after the people had already performed the
obligatory prayer, he would perform it immediately and not pray anything
before it.
468. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar passed in
front of a man who was praying and greeted him. The man said something
in reply, so ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar returned to him and said, “If someone is

163 In Arabic, khushūʿikum wa-rukūʿikum. We have understood the latter term as referring to the
outward actions of the prayer in general, not just bowing.
Book 9 171

greeted while he is praying, he should not reply using speech. Rather, he

should wave with his hand.”
469. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that Ibn ʿUmar would say, “If someone
forgets to perform a prayer and remembers it only when he is praying with
the imam, he should continue praying with the imam. Then, when the imam
finishes that prayer, he should perform the prayer that he forgot and then
repeat the other prayer that he previously performed with the imam.”
470. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā
b. Ḥabbān that his paternal uncle Wāsiʿ b. Ḥabbān said, “I was performing
my prayer, and ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar was resting his back against the wall
in the direction of Mecca. When I finished praying, I got up, turned left,
and went to him. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar then said, ‘Why didn’t you turn to the
right?’” Wāsiʿ said, “I said, ‘I saw you, so I came over.’ ʿAbd Allāh said, ‘You
did well! Some might say, “Turn to your right,” but when someone prays, he
may leave in either direction, to his right or his left.’”
471. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father, from
an Emigrant man164 whom he believed trustworthy, that he had asked ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣī, “Can I pray where camels rest next to their watering
holes?” ʿAbd Allāh answered, “No; however, you can pray in a paddock for
sheep and goats.”
472. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
said, “In which prayer does one sit for every cycle?” Saʿīd answered, “The
Evening Prayer, if one misses one cycle with the imam.” Mālik said, “That is
the long-established ordinance (al-sunna) for all prayers, namely, that one
sits for the cycle that one has missed.”

Chapter 24. Miscellaneous Matters Related to the Performance of

Prayer (Ṣalāt)
473. According to Mālik, ʿĀmir b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr reported from ʿAmr
b. Sulaym al-Zuraqī, from Abū Qatāda al-Anṣārī, that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) would pray while carrying Umāma bt. Zaynab, the granddaughter
of the Messenger of God (pbuh) and the daughter of Abū al-ʿĀṣ b. Rabīʿa b.
ʿAbd Shams. When the Messenger of God (pbuh) prostrated, he would put
her down, and when he stood up, he would lift her up again.

164 The Emigrants (muhājirūn) were those Muslims who emigrated from Mecca to Medina, in
contrast to the Muslims native to Medina, who were called the “helpers” (anṣār).
172 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

474. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of Allāh (pbuh) said, “Angels come to you in
turns, one after the other; some by night, and others by day. They meet at
the times of the Afternoon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿaṣr) and the Dawn Prayer (ṣalāt
al-fajr). Those who have passed the night with you ascend, and God asks
them—although He knows more than they do—‘In what condition did you
leave my servants?’ They say, ‘When we left them, they were praying, and
when we came to them, they were praying.’”
475. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father, from
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “Tell165 Abū Bakr to lead the congregation in prayer.” ʿĀʾisha said,
“Messenger of God, if Abū Bakr takes your place, his weeping will obscure
his voice, so the congregation will not hear him. Ask ʿUmar instead to lead
the congregation in prayer.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) again said, “Tell
Abū Bakr to lead the congregation in prayer.” ʿĀʾisha said, “So I said to Ḥafṣa,
‘Tell the Messenger of God (pbuh), “If Abū Bakr takes your place, his weeping
will obscure his voice, and the congregation will not hear him. Ask ʿUmar
instead to lead the congregation in prayer.”’ So she did.” The Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, “You are exactly like the women who betrayed Joseph.”
Then he said, “Tell Abū Bakr to lead the congregation in prayer!” Ḥafṣa said
to ʿĀʾisha, “No good has ever come to me from listening to you.”
476. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yazīd al-Laythī
that ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAdī b. al-Khiyār said, “When the Messenger of God
(pbuh) was sitting with some people, a man approached him and spoke
secretly to him. No one knew what the man had secretly told the Messenger
of God (pbuh) until the Messenger of God (pbuh) spoke up. It turned out that
he wanted permission to kill one of the hypocrites.166 When the Messenger
of God (pbuh) spoke up, he said to the man, ‘Doesn’t that man attest that
there is no god but God, and that Muḥammad is the Messenger of God?’
The man answered, ‘Yes, indeed, but it is mere speech, and he has not said
it sincerely.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Does he not perform the
prayers?’ The man said, ‘Yes, indeed, but only outwardly; he does not pray
sincerely.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Those are precisely the ones
whom God has forbidden me to kill.’”
477. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār that
the Messenger of God said, “God, do not make my grave an object that is

165 The imperative is in the plural (murū) and not directed at ʿĀʾisha personally.
166 The term “hypocrites” refers to a group of people in Medina who had outwardly embraced
Islam but were not sincere followers of the Prophet Muḥammad and who secretly hoped for
his defeat at the hands of his enemies.
Book 9 173

worshipped!” Then he said, “God’s wrath fell on those who made the graves
of their Prophets into shrines.”167
478. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Maḥmūd b. Labīd
al-Anṣārī168 that ʿItbān b. Mālik, who was blind, would lead his people in
prayer, and that he said to the Messenger of God (pbuh), “Sometimes it is
dark, or it rains or floods, and I am blind, so I can’t make it to the mosque.
Therefore, Messenger of God, please pray in a certain spot in my house so
that I may use it as a regular place of prayer.” The Messenger of God (pbuh)
went to his home and said, “Where would you like me to pray?” The man
pointed out to him a spot in his house, and the Messenger of God (pbuh)
prayed there.
479. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿAbbād b. Tamīm, from
his paternal uncle,169 that he saw the Messenger of God (pbuh) lying down
in the mosque, with one foot on top of the other.
480. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb and ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān would do likewise.
481. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd
said to someone, “You are living in a time when those who understand
the Quran are many, but those who recite it are few; when the Quran’s
ordinances are preserved, but its wording is lost; when few beg, but many
give; when prayers are long, but sermons are short; and when good deeds
are preferred over desires. There will come a time, however, when those
who understand the Quran will be few, but those who recite it many; when
the wording of the Quran will be preserved, but its ordinances lost; when
many will beg, but few give; when the sermons are long, but the prayers
short; and when desires are preferred over good deeds.”
482. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “It has reached me that prayer
will be considered before a servant’s all other deeds. If God accepts his
prayer, the rest of his deeds will be considered; however, if He does not
accept it, none of the servant’s other deeds will even be considered.”

167 Zurqānī glosses this report with the comment that the word masājid, which ordinarily means
“places of worship,” is here intended either in its literal sense, i.e., as a place of prostration,
or in the sense of direction of prayer. Consequently, the wrath of God would befall those who
prostrate themselves on the graves of their prophets or worship the prophets’ tombs. Zur-
qānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 1:595.
168 Other narrators of the Muwaṭṭaʾ identify this narrator as Maḥmūd b. Rabīʿ. Zurqānī, Sharḥ
al-Zurqānī, 1:596.
169 He is ʿAbd Allāh b. Zayd b. ʿĀṣim al-Māzinī.
174 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

483. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said, “The good deeds that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) loved the most were those that were performed
constantly.”
484. According to Mālik, ʿĀmir b. Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ reported that his father
said, “There were two brothers, and one of them died forty nights before
the other. The virtues of the first were mentioned in the presence of the
Messenger of God (pbuh), so he said, ‘Was the other brother not a Muslim?’
They said, ‘He was, and not a bad one.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
‘Do you know what station he reached by virtue of his prayers? Prayer is
like having a deep river at your door’s edge, into which you plunge five
times every day. How much filth do you think would remain? You certainly
cannot imagine the station he reached simply by virtue of his prayers.”
485. According to Mālik, it reached him that whenever a peddler selling
goods would pass in front of ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār in the mosque, the latter would
call to him and ask, “What detained170 you here, and what do you want?” If
the peddler told him that he wanted to sell him something, ʿAṭāʾ would say
to him, “Go to the market of this world, for this is exclusively the market of
the Hereafter.”
486. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb built a
courtyard near a corner of the mosque called al-Buṭayḥāʾ and said, “If
someone wants to engage in idle talk, recite poetry, or raise his voice, he
should go there.”

Chapter 25. Miscellaneous Reports Encouraging the Performance of

Prayer (Ṣalāt)
487. According to Mālik, his paternal uncle Abū Suhayl b. Mālik reported
from his father that he heard Ṭalḥa b. ʿUbayd Allāh say, “A man from Najd171
came to the Messenger of God (pbuh). His hair was disheveled and he spoke
in a loud voice, but we could not make out what he was saying. It was not
until he drew close to the Messenger of God (pbuh) that we discovered
that he was asking about Islam. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to him,
‘There are five prayers during the day and the night.’ The man said, ‘Are
there any other prayers I am obliged to perform?’ The Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, ‘No, except if you choose to pray more.’ The Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, ‘And fasting the month of Ramadan.’ The man asked, ‘Am

170 The text of the RME uses the Arabic expression mā manaʿaka. Other transmissions of the
Muwaṭṭaʾ instead read mā maʿaka (“What is with you?”).
171 A region of the central Arabian Peninsula to the east of the Hijaz.
Book 9 175

I obliged to fast additional days?’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘No,
except if you choose to fast more.’ Then the Messenger of God (pbuh) spoke
of the alms-tax (zakāt). The man asked, ‘Am I obliged to give away anything
more?’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘No, except if you choose to give
more.’ The man walked away, saying, ‘By God, I shall do neither more nor
less than this.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘He will be successful, if
he is telling the truth.’”
488. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “When people are asleep,
Satan ties three knots at the back of their heads, and as he tightens each
knot, he says, ‘A long night lies ahead of you, so sleep well!’ If someone wakes
up and manages to remember God, the first knot is undone. If he performs
ablutions, the second is undone. If he prays, the third is undone, and so he
awakes with a spring in his step, and in good spirits; however, if he sleeps
through the night, in the morning he awakes ill-tempered and lazy.”
 Book 10
The Book of the Two Feasts (ʿĪd)

Chapter 1. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to Bathing (Ghusl) for

the Two Feasts (ʿĪd), the General Call (Adhān) to the Feast Prayers
(Ṣalāt al-ʿĪd), and the Immediate Call to Perform Them (Iqāma)
489. According to Mālik, he heard several of their knowledgeable men172
say, “There has never been a general call to prayer or an immediate call to
prayer prior to the performance of the prayers for the Feast of Breaking the
Ramadan Fast (ʿīd al-fiṭr) or the Feast of the Sacrificial Animals (ʿīd al-aḍḥā)
from the time of the Messenger of God (pbuh) down to this day.” Mālik said,
“That is the long-established ordinance among us about which there is no
dissent (al-sunna allatī lā ikhtilāfa fīhā ʿindanā).”173
490. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would bathe
on the day of the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast before he headed out
early in the morning to the spot where the prayer would be performed.

Chapter 2. The Command to Perform the Prayer before the Sermons

Are Delivered for the Feast Prayers (Ṣalāt al-ʿĪd)
491. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) would perform the prayer for the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan
Fast (ʿīd al-fiṭr) and for the Feast of the Sacrificial Animals (ʿīd al-aḍḥā)
before delivering the sermon.
492. According to Mālik, it reached him that Abū Bakr and ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb would do the same.

172 That is, learned men from the generation of the Followers, those who succeeded the Com-
panions of the Messenger of God (pbuh) and met them, prayed with them, learned from
them, and then taught those who came after them. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 1:315.
173 Wymann-Landgraf, Mālik and Medina, 293. According to the classical Arabic dictionary Lisān
al-ʿArab, the term aḍḥā is the plural of aḍḥāh, which means a sacrificial animal. We have
therefore translated ʿīd al-aḍḥā as “the Feast of the Sacrificial Animals.”

177
178 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

493. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Abū ʿUbayd, the freedman
(mawlā) of Ibn Azhar, said, “I attended the Feast Prayers when ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb was caliph. He performed the prayer, and when he finished, he
gave a sermon to the congregants, in which he said, ‘The Messenger of God
(pbuh) has indeed prohibited you from fasting on these two days: the day
you conclude the fast of Ramadan and the day you eat from your sacrificial
animals.’” Abū ʿUbayd said, “I was also present for the Feast Prayers when
ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān was caliph. He came and performed the prayer, and when
he finished, he gave a sermon, in which he said, ‘It is the case that today two
feasts of yours have fallen on the same day.174 Anyone from ʿĀliya175 is free to
remain here to perform the Friday Congregational Prayer (ṣalāt al-jumuʿa) or
to return home, as he wishes.’” Abū ʿUbayd said, “Then I was also present for
the Feast Prayers when ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib performed them—when ʿUthmān was
besieged. ʿAlī came and prayed, and when he finished, he gave the sermon.”

Chapter 3. The Command to Eat before Heading Out on the Morning

of the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast (ʿĪd al-Fiṭr)
494. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
he would eat on the day of the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast before
going out in the morning to perform the prayer.
495. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
informed him that the people were instructed to eat on the day of the Feast
of Breaking the Ramadan Fast before going out in the morning to perform
the prayer. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘I do not think that people are required
to do that on the day of the Feast of the Sacrificial Animals (ʿīd al-aḍḥā).’”

Chapter 4. What Has Come Down regarding Magnifying God (Saying

“God Is Great,” Allāhu Akbar) and Reciting the Quran during the
Performance of the Feast Prayers (Ṣalāt al-ʿĪd)
496. According to Mālik, Ḍamra b. Saʿīd al-Māzinī reported from ʿUbayd
Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb asked Abū
Wāqid al-Laythī about what the Messenger of God (pbuh) would recite in
the prayers for the Feast of the Sacrificial Animals (ʿīd al-aḍḥā) and the
Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast (ʿīd al-fiṭr). He said, “He would recite
‘Qāf, by the Glorious Quran’ (Qāf wa’l-Qurʾān al-majīd) and ‘The Hour is
nigh, and the moon has been cleft in two’ (Iqtarabat al-sāʿatu wa’nshaqqa
al-qamar).”176

174 That is, the Feast Day had fallen on a Friday, which is a metaphorical feast day.
175 A place approximately 3 km from Medina.
176 The first verses of the Quran’s fiftieth and eighty-fifth chapters, respectively.
Book 10 179

497. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ, the freedman of ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, said,
“I attended the Feast Prayers for both the Feast of the Sacrificial Animals
and the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast when Abū Hurayra performed
them. He would magnify God seven times in the first cycle (rakʿa) of the
prayer before reciting the Fātiḥa and five times in the second cycle of the
prayer before reciting the Fātiḥa.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘That is the rule
among us (dhālika al-amr ʿindanā).’”
498. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding someone who arrives at the place
where the Feast Prayer is to be performed only to find that the people have
already performed it, ‘He is not obliged to perform the Feast Prayer, whether
in that place or at home. If he does perform the Feast Prayer, whether there
or at home, however, there is nothing objectionable in that. He should
magnify God seven times in the first cycle of the prayer before reciting the
Fātiḥa and five times in the second cycle before reciting the Fātiḥa.’”

Chapter 5. Refraining from Performing Supplementary Prayers

(Ṣalāt) before and after the Feast Prayers (Ṣalāt al-ʿĪd)
499. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar did not
perform any supplementary prayers on the day of the Feast of Breaking the
Ramadan Fast (ʿīd al-fiṭr), either before or after the Feast Prayer.
500. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, after
performing the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ), would set out before the
sun rose to the place where the Feast Prayer was to be performed.

Chapter 6. The Dispensation to Perform Supplementary Prayers

(Ṣalāt) before and after the Feast Prayers (Ṣalāt al-ʿĪd)
501. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported that his father
would perform four cycles of supplementary prayers before he set out early
in the morning to the place where the Feast Prayer was to be performed.
502. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that he
would perform supplementary prayers in the mosque on the day of the
Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast (ʿīd al-fiṭr) before the performance of
the Feast Prayer.

Chapter 7. The Early Morning Departure of the Ruler (Imām) on Feast

Day (ʿĪd), and Waiting for the Sermon
503. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘It has long been the established ordinance
about which there is no dissent among us (maḍat al-sunna allatī lā ikhtilāfa
180 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

fīhā ʿindanā) that the ruler sets out from his home to the place where the
Feast Prayer is to be performed at a time that allows him to arrive there
shortly after the sun rises, when it has become permissible to perform the
Feast Prayer.’”
504. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether a man who performs the prayer
for the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast (ʿīd al-fiṭr) with the imam may
leave before he hears the sermon. Mālik said, ‘He should not leave until the
imam leaves.’”
 Book 11
The Book of the Prayer of Danger (Ṣalāt al-Khawf)

Chapter 1. The Prayer of Danger (Ṣalāt al-Khawf)177

505. According to Mālik, Yazīd b. Rūmān reported from Ṣāliḥ b. Khawwāt,
from someone178 who had performed the Prayer of Danger (ṣalāt al-khawf)
with the Messenger of God (pbuh) at the Battle of Dhāt al-Riqāʿ,179 that one
group of soldiers formed a row with him, while another faced the enemy.
The Messenger of God (pbuh) performed one cycle (rakʿa) of the prayer
with the group that was with him. Then he stood up and remained standing
while they finished the second cycle of prayer themselves. Then they left and
went to face the enemy. The other group then came, and so the Messenger
of God (pbuh) prayed with them the one cycle of prayer that remained of
his prayer. Then he remained seated while they finished by performing one
cycle by themselves, and then he concluded the prayer by saying “Peace be
upon you” (taslīm) with them.
506. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from al-Qāsim b.
Muḥammad, from Ṣāliḥ b. Khawwāt al-Anṣārī, that Sahl b. Abī Ḥathma
al-Anṣārī told him that the Prayer of Danger is performed in the following
manner: the imam stands with a group of soldiers while another group
faces the enemy. The imam performs one cycle of prayer, prostrating with
those who are with him. Then he stands up, and once he has arisen, he waits
while they conclude the remaining cycle of prayer themselves. They finish
their prayer, saying “Peace be upon you,” and leave and go face the enemy,

177 As is clear from the texts included in this chapter, this form of prayer is particular to soldiers
on a battlefield who are facing the enemy in combat.
178 Zurqanī identifies this anonymous source as either Sahl b. Abī Ḥathma or Ṣāliḥ b. Khawwāt’s
father, Khawwāt b. Jubayr, giving greater probability to the latter. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī,
1:624.
179 According to the editors of the RME, the battle of Dhāt al-Riqāʿ took place in year 5 of the
Hijra (626 CE). It was named after the multi-hued mountain where the battle took place, or
on account of the multicolored banners that were flown by those fighting that day, or because
many of the Muslims who fought in the battle suffered bloody feet from marching barefooted
to the battlefield, which forced them to tie rags around their feet.

181
182 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

while the imam remains standing in place. Then the other soldiers who
have not yet prayed come and form a row behind the imam and join the
prayer by magnifying God (saying “God is great,” Allāhu akbar).180 The imam
then bows and prostrates with them and concludes his prayer by saying
“Peace be upon you.” The soldiers then stand up and conclude the second
cycle of prayer on their own, and then they finish their prayer by saying
“Peace be upon you.”
507. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that when ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar was
asked about the Prayer of Danger, he would say, “The imam and a group
of soldiers step forward, and he performs one cycle of prayer with them,
while another group, which has not yet prayed, stands between him and
the enemy. When those who are with him have performed one cycle of
the prayer, they change places with those who have not yet prayed—but
because they have not yet finished their prayer, they do not say ‘Peace be
upon you.’ Then the other group performs one cycle of the prayer with the
imam. The imam then leaves, having finished his prayer by performing two
cycles. Then each person in the two groups performs one cycle of prayer
by himself. In this way, everyone in both groups will have performed two
cycles of prayer. If it is too dangerous to follow this procedure, they should
pray standing on their feet, or on their mounts, whether or not they are
facing the direction of prayer.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said that Nāfiʿ said, ‘I
believe that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar related this procedure from none other
than the Messenger of God (pbuh).’”
508. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) performed neither the Noon Prayer
(ṣalāt al-ẓuhr) nor the Afternoon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿaṣr) at the Battle of the
Trench until the sun had set.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Of all that I have heard
regarding the Prayer of Danger, the report of al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad181
from Ṣāliḥ b. Khawwāt is, in my opinion, the best.’”

Chapter 2. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to the Performance of

the Prayer on the Occasion of a Solar Eclipse (Ṣalāt Kusūf al-Shams)
509. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said, “A solar eclipse occurred in
the time of the Prophet (pbuh), so he led the people in prayer. He stood and
continued to stand for a long time, and then he bowed for a long time. He

180 This is the takbīrat al-iḥrām, which indicates that the worshipper has entered the state of
formal prayer. He exits this state by concluding the prayer through the taslīm, which involves
turning his head to the right and saying Al-salām ʿalaykum (“May peace be upon you”).
181 That is, hadith no. 506 above.
Book 11 183

then stood again for a long time, though not as long as before, and again
bowed for a long time, but not as long as before. Then he stood up, and
then prostrated. He did the same in the last cycle of the prayer (rakʿa). He
then concluded the prayer, and the sun had reappeared. He gave a sermon,
praised God, and then said, ‘The sun and the moon are among God’s signs.
They are not blotted out from the sky on account of anyone’s birth or death.
When you see an eclipse, call out to God as supplicants, magnify Him, and
give charity freely.’ Then he said, ‘Community of Muḥammad! By God, no one
is angrier at the adultery of his servant or handmaiden than God Himself.
Community of Muḥammad! By God, if you knew what I know, you would
laugh little and weep much.’”
510. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār that
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās said, “A solar eclipse occurred, so the Messenger of
God (pbuh) prayed, and the people prayed with him. He remained standing
for a lengthy time, approximately the time it takes to recite ‘The Cow’
(al-Baqara).”182 ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās said, “Then he bowed for a lengthy
time. He then rose and stood for a long time, but not as long as before.
Then he bowed again for a long time, but not as long as before. Then he
prostrated. Then he stood up and remained standing for a long time, though
not as long as before. Then he bowed for a long time, though not as long as
before. He then rose and stood for a long time, though not as long as before.
Then he bowed for a long time, though not as long as before. Then he
prostrated. Then he finished, and the sun had reappeared. The Messenger
of God (pbuh) then said, ‘The sun and the moon are two of God’s signs.
They are not blotted out from the sky on account of anyone’s birth or death.
When you see an eclipse, remember God.’ They said, ‘Messenger of God! We
noticed that you reached out for something while you were standing there,
and then we saw you retreat.’ He said, ‘I saw Paradise, and I reached out
for a bunch of its grapes, and had I taken them, you would have eaten from
them for as long as the world endured. Then I saw Hell, and I had never seen
anything like it before.183 And I saw that most of its denizens are women.’
They said, ‘Why, Messenger of God?’ He said, ‘Because of their ingratitude.’
Someone said, ‘Are those women ungrateful to God?’ He said, ‘No, they are
ungrateful to their husbands, and they are ungrateful for their husbands’
kindness toward them. Even if a husband had always been kind to one of
them, were she ever to see something bad from him, she would say, “I have
never seen any good come from you.”’”

182 The second and longest chapter of the Quran.

183 Another narration of the Muwaṭṭaʾ includes the phrase afẓaʿ (“more shocking”). Zurqānī,
Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 1:636.
184 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

511. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān, from ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that a Jewish
woman came to her, begging. The Jewish woman said to ʿĀʾisha, “May God
protect you from the torment of the grave (ʿadhāb al-qabr).” ʿĀʾisha asked
the Messenger of God, “Is it true that people are tormented in their graves?”
The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “I seek God’s protection from that.”184
Then, one morning, the Messenger of God (pbuh) set out on a mount,
but there was a solar eclipse, so he returned by midmorning, passing by
his wives’ homes. He stood to pray, and the people stood behind him. He
stood for a long time and then bowed for a long time. Then he stood up
and remained standing for a long time, though not as long as before. Then
he bowed for a long time, though not as long as before. Then he stood up,
and then prostrated. Then he stood up and remained standing for a long
time, though not as long as before. Then he bowed for a long time, though
not as long as before. Then he stood up and remained standing for a long
time, though not as long as before. Then he bowed for a long time, though
not as long as before. Then he stood up again, and then prostrated. Then he
finished the prayer and said whatever God wished him to say, and then he
ordered them to seek God’s protection from the torment of the grave.

Chapter 3. What Has Come Down regarding the Prayer of the Eclipse
(Ṣalāt al-Kusūf)
512. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from Fāṭima bt.
al-Mundhir that Asmāʾ bt. Abī Bakr said, “I went to see ʿĀʾisha, the wife of
the Prophet (pbuh), during a solar eclipse, and I found the people standing
there in prayer, including her. So I said, ‘What’s going on? Why is everyone
praying?’ ʿĀʾisha pointed toward the sky and said, ‘Glory be to God!’ So I
said, ‘Is the eclipse a sign?’ She nodded her head in agreement.” Asmāʾ said,
“I therefore joined them and stood until I almost fainted, and so I began to
pour water over my head. The Messenger of God (pbuh) then praised God
and commended Him, and then said, ‘There were things I had never seen
before, but I have now seen them while standing in this very spot, even
Heaven and Hell. It has been revealed to me that you will be tried in your
graves, like (or close to) the way the Antichrist (al-dajjāl)185 will try you.’”
(I, Fāṭima, do not know which of the two phrases Asmāʾ used.) Asmāʾ said,

184 Bājī suggests that this report bears two possible meanings. The first is that the Prophet
(pbuh) was seeking God’s protection from the possibility that people could be tormented in
their graves. The second assumes that the torment is real and that the Prophet (pbuh) was
seeking God’s protection from it. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 1:329.
185 Al-dajjāl is a figure that features in Islamic eschatology and plays a role similar to that of the
Antichrist in Christian eschatology as a false messiah who will seduce countless people to
follow him before the appearance of the true messiah, who will defeat him.
Book 11 185

“Each of you in his grave will be called and asked, ‘What do you know about
this man (the Messenger of God, pbuh)?’ The believer (or ‘the one with
certain conviction’; I, Fāṭima, do not know which of the two phrases Asmāʾ
used) will say, ‘He is Muḥammad, the Messenger of God. He came to us with
clear proofs and guidance, and we responded favorably to his message,
believed in it, and followed him.’ It will be said to him, ‘Sleep peacefully, for
now we know you are a true believer.’ But the hypocrite (or ‘the skeptic’; I,
Fāṭima, do not know which of the two phrases Asmāʾ used) will say, ‘I do not
know. I heard people say something like that, so I said it too.’”
 Book 12
The Book of the Prayer for Rain (Ṣalāt al-Istisqāʾ)

Chapter 1. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to the Performance of

the Prayer for Rain (Ṣalāt al-Istisqāʾ)
513. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Ḥazm reported that he
heard ʿAbbād b. Tamīm say, “I heard ʿAbd Allāh b. Zayd al-Māzinī say, ‘The
Messenger of God (pbuh) went to the place outside Medina where the Feast
Prayers are performed in order to ask God for rain. When he faced Mecca,
he turned his cloak inside out.’”186
514. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about the number of cycles (rakʿa) that
should be performed during the Prayer for Rain. He said, ‘Two cycles, but
the imam performs them before giving the sermon. He prays two cycles, and
then, facing the direction of Mecca, he turns his cloak inside out, delivers
the sermon standing, and supplicates. He recites aloud from the Quran in
both cycles of the prayer. When he reverses his cloak, he puts what was
on his right side on his left, and what was on his left side on his right. The
congregants, while sitting facing Mecca, should reverse their cloaks when
the imam reverses his.’”

Chapter 2. What Has Come Down regarding the Prayer for Rain (Ṣalāt
al-Istisqāʾ)
515. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from ʿAmr b. Shuʿayb that
when the Messenger of God (pbuh) prayed for rain, he would say, “God!
Send rain to Your faithful servants and Your creatures! Spread Your mercy
and renew the life of this dying land of Yours!”

186 Bājī indicates that this is an auspicious gesture to indicate the change from a state of drought
to one of plenty. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 1:332.

187
188 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

516. According to Mālik, Sharīk b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Namir reported that
Anas b. Mālik said, “A man came to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and
said, ‘Messenger of God, our herds are perishing, and travel has become
impossible,187 so supplicate God for rain.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh)
therefore supplicated God, and rain fell for an entire week.” Anas continued,
“A man then came to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and said, ‘Messenger
of God! Homes have been destroyed, roads have become impassable, and
herds have perished from flooding.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) therefore
said, ‘God, send the rain only to the hills and mountains, to the river beds,
and to the orchards!’” Anas said, “The clouds over Medina cleared up, like a
robe being cast off.”
517. Yaḥyā said, “Regarding someone who missed the Prayer for Rain (ṣalāt
al-istisqāʾ) but attended the sermon and desired to pray it, either in the
mosque or when he got home, Mālik said, ‘The choice is his: he may choose
to pray if he wishes, or choose not to.’”

Chapter 3. What Has Come Down regarding Seeking Rain by Means of

the Stars
518. According to Mālik, Ṣāliḥ b. Kaysān reported from ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd that Zayd b. Khālid al-Juhanī said, “The Messenger
of God (pbuh) performed the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ) with us at
al-Ḥudaybiya188 after a rainy night. When he finished, he approached the
people and said, ‘Do you know what your Lord said?’ They replied, ‘God and
His Messenger know best.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘God said,
“Some of My servants awoke this morning believing in Me, while others
awoke denying Me. Those who say, ‘Rain fell on us through the Grace of God
and His Mercy’—they believe in Me and reject the power of the stars. Those
who say, ‘Rain fell on us because of such-and-such stars’—they reject Me
and believe in the power of the stars.”’”189
519. According to Mālik, it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
would say, “If a cloud forms over the Red Sea and then moves north toward
the Levant, that cloud will bring heavy rain.”190

187 Either because the camels are too weak to undergo journeys or because there is insufficient
pasture to maintain them along the way.
188 A place outside of Mecca.
189 They reject God insofar as they ascribe natural events (in this case the falling of rain) to the
stars, instead of recognizing that God is the true cause of the rainfall.
190 According to Zurqānī, Mālik included this report immediately after the preceding report to
indicate that there is no harm in attributing causation to natural phenomena in a manner
consistent with custom so long as the speaker does not intend thereby to affirm that the
wind, not God, is the effective cause of the rain. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 1:656.
Book 12 189

520. According to Mālik, it reached him that when Abū Hurayra awoke to
find that rain had fallen on the people, he would say, “Rain has fallen on us
by the star of God’s gracious intervention,” and he would recite the verse
“Whatever merciful blessings God decrees for the people—no one can
withhold.”191

191 Al-Fāṭir, 35:2.

 Book 13
The Book of the Prayer Direction (Qibla)

Chapter 1. The Prohibition against Relieving Oneself While Facing the

Prayer Direction (Qibla)
521. According to Mālik, Isḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa reported from Rāfiʿ
b. Isḥāq, the freedman (mawlā) of the household (āl) of al-Shifāʾ who was
known as “the freedman of Abū Ṭalḥa,” that he heard Abū Ayyūb al-Anṣārī,
one of the Companions of the Messenger of God (pbuh), say when he was in
Egypt, “By God! I am at a loss regarding what to do with these water closets.
The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘When someone defecates or urinates,
he should not expose his genitals toward the prayer direction nor turn his
back to it.’”
522. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from a Medinese man that he heard
the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibit someone from facing the prayer
direction while defecating or urinating.

Chapter 2. The Dispensation to Face the Prayer Direction (Qibla)

While Urinating or Defecting
523. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā
b. Ḥabbān, from his paternal uncle Wāsiʿ b. Ḥabbān, that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
would say, “Some people say, ‘When you sit to relieve yourself, avoid facing
the prayer direction.’” ʿAbd Allāh said, “I went up on the roof of a house
of ours and saw the Messenger of God (pbuh) squatting on two bricks to
relieve himself, and he was facing Jerusalem.” Then ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said,
“Perhaps you are one of those people who pray on their haunches.” Wāsiʿ
said, “I said, ‘I don’t know, by God!’” Mālik said, “He means someone who
prostrates but does not raise his body correctly from the ground; rather, he
prostrates, clinging to the ground.”192

192 Ibn ʿUmar was chastising Wāsiʿ for his confusion regarding the prohibition against relieving
oneself in the prayer direction. According to him, the prohibition applied only in the coun-
tryside or the desert, not in a town with fixed structures. Ibn ʿUmar’s comment about Wāsiʿ’s

191
192 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 3. The Prohibition against Spitting in the Prayer Direction

(Qibla)
524. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) saw spittle on the wall facing the prayer direction
(qibla), so he scraped it off. He then went to the people and said, “When
someone is praying, he should not spit in front of himself, because God,
Blessed and Sublime is He, is in front of him when he is performing the
prayer.”
525. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father, from
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet of God (pbuh), that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) saw spittle or mucus on the wall facing the prayer direction, so he
scraped it off.

Chapter 4. What Has Come Down regarding the Prayer Direction

(Qibla)
526. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported that ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar said, “While the people were praying the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt
al-ṣubḥ) at Qubāʾ, a man came to them, saying, ‘Last night the Messenger of
God (pbuh) received revelation, a new verse of the Quran, commanding him
to face the Kabah during the performance of prayer, so turn toward it!’193
They had been facing north, the direction of the Levant, toward Jerusalem,
so they turned and faced the Kabah.”
527. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) prayed toward Jerusalem for sixteen
months after his arrival in Medina. Then the prayer direction was changed
two months before the Battle of Badr.”194
528. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said,
“Anywhere between the east and the west is an appropriate direction of
prayer, as long as the worshipper is facing south toward God’s House (the
Kabah).”195

prayer is rhetorical, because only someone lacking knowledge would pray in the fashion he
describes; therefore, he is implying that Wāsiʿ is ignorant.
193 Other narrations of this report use the past tense of the verb rather than the imperative, as
found in the RME. Therefore, in those narrations, the passage reads “so they turned toward
it” instead of “so turn toward it.” The unvoweled Arabic spelling of the third-person plural is
the same as that of the second-person plural imperative.
194 The Battle of Badr was the first major military encounter between the Muslims and the
pagans of the Quraysh, and it resulted in a decisive victory for the Muslims even though they
were substantially outnumbered by the pagans. It took place in year 2 of the Hijra (624 CE).
195 The statement was made in Medina, which lies to the north of Mecca.
Book 13 193

Chapter 5. What Has Come Down regarding the Mosque of the

Prophet (pbuh)
529. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Rabāḥ and ʿUbayd Allāh b. Abī ʿAbd
Allāh reported from Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Agharr, from Abū Hurayra, that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “A prayer in this mosque of mine is better
than a thousand prayers performed in any other mosque, except the Sacred
Mosque (al-masjid al-ḥarām) in Mecca.”
530. According to Mālik, Khubayb b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported from Ḥafṣ b.
ʿĀṣim, from Abū Hurayra or from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī, that the Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, “What lies between my home and my pulpit is one of the
meadows of Paradise, and my pulpit sits on my fountain.”196
531. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr reported from ʿAbbād b.
Tamīm, from ʿAbd Allāh b. Zayd al-Māzinī, that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “What lies between my home and my pulpit is one of the meadows
of Paradise.”

Chapter 6. What Has Come Down regarding Women Going to

the Mosque
532. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Do not prohibit God’s handmaidens from
going to God’s mosques.’”
533. According to Mālik, it reached him from Busr b. Saʿīd that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “A woman who attends the Evening Prayer
(ṣalāt al-ʿishāʾ) should not apply perfume.”
534. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from ʿĀtika bt. Zayd b. ʿAmr
b. Nufayl, the wife of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, that she would ask his permission
to go to the mosque. But he would not respond, and exasperated, she
would say, “By God! I am certainly going, unless you stop me.” He never did,
however.
535. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said, “Had the
Messenger of God (pbuh) lived to see what women do today, he would have
forbidden them to go to mosques, just as the women of the Israelites were
forbidden.” Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “I therefore said to ʿAmra, ‘Was it the case
that Israelite women were forbidden to go to mosques?’ She said, ‘Yes.’”

196 The Prophet (pbuh) was buried in his home, which is now known as his tomb.
 Book 14
The Book of the Quran

Chapter 1. The Command to Perform Ablutions (Wuḍūʾ) before

Touching the Quran
536. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Ḥazm reported that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) sent an edict to ʿAmr b. Ḥazm that included the
commandment “Only the pure shall touch the Quran.”
537. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘No one should carry a copy of the Quran in
his satchel or cushion unless he is in a state of ritual purity.” Mālik then
said, “Had that been permissible, it would have been permissible to carry it
within a leather cover even if there were some impure substance that could
defile the copy on the hands of the person holding it. But in fact anyone who
carries a copy of the Quran is prohibited from doing so when he is in a state
of ritual impurity in order to respect and honor the Quran.”
538. Mālik said, “The best view that I have heard regarding the verse
‘None shall touch the Quran save those who are purified’197 is that it is the
equivalent of verses in the chapter ‘The Prophet Frowned and Turned Away’
(ʿAbasa wa-tawallā),198 in which God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says, ‘By
no means! These verses are nothing other than a reminder—so whoever
wishes, let him remember—preserved in noble scrolls, exalted in dignity,
and purified, in the hands of angelic scribes, noble and righteous.’”199

Chapter 2. The Dispensation to Recite the Quran without Having

Performed Ablutions (Wuḍūʾ)
539. According to Mālik, Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī reported from Muḥammad b.
Sīrīn that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb was with a group of people who were reciting

197 Al-Wāqiʿa, 56:79.

198 Chapter 80 of the Quran, ʿAbasa (“He frowned”), is so called after its first verse, which
describes the Prophet Muḥammad frowning and turning away when a blind Muslim man
interrupts his discussions with some of the leading men of Mecca.
199 ʿAbasa, 80:11–16.

195
196 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

the Quran, and he went to relieve himself. Then he returned and was heard
reciting the Quran. A man said to him, “Commander of the Faithful, are you
reciting the Quran without first performing ablutions?” ʿUmar said to him,
“Who led you to believe that this is a problem? Was it Musaylima?”200

Chapter 3. What Has Come Down regarding Dividing the Quran

into Sections
540. According to Mālik, Dāwūd b. al-Ḥuṣayn reported from al-Aʿraj, from
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd al-Qārī, that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “Whoever
misses the recitation of his nightly portion of the Quran but reads it
between noon and the performance of the Noon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ẓuhr) has
not missed it (or ‘it is as if he recited it during the night’).”201
541. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā b. Ḥabbān
and I were sitting down, and Muḥammad called on a man to come over and
said to him, ‘Tell me what you have heard from your father.’ The man said,
‘My father told me that he went to Zayd b. Thābit and asked him, “What
do you think about completing the recitation of the Quran in seven days?”
Zayd said to him, “That is good, but I prefer to recite it in half a month or ten
days, and if you wish, I will explain to you why.” My father said, “In that case,
please explain to me the reason!” Zayd said, “So that I might mull it over and
examine it closely.”’”

Chapter 4. What Has Come Down regarding the Quran

542. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr
that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd al-Qārī said, “I heard ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb say,
‘I heard Hishām b. Ḥakīm b. Ḥizām recite “The Criterion” (al-Furqān)202
differently from me, and I had learned how to recite it directly from the
Messenger of God (pbuh) himself. I was about to interrupt Hishām, but
instead I waited for him to finish. I then grabbed him by his cloak and took
him to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and said, “Messenger of God, I heard

200 Musaylima b. Ḥabīb al-Ḥanafī claimed to be a prophet alongside Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh),
so Muslims always refer to him as “the liar” (Musaylima al-kadhdhāb) because they consider
him a false prophet. His tribe, the Banū Ḥanīfa, was defeated in battle after the Prophet
Muḥammad’s death during the apostasy wars that took place during the caliphate of Abū
Bakr al-Ṣiddīq. Musaylima himself died in that battle.
201 The narrator is unsure as to the precise phrase used by ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb. According to Ibn
ʿAbd al-Barr, Dāwūd b. al-Ḥuṣayn’s version of this report is erroneous. The more reliable ver-
sion is that narrated by Ibn Shihāb, which reads as follows: “Whoever overslept and missed
his nightly portion of the Quran but recited it between the time of the Dawn Prayer and the
Noon Prayer has the recitation recorded for him as if he had performed it during the night.”
Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 2:6.
202 Chapter 25 of the Quran.
Book 14 197

this man recite ‘The Criterion’ differently from the way you taught me.”
The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Let him go,” and then he said, “Recite!”
Hishām recited in the same manner as I had heard him recite previously.
The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “That is how it was revealed.” Then he
said to me, “Recite!” and so I recited “The Criterion.” The Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, “That is how it was revealed. The Quran was revealed in seven
modes, so recite it in whichever of those suits you.”’”
543. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “The man who has committed the Quran to
memory is like the man who keeps a tight rein on his camels. If he keeps
them reined in, he maintains control of them, but if he relaxes his grip, they
wander off.”203
544. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father, from
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that al-Ḥārith b. Hishām asked
the Messenger of God (pbuh), “How does revelation come to you?” The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Sometimes, it comes to me with the sound
of a bell, and that is the most severe on me. When it leaves me, I have
retained what was said. At other times, the angel appears to me in the form
of a man, and he speaks to me, and I retain what he says.” ʿĀʾisha said, “I saw
him experience an entire episode of revelation on a very cold day, and when
it concluded, his forehead was drenched in sweat.”
545. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father said,
“The chapter ‘The Prophet Frowned and Turned Away’ was revealed about
ʿAbd Allāh b. Umm Maktūm. He came to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and
said insistently, ‘Muḥammad, let me get close to you.’ At that very moment,
one of the leading pagans was sitting with the Prophet (pbuh), so the
Prophet (pbuh) decided to ignore ʿAbd Allāh and turned away from him,
instead giving his full attention to the pagan. The Prophet (pbuh) said to
the pagan, ‘Father of so-and-so, do you have any objections to what I am
saying?’ The man replied, ‘No, by the altars of the idols and the animals
sacrificed there, I have no objections to what you’re saying.’ Then the verse
‘The Prophet frowned and turned away because the blind man came to him’
was revealed.”204
546. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from his father that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) was on a journey one night, and ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb was traveling with him. ʿUmar asked him about something, but

203 In other words, without regularly reciting what he has memorized, he is likely to forget what
he has memorized or suffer confusion regarding the correct recitation.
204 ʿAbasa, 80:1–2.
198 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

the Prophet (pbuh) did not answer him; he asked him again, and again
he did not answer him. He then asked him a third time, and a third time
the Prophet (pbuh) did not answer him. ʿUmar said to himself, “ʿUmar!
May your mother keen over you! You have annoyed the Messenger of
God (pbuh)! Three times you asked him something, and not once did he
respond.” ʿUmar said, “I hurried my camel along so that I would be at the
head of the people. I dreaded that a verse of the Quran would be revealed
about me, and it was not long before I heard someone calling out for me.
I said to myself, ‘This is what I was dreading—that a verse of the Quran
would be revealed about me.’ I therefore went to the Messenger of God
(pbuh) and greeted him. The Prophet (pbuh) said, ‘A chapter of the Quran
has been revealed to me this night, and it is surely more beloved to me
than anything on which the sun has risen.’ Then he recited, ‘Verily, We
have granted you a manifest victory.’”205
547. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Muḥammad b.
Ibrāhīm b. al-Ḥārith al-Taymī, from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, that Abū
Saʿīd al-Khudrī said, “I heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) say, ‘There shall
emerge from among you a group of people who will cause you to consider
your own prayers deficient when compared to theirs (or “your own fasting
deficient when compared to theirs,” or “your own deeds deficient when
compared to theirs”). They will recite the Quran, but it does not go beyond
their throats.206 They exit from Islam just like an arrow passes through the
body of the hunter’s prey: the hunter looks at the arrowhead and sees no
evidence that it penetrated the prey; the hunter looks at the shaft and sees
no evidence that it penetrated the prey; the hunter looks at the fletching
and sees no evidence that it penetrated the prey; and he looks at the notch
at the arrow’s end skeptically, to see whether it has any traces of blood from
the prey.’”207

205 Al-Fatḥ, 48:1. According to Muslim tradition, this chapter of the Quran was revealed on the
occasion of the Treaty of al-Ḥudaybiya. The treaty was initially controversial among the
Prophet Muḥammad’s Companions because it did not permit them to continue to Mecca to
complete their Pilgrimage rites, which had been the ostensible reason that they had set out
from Medina to Mecca. The treaty instead required them to return the following year. It also
included what they believed were humiliating conditions, including requirements to return
any Muslim refugees who escaped from Mecca to Medina back to the Meccans and to permit
any Muslim in Medina who wished to renounce Islam and return to Mecca to do so. The
Prophet Muḥammad also reportedly agreed to sign the treaty using his given name, Muḥam-
mad b. ʿAbd Allāh, rather than his title, the Messenger of God. Nevertheless, the treaty proved
to be instrumental to the ultimate defeat of the Meccans by the Muslims and the latter’s
triumphant return to Mecca a few years later.
206 That is, God will not accept their recitation of the Quran.
207 The sense of the report is that despite this group’s excessive performance of ritual devo-
tions—recitation of the Quran, performance of prayers, and fasting—they fail to internalize
any of the essential meanings of Islam.
Book 14 199

548. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar spent eight
years learning ‘The Cow’ (al-Baqara).208

Chapter 5. What Has Come Down regarding Prostrations during

Recitation of the Quran209
549. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Yazīd, the freedman (mawlā) of
al-Aswad b. Sufyān, reported from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān that
while leading them in prayer, Abū Hurayra recited the chapter ‘When the
sky is rent asunder,’210 and he prostrated in it. When he finished leading the
prayer, he told them that the Messenger of God (pbuh) had prostrated when
he recited the same chapter.
550. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ, the freedman of Ibn ʿUmar, reported that an
Egyptian told him that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb recited the chapter ‘The Pilgrimage’
(al-Ḥajj),211 and he prostrated twice during his recitation of it. Then he said,
“This chapter has been given the special virtue of having two prostrations.”
551. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār said, “I saw ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
perform two prostrations during his recitation of ‘The Pilgrimage.’”
552. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from al-Aʿraj that ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb recited the chapter that begins with ‘By the star, when it falls.’212
He prostrated during his recitation of it and then stood up and recited
another chapter.
553. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
when ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb was on the pulpit delivering the Friday sermon,
he recited verses of the Quran213 that included a command to prostrate. He
descended from the pulpit and prostrated, so we prostrated with him. He
then recited the very same verses in another Friday sermon. When he saw
the people readying themselves to prostrate, he said, “Take it easy! God has
not obliged us to prostrate at this verse, but we may do so if we wish.” ʿUmar
b. al-Khaṭṭāb did not prostrate on that occasion, and he also prohibited
them from prostrating at that time.”

208 The second and longest chapter of the Quran.

209 This section refers to the numerous verses of the Quran that include affirmative commands
to prostrate to God. Only some of these, however, are understood to impose an obligation
to prostrate when one recites or hears the command. The precise instances of mandatory
prostration are subject to dispute among Muslim jurists.
210 Al-Inshiqāq, 84:1.
211 Chapter 22 of the Quran.
212 Al-Najm, chapter 53 of the Quran.
213 The editors of the RME identify the verses that he read as part of al-Naḥl, the twenty-seventh
chapter of the Quran.
200 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

554. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘It is not part of the practice (ʿamal) with
respect to the recitation of Quranic verses that include a command to
prostrate for the imam to descend from the pulpit and prostrate each time
he recites a verse of the Quran that includes such a command.’”
555. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that
there are only eleven mandatory prostrations in the Quran, and none of
these are in the Mufaṣṣal.’”
556. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘No one should recite verses of the Quran that
oblige prostration after performing the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ)
or Afternoon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿaṣr). This is because the Messenger of God
(pbuh) forbade the performance of additional prayers after completion
of the Morning Prayer until the sun had risen. Likewise, he forbade the
performance of additional prayers after completion of the Afternoon Prayer
until the sun had set. Prostration is a constituent part of prayer (ṣalāt);
therefore, no one should recite any verses that require a prostration during
these two periods of time.’”
557. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked: If someone recites a verse from the
Quran commanding a prostration, and a menstruating woman is listening,
is it appropriate for her to prostrate? He said, ‘Neither a man nor a woman
should prostrate unless he or she is ritually pure.’”
558. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether a man who hears a woman
reciting a verse from the Quran commanding a prostration should prostrate
with her. He said, ‘He does not have to prostrate with her. Prostration is
obligatory only for a group of people praying behind an imam. If the imam
recites a verse from the Quran commanding a prostration, they prostrate
with him. If someone hears another person who is not leading him in prayer
recite a verse of the Quran commanding a prostration, he is not obliged to
perform that prostration.’”

Chapter 6. What Has Come Down regarding the Recitation of “Say: He

Is God, the Singular One” (Qul Huwa ’Llāhu Aḥad)214 and “Blessed Is
the One” (Tabāraka)215
559. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṣaʿṣaʿa reported
from his father, from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī, that he heard a man216 reciting the

214 Al-Ikhlāṣ, 112:1.

215 Al-Mulk, 67:1. The entirety of the verse reads Tabāraka ’lladhī bi-yadihi ’l-mulku wa-huwa ʿalā
kulli shayʾin qadīr. It means, “Blessed is the One in whose hand is absolute dominion [over the
heavens and the earth] and who has power over all things.”
216 The editors of the RME identify this man as Qatāda b. al-Nuʿmān. See also Zurqānī, Sharḥ
al-Zurqānī, 2:27.
Book 14 201

chapter of the Quran that begins with “Say: He is God, the singular one” (Qul
huwa ’llāhu aḥad), repeating it again and again. When Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī
awoke the next day, he set out at dawn for the Messenger of God (pbuh)
and mentioned it to him as though he, Abū Saʿīd, thought little of it. The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “By Him whose hand holds my soul, that
chapter is the equivalent of one-third of the Quran.”
560. According to Mālik, ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported that
ʿUbayd b. Ḥunayn, the freedman (mawlā) of the household (āl) of Zayd
b. al-Khaṭṭāb, said, “I heard Abū Hurayra say, ‘I was walking with the
Messenger of God (pbuh) when he heard a man reciting the chapter of the
Quran that begins with “Say: He is God, the singular one.” The Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, “He has become entitled to it.” So I asked him, “What has
he become entitled to, Messenger of God?” He said, “Paradise.” I wanted
to go to that man and give him the glad tidings, but I didn’t want to miss
breakfast with the Messenger of God (pbuh), so I preferred to stay and have
breakfast with him.217 Thereafter, I tried to find that man, but I discovered
that he had already left.’”
561. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Ḥumayd b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf told him that the chapter of the Quran that begins with
“Say: He is God, the singular one” is one-third of the Quran, and the chapter
of the Quran that begins with “Blessed is the One in whose hand is absolute
dominion” (Tabāraka ’lladhī bi-yadihi ’l-mulk) will advocate on behalf of
whoever has memorized it.

Chapter 7. What Has Come Down regarding Remembrance of God,

Blessed and Sublime Is He
562. According to Mālik, Sumayy, the freedman (mawlā) of Abū Bakr,
reported from Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Sammān, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger
of God (pbuh) said, “Whoever says one hundred times each day, ‘There is
no god except God, alone without partner. To Him belongs the kingdom
and all praise, and He has power over all things,’218 receives a reward that
is equivalent to that of someone who has manumitted ten slaves from
bondage. He receives credit for one hundred good deeds, and one hundred
of his sins are effaced. It shields him from Satan for that day until nightfall.
None does a more virtuous act than he, except someone who outdoes him
in reciting that supplication.”

217 According to Zurqānī, Abū Hurayra was poor and dependent on the Prophet Muḥammad for
his food, so he did not want to risk missing his morning meal by leaving the Prophet Muḥam-
mad in order to seek out the man. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 2:29.
218 Lā ilāha illā ’llāhu waḥdahu lā sharīka lah, lahu ’l-mulku wa-lahu ’l-ḥamdu wa-huwa ʿalā kulli
shayʾin qadīr.
202 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

563. According to Mālik, Sumayy, the freedman of Abū Bakr, reported from
Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Sammān, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “Whoever says ‘Glory be to God and by His praise’ (Subḥāna ’llāhi
wa-bi-ḥamdih) one hundred times in a day is relieved of his sins, even if
they are as profuse as the foam of the sea.”
564. According to Mālik, Abū ʿUbayd, the freedman of Sulaymān b.
ʿAbd al-Malik, reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yazīd al-Laythī that Abū Hurayra
said, “Whoever glorifies God (by saying ‘Glory be to God,’ Subḥāna ’llāh)
thirty-three times, magnifies God (by saying ‘God is great,’ Allāhu akbar)
thirty-three times, praises God (by saying ‘All praise belongs to God,’
Al-ḥamdu lillāh) thirty-three times, and then makes his invocations a
complete hundred by saying, ‘There is no god except God, alone without
partner. To Him belongs the kingdom and all praise, and He has power over
all things,’ after the completion of every prayer (ṣalāt), shall have his sins
forgiven, even if they are as profuse as the foam of the sea.”
565. According to Mālik, ʿUmāra b. Ṣayyāḍ reported that he heard Saʿīd
b. al-Musayyab say regarding the meaning of “the enduring good deeds”
(al-bāqiyāt al-ṣāliḥāt)219 that these are when God’s servant says, “God is
great,” “Glory be to God,” “All praise belongs to God,” “There is no god except
God” (Lā ilāha illā ’llāh), and “No might or power is there except through
God” (Lā ḥawla wa-lā quwwata illā billāh).
566. According to Mālik, Ziyād b. Abī Ziyād said, “Abū al-Dardāʾ said, ‘Shall
I tell you which deed most benefits you, is most likely to elevate your
spiritual rank, is purest in your Master’s eyes, is better than giving gold and
silver in charity, and is better than meeting your enemy on the battlefield,
striking at their necks while they strike at yours?’ They said, ‘Certainly!’ He
said, “Remembrance of God.’” Ziyād b. Abī Ziyād said, “Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
Muʿādh b. Jabal said, ‘No deed is more effective in saving someone from
divine punishment than remembrance of God.’”
567. According to Mālik, Nuʿaym b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Mujmir reported from ʿAlī
b. Yaḥyā al-Zuraqī, from his father, that Rifāʿa b. Rāfiʿ al-Zuraqī said, “One day,
we were praying behind the Messenger of God (pbuh). When he stood up
after bowing, he said, ‘May God hear whoever praises Him’ (Samiʿa ’llāhu
li-man ḥamidah).220 A man221 who was praying behind him said, ‘Our Lord! To
You belongs all praise, abundantly, blessedly, and purely’ (Rabbanā wa-laka
’l-ḥamd ḥamdan kathīran ṭayyiban mubārakan fīh). When the Messenger of

219 A Quranic expression; see, for example, al-Kahf, 18:46.

220 Alternately, the Arabic can be understood as “God hears whoever praises Him.”
221 The editors of the RME identify this unnamed man as Rifāʿa b. Rāfiʿ, the narrator of this report.
Book 14 203

God (pbuh) finished, he said, ‘Who was it that spoke just now?’ The man said,
‘It was I, Messenger of God.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘I saw a good
thirty-odd angels rushing about to see which of them would record it first.’”

Chapter 8. What Has Come Down regarding Supplications (Duʿāʾ)

568. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Every prophet has one
special supplication through which he calls on God. I wish to save mine to
intercede for my community in the Hereafter.”
569. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that it reached him that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) would supplicate saying, “God, Cleaver of dawn
from darkness, who makes the night a time of repose and who made the sun
and the moon the means to reckon the passage of time! Discharge my debts,
free me from need, and enable me to use my sight, hearing, and strength in
Your cause.”222
570. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “No one who supplicates
God should say, ‘God, forgive me if You wish. God, have mercy on me if You
wish.’ Let him be resolute in his petition, because no one can compel God to
do anything.”
571. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Abū ʿUbayd, the freedman
(mawlā) of Ibn Azhar, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “A supplicant’s petition to his Lord will be granted, unless he becomes
impatient and says, ‘I have petitioned my Lord, but my petition was denied.’”
572. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Agharr
and from Abū Salama, both from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, “When only one-third of the night remains, our Lord, Blessed
and Sublime is He, descends to the lowest heaven of this world and says,
‘Who is supplicating Me, so that I may fulfill his request? Who is petitioning
Me, so that I may grant it to him? Who is seeking My forgiveness, so that I
might forgive him?’”
573. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Muḥammad b.
Ibrāhīm b. al-Ḥārith al-Taymī that ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, said,
“I was sleeping next to the Messenger of God (pbuh). At some point in the
night I did not find him next to me, so I felt around for him until my hand
touched his foot as he was prostrating. He was saying, ‘I seek refuge in Your

222 Allāhumma fāliqa ’l-iṣbāḥi wa-jāʿila ’l-layli sakanan wa’l-shamsa wa’l-qamara ḥusbānan, iqḍi
ʿannī al-dayna wa’ghninī min al-faqr, wa-amtiʿnī bi-samʿī wa-baṣarī wa-quwwatī fī sabīlik.
204 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

satisfaction from Your wrath, and in Your pardon from Your punishment,
and in You from Yourself. My exaltation of You cannot do You justice; You
can only be exalted as You have exalted Yourself.’”223
574. According to Mālik, Ziyād b. Abī Ziyād reported from Ṭalḥa b.
ʿUbayd Allāh b. Kurayz that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “The best
supplications are those made on the Day of ʿArafa.224 The best thing that I
and the prophets before me have declared is ‘There is no god except God,
alone without partner’ (Lā ilāha illā ’llāhu waḥdahu lā sharīka lah).”
575. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zubayr al-Makkī reported from Ṭāwūs
al-Yamānī, from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās, that there was a supplication that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) would teach them, just as he would teach them
a chapter of the Quran. He would say, “I seek Your protection from the
torments of Hell; I seek refuge in You from the torments of the grave; I seek
refuge in You from the Antichrist (al-dajjāl); and I seek refuge in You from
all the tribulations of life and death.”225
576. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zubayr al-Makkī reported from Ṭāwūs
al-Yamānī, from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās, that when the Messenger of God
(pbuh) stood to pray in the middle of the night, he would say, “God! All
praise belongs to You. You are the Light of the heavens and the earth, all
praise belongs to You. You are the Maintainer of the heavens and the earth,
all praise belongs to You. You are the Lord of the heavens and the earth and
all who are in them. You are the Truth; Your word is the Truth; and Your
promise is the Truth. Meeting You after death is real. Heaven is real, Hell is
real, and the Hour of Judgment is real. God! To You I have given myself up;
in You I have placed my faith; and in You I have placed my trust. To You I
have returned. Through You I have pleaded my case against my foes. To You
I have looked for judgment. Forgive me what I have done, and what I may
yet do; what I have kept hidden, and what I have made manifest. You are my
God; there is no god but You.”226

223 Aʿūdhu bi-riḍāka min sakhaṭika wa-bi-muʿāfātika min ʿuqūbatika wa-bika minka; lā uḥṣī
thanāʾan ʿalayka; anta kamā athnayta ʿalā nafsika.
224 The Day of ʿArafa is the climax of the annual Pilgrimage (ḥajj) to Mecca, when the pilgrims pass
the day on the plains of ʿArafāt praying and supplicating God. It takes place on the ninth day of
Dhū al-Ḥijja, the day before the Feast of the Sacrificial Animals (īd al-aḍḥā) in which Muslims
not participating in the Pilgrimage sacrifice an animal to commemorate Ibrāhīm’s sacrifice of
a ram in lieu of his son as mentioned in the Quran, al-Ṣaffāt, 32:102–7. In this translation, we
refer to the geographical place using the plural form, ʿArafāt, but to the day on which the central
ritual of the Pilgrimage is performed using the singular form, the Day of ʿArafa.
225 Allāhumma innī aʿūdhu bika min ʿadhābi jahannam, wa-aʿūdhu bika min ʿadhābi ’l-qabr,
wa-aʿūdhu bika min fitnati ’l-masīḥi ’l-dajjāl, wa-aʿūdhu bika min fitnati ’l-maḥyā wa’l-mamāt.
226 Allāhumma laka ’l-ḥamd, anta nūru ’l-samāwāti wa’l-arḍ, wa-laka ’l-ḥamd; anta qiyyāmu
’l-samāwāti wa’l-arḍ, wa-laka ’l-ḥamd; anta rabbu ’l-samāwāti wa’l-arḍi wa-man fīhinna;
anta ’l-ḥaqq, wa-qawluka ’l-ḥaqq, wa-waʿduka ’l-ḥaqq, wa-liqāʾuka ḥaqq; wa’l-jannatu ḥaqq,
Book 14 205

577. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Jābir b. ʿAtīk said,
“ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar came to us in Banū Muʿāwiya, one of the villages of
the Medinese, and said, ‘Do you know where the Messenger of God (pbuh)
prayed in this mosque of yours?’ I said to him, ‘Yes!’ and I pointed to a
spot therein. He said to me, ‘Do you know the three things for which he
supplicated there?’ I said, ‘Yes!’ He said, ‘Do tell me about them.’ I said,
‘He petitioned God not to allow a non-Muslim enemy to prevail over the
Believers, and not to destroy them through drought and starvation—and
both of these were granted him. He also petitioned God not to permit the
Believers to unleash their weapons against one another—but that was
refused.’ Ibn ʿUmar said, ‘You have spoken the truth.’ Then he said, ‘Strife
will continue until the Day of Judgment.’”
578. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam would say, “Every supplicant who
petitions God receives one of three outcomes: the petition is granted; it is
stored up for him until the Hereafter; or it wipes out his sins.”

Chapter 9. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to Supplication (Duʿāʾ)

579. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār said, “ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar saw
me supplicating and pointing with two fingers, one from each hand. He told
me not to do that.”
580. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
would say, “After someone dies, his children’s supplications elevate his
spiritual rank.” He pointed toward the sky and then he raised his hands.
581. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father said,
“The verse ‘And neither declaim your prayer (ṣalāt) in a loud voice nor
whisper it, but seek out a path between the two’227 was revealed specifically
about supplication.”
582. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about supplicating during the performance
of an obligatory prayer, and he said, ‘That is not objectionable.’”
583. According to Mālik, it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
would supplicate saying, “God, I ask You that I perform good deeds, and
that I shun foul deeds, and that I love the deprived. If You desire to try the
people, then take me to You, without subjecting me to a trial.”228

wa’l-nāru ḥaqq, wa’l-sāʿatu ḥaqq; allāhumma laka aslamtu wa-bika āmantu wa-ʿalayka
tawakkaltu wa-ilayka anabtu wa-bika khāṣamtu wa-ilayka ḥākamtu; fa’ghfir lī mā qaddamtu
wa-akhkhartu, wa-asrartu wa-aʿlantu; anta ilāhī lā ilāha illā anta.
227 Al-Isrāʾ, 17:110.
228 Allāhumma innī asʾaluka fiʿla ’l-khayrāti wa-tarka ’l-munkarāti wa-ḥubba ’l-masākīn, wa-idhā
aradta fī ’l-nāsi fitnatan fa’qbiḍnī ilayka ghayra maftūn.
206 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

584. According to Mālik, it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “Anyone who calls people to guidance shall receive a reward similar
to theirs, without diminishing their reward in the least. Anyone who calls
people to sin shall bear a burden similar to theirs, without diminishing
their burden in the least.”
585. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “God,
make me an imam for those who are mindful of God.”229
586. According to Mālik, it reached him that Abū al-Dardāʾ would awake in
the middle of the night and say, “The eyes have slept, the stars have set, and
You are the Living, the Self-Subsistent.”230

Chapter 10. The Prohibition against the Performance of Prayer

(Ṣalāt) after the Morning Prayer (Ṣalāt al-Ṣubḥ) and Afternoon
Prayer (Ṣalāt al-ʿAṣr)
587. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār, from
ʿAbd Allāh al-Ṣunābiḥī, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “The sun
rises, and with it the Devil’s horns, but when it rises high, the horns leave
it. When the sun reaches its zenith, the horns rejoin it. When the sun begins
to decline, however, the horns again leave it. When the sun draws near the
western horizon, the horns return, but when the sun disappears below the
western horizon, the horns leave it again.” The Messenger of God (pbuh)
prohibited the performance of prayer at these times.
588. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father said, “The
Messenger of God (pbuh) would say, ‘When the top of the sun appears over
the horizon in the morning, defer prayer until it has risen completely. When
the bottom of the sun disappears below the horizon, defer prayer until it
has set completely.’”
589. According to Mālik, al-ʿAlāʾ b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said, “We visited Anas b.
Mālik after the Noon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ẓuhr). Then he stood up to perform the
Afternoon Prayer. When he finished, we mentioned (or ‘Anas mentioned’)231
the obligation to perform the Afternoon Prayer promptly.” Al-ʿAlāʾ b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān said, “Anas said, ‘I heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) say, “That
is the prayer of the hypocrites! That is the prayer of the hypocrites! That is
the prayer of the hypocrites! They sit indifferently until the sun becomes

229 Allāhumma ’jʿalnī min aʾimmati ’l-muttaqīn.

230 Nāmat al-ʿuyūn wa-ghārat al-nujūm wa-anta ’l-ḥayyu ’l-qayyūm.
231 The narrator of the report is uncertain who brought up the question of the prompt perfor-
mance of the Afternoon Prayer.
Book 14 207

yellow and is between the Devil’s horns (or ‘on the Devil’s horn’).232 Then
the hypocrite finally gets up and knocks out four cycles of prayer, pecking
up and down like a bird, hardly remembering God at all.”’”
590. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “No one should plan to pray when the sun is
rising or when it is setting.”
591. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā b. Ḥabbān reported from
al-Aʿraj, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) forbade the
performance of supplementary prayers after the Afternoon Prayer until the
sun had set and after the Morning Prayer until the sun had risen.233
592. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported from ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar that ʿUmar b. al-Khāṭṭāb would say, “Do not plan to pray at either
sunrise or sunset, for the Devil’s horns rise with the rising of the sun,
and they set with its setting.” The narrator of the report said, “ʿUmar b.
al-Khāṭṭāb would strike people who prayed at those times.”234
593. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that al-Sāʾib b. Yazīd saw
ʿUmar b. al-Khāṭṭāb strike al-Munkadir b. Muḥammad b. al-Munkadir for
praying after he had performed the Afternoon Prayer.

The Book of Prayer (Ṣalāt)235 Has Come to an End, with

Abundant Praise to God. May God Grace Muḥammad
and His Family and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.

232 The narrator of the report is uncertain whether Anas used the phrase “between the Devil’s
horns” or the phrase “on the Devil’s horn.”
233 Mālikī jurists interpret this and previous reports as indicating that performance of
supplementary prayers at these times of the day is disfavored (makrūh) but not categorically
forbidden (ḥarām).
234 The report is ambiguous as to the source of this comment, but Zurqānī quotes ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿAbbās as saying that he assisted ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb in punishing people who violated this
prohibition. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 2:67–68.
235 Here the RME reads “Book of Prayer (ṣalāt),” but this section of the Muwaṭṭaʾ actually
includes several “books,” beginning with the First Book of Prayer (Kitāb al-ṣalāt al-awwal)
and concluding with the Book of the Quran.
 Book 15
The Book of Funerals (Janāʾiz)236

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family.

Chapter 1. Washing the Deceased

594. According to Mālik, Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad reported from his father that
the corpse of the Messenger of God (pbuh) was washed in a tunic.
595. According to Mālik, Ayyūb b. Abī Tamīma al-Sakhtiyānī reported from
Muḥammad b. Sīrīn that Umm ʿAṭiyya al-Anṣāriyya said, “The Messenger
of God (pbuh) came to us when his daughter237 died and said, ‘Wash her
three times, or five times, or more than that, with water and lotus (sidr) tree
leaves,238 putting camphor (or “a little camphor”)239 in the final washing,
and when you finish, let me know.’” She said, “When we finished, we told
him, and he gave us his undergarment (ḥiqw) and said, ‘Shroud her with
this.’” By “undergarment” Umm ʿAṭiyya meant the garment that is wrapped
around the waist.
596. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr reported that Asmāʾ bt.
ʿUmays, the wife of Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq, washed Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq when
he died. When she finished, she asked the Emigrants (muhājirūn) who
were present, “I am fasting, and today is extremely cold. Must I bathe?”
They said, “No.”

236 Janāʾiz is the plural of two different Arabic words, janāza and jināza. The commentators
agree that these two words refer to the funeral bier and the corpse, respectively, but there is
disagreement as to which word means which. This edition follows the view that jināza refers
to the corpse and janāza to the bier.
237 The editors of the RME report that the deceased daughter was either Zaynab or Umm Kulthūm.
238 The sidr tree is known as the lotus tree, with the scientific name Ziziphus lotus. It also goes by
the name nabaq in Arabic.
239 The narrator is uncertain whether the Prophet (pbuh) said “camphor” or “a little camphor.”

209
210 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

597. According to Mālik, he heard the people of knowledge say, “If a woman
dies and there are no women present to wash her, nor is her father, brother,
son, or husband present, her face and hands should be rubbed with clean
earth.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘If a man dies and only women are present,
they should wipe his face and hands with clean earth.’”
598. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘We do not have a specified way to wash the
dead, nor is its mode of performance determinate. Rather, the corpse is
washed until it is clean.’”

Chapter 2. What Has Come Down regarding Shrouding the Dead

599. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father, from
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
was shrouded in three rough white Saḥūlī240 cotton cloths, none of which
was a tunic or a turban.
600. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) was shrouded in three rough white Saḥūlī cotton cloths.
601. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “It reached me that Abū Bakr
al-Ṣiddīq asked ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), when he himself
was ill, ‘How many pieces of cloth were used to shroud the Messenger of
God (pbuh)?’ She answered, ‘He was shrouded in three rough white Saḥūlī
cotton cloths.’ Abū Bakr said, ‘Take this piece of cloth’—the one that he was
wearing, which had been dyed red with either ochre or saffron—‘wash it
and then shroud me in it, along with two other pieces of cloth.’ ʿĀʾisha said,
‘Why is that?’ Abū Bakr said, ‘The living need new clothes more than the
dead. This shroud of mine is needed only for the pus of a decaying cadaver.’”
602. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Ḥumayd b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣī said, “The corpse of a
deceased male is cloaked in a tunic, and his waist is wrapped. He is then
shrouded with a third piece of cloth. If there is only one piece of cloth, he is
shrouded in it.”

Chapter 3. Walking ahead of the Corpse (Jināza)

603. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that the Messenger of God
(pbuh), Abū Bakr, and ʿUmar all walked at the head of the corpse in funeral
processions in a steady and dignified manner, and so did the caliphs after
them. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar did likewise.

240 According to the editors of the RME, these garments were called saḥūlī after the village in
Yemen where they were made.
Book 15 211

604. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. al-Munkadir reported that Rabīʿa

b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Hudayr told him that he (Rabīʿa) saw ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
walking at the head of the corpse in the funeral procession of Zaynab bt. Jaḥsh.
605. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa said, “I only ever saw my father
at the front of a funeral procession.” He said, “Then, when he arrived at
al-Baqīʿ,241 he would sit down to allow the procession to pass him.”
606. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb said, “Walking behind the corpse
in a funeral procession represents a mistaken understanding of the
long-established ordinance (al-sunna).”242

Chapter 4. The Prohibition against Marching behind the Bier

(Janāza) Holding Torches
607. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from Asmāʾ bt. Abī Bakr
that she said to her family, “When I die, burn incense over my clothes and
perfume me, but do not sprinkle any perfume on my shroud, and do not
march in the rear of my funeral procession holding torches.”
608. According to Mālik, Saʿīd b. Abī Saʿīd al-Maqburī reported from Abū
Hurayra that he asked that people refrain from marching behind his funeral
procession while holding torches. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik disapprove of
that practice.”

Chapter 5. What Has Come Down regarding Magnifying God (Saying

“God Is Great,” Allāhu Akbar) during Funerals (Janāʾiz)
609. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab,
from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) announced the death
of al-Najāshī243 to the people on the day he died, led them to the place of
prayer, arranged them into rows, and magnified God four times.244
610. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Abū Umāma b. Suhayl b.
Ḥunayf told him that a poor woman of no social standing245 fell ill. Someone

241 Al-Baqīʿ is the cemetery of Medina.

242 However, other Muslim jurists, such as Abū Ḥanīfa and Thawrī, believe walking behind
the deceased to be more virtuous. This view is also attributed to the fourth caliph and the
Prophet Muḥammad’s cousin and son-in-law, ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib.
243 The Christian ruler of Abyssinia, who gave asylum to some Muslims of Mecca whom the
pagan Quraysh in Mecca had persecuted.
244 When Mālik refers to the fourfold magnifications of the funeral prayer, he means both the
utterance of Allāhu akbar and the recitations of the Quran and supplications for the deceased
that take place between the magnifications.
245 The Arabic word used here is miskīna, which comes from the root s-k-n and here denotes pas-
sivity due to the lack of a tribal affiliation that would afford standing in seventh-century Arabia.
212 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

informed the Messenger of God (pbuh) of her illness. It was customary for
the Messenger of God (pbuh) to visit the poor and those of no social standing
during their illnesses and to ask about them. He said, “Let me know when
she dies.” She died that night and was buried immediately without anyone
telling the Messenger of God (pbuh) because they did not want to wake him
up. When the Messenger of God (pbuh) awoke that morning, someone told
him that she had passed. He said, “Didn’t I tell you to let me know when she
died?” They answered, “Messenger of God, we didn’t want to wake you up
in the middle of the night and drag you out of your house!” The Messenger
of God (pbuh) then set out to her grave, arranged the people into rows, and
magnified God four times.
611. According to Mālik, he asked Ibn Shihāb about a man who performs
only some of the magnifications of God in the funeral prayer. Ibn Shihāb
said, “He should complete the magnifications that he missed.”

Chapter 6. What the Worshipper Should Say over the Corpse (Jināza)
612. According to Mālik, Saʿīd b. Abī Saʿīd al-Maqburī reported from his
father that he asked Abū Hurayra how one should pray over the deceased.
Abū Hurayra answered, “By the life of God, I will certainly tell you. I follow
the body in the funeral procession from its outset. When the body is laid to
rest in the grave, I magnify God, saying ‘God is great’ (Allāhu akbar). I then
praise God and invoke God’s grace on His Prophet. I then say, ‘God! He is
Your servant, the son of Your servant and Your handmaiden. He testified
that there is no god save You, and that Muḥammad is Your servant and
messenger, but You know him best. God! If he did well, amplify his good
deeds; and if he sinned, overlook his sins. God! Do not deprive us of his
reward, or try us after him.’”246
613. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “I heard Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
say, ‘I once prayed behind Abū Hurayra as he performed the funeral prayer
over a deceased child who was too young to have ever committed a wrong,
yet I heard him say, “God! Protect him from the torment of the grave.”’”
614. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would not
recite the Quran when praying over the deceased.

246 Allāhumma innahu ʿabduka wa-ibnu ʿabdika wa-ibnu amatika, kāna yashhadu an lā ilāha
illā anta wa-anna Muḥammadan ʿabduka wa-rasūluka wa-anta aʿlamu bih. Allāhumma in
kāna muḥsinan fa-zid fī iḥsānih, wa-in kāna musīʾan fa-tajāwaz ʿan sayyiʾātih. Allāhumma lā
taḥrimnā ajrahu wa-lā taftinnā baʿdah.
Book 15 213

Chapter 7. Praying over the Deceased (Jināza) after the Morning

Prayer (Ṣalāt al-Ṣubḥ) and Afternoon Prayer (Ṣalāt al-ʿAṣr)
615. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. Abī Ḥarmala, the freedman (mawlā)
of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Sufyān b. Ḥuwayṭib, reported that Zaynab bt. Abī
Salama died while Ṭāriq was the governor of Medina.247 Her funeral bier
(janāza) was brought out after the Morning Prayer and was taken to al-Baqīʿ.
Ibn Abī Ḥarmala said that Ṭāriq would perform the Morning Prayer at its
outset, when it was still dark outside. Ibn Abī Ḥarmala then said, “I heard
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar explain to her family, ‘You can pray over her now, or you
can wait until the sun has fully risen.’”
616. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “The
prayer over the corpse can be performed after the Afternoon Prayer or after
the Morning Prayer, if they have been performed promptly at the beginning
of their respective times.”248

Chapter 8. Performing Prayers (Ṣalāt) over Corpses (Janāʾiz) in

the Mosque
617. According to Mālik, Abū al-Naḍr, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿUmar b.
ʿUbayd Allāh, reported from ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that
when Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ died, she asked that his corpse be brought before
her in the mosque so that she could supplicate God for him. Many criticized
her for doing so, but ʿĀʾisha said, “How quickly they forget! The Messenger
of God (pbuh) prayed over the corpse of Suhayl b. Bayḍāʾ in the mosque.”
618. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “They
prayed over the corpse of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb in the mosque.”

Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Matters regarding Prayers over Corpses

(Janāʾiz)
619. According to Mālik, it reached him that in Medina, ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān,
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, and Abū Hurayra would pray over the corpses of both
men and women at the same time. They would place the male corpses next
to the imam and the female corpses near the prayer niche (qibla).

247 According to the editors of the RME, Ṭāriq b. ʿAmr was the freedman (mawlā) of ʿUthmān b.
ʿAffān and served as the governor of Medina during the caliphate of ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān.
248 For the Morning Prayer, this point in time is when it is still dark, before the rays of the sun
fill up the sky, and for the Afternoon Prayer, it is when the sun is still high in the sky, before it
descends and becomes orange.
214 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

620. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that when ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
prayed over corpses, he would conclude his prayer audibly so that those
standing nearby would hear him saying, “Peace be upon you.”
621. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“No one should pray over a corpse (jināza) unless he is in a state of ritual
purity.”
622. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘I know of no man of knowledge who
disapproved of praying either over the corpse of an illegitimate child or
over the corpse of the mother who gave birth to him or her.’”

Chapter 10. What Has Come Down regarding Burying the Dead
623. According to Mālik, it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
died on Monday and was buried on Tuesday, and the people prayed over
him individually, without anyone leading them in prayer. Some people said
that he should be buried near the pulpit of his mosque in Medina, while
others said he should be buried in al-Baqīʿ. Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq then came
and said, “I heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) say, ‘Every prophet has been
buried in the very spot in which he died.’” They therefore dug a grave for
him in that very spot. When it was time to wash his body, they intended to
remove his tunic, but they heard a voice saying, “Do not remove it,” so they
did not remove his tunic, and he was washed with it still on his corpse.
624. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father said,
“There were two men in Medina who dug graves. One dug graves in
accordance with the Medinese custom (laḥd), and the other dug graves in
accordance with the Meccan custom (shaqq).249 The people said, ‘Whichever
of the two shows up first will dig the grave of the Prophet (pbuh).’ The
Medinese man showed up first, so he dug the grave of the Messenger of God
(pbuh) in accordance with the Medinese custom.”
625. According to Mālik, it reached him that Umm Salama, the wife of the
Prophet (pbuh), would say, “I refused to accept that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) had actually died until I heard them digging the grave.”
626. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of
the Prophet (pbuh), said, “I dreamed that three moons fell into my lap, so I
recounted my dream to Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq.” She said, “When the Messenger
of God (pbuh) died and was buried in my house, Abū Bakr said to me, ‘Here
you are: this is one of your moons, and it is the best of the three.’”

249 The Meccan custom was to dig a deep vertical grave, whereas the Medinese custom was to
dig a shallower grave with a niche in its wall.
Book 15 215

627. According to Mālik, several sources whom he believed to be reliable

reported that Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ and Saʿīd b. Zayd b. ʿAmr b. Nufayl died in
al-ʿAqīq and were brought to Medina to be buried there.
628. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father said, “I do
not want to be buried in al-Baqīʿ; I would prefer to be buried elsewhere. Only
two sorts are buried there: oppressors—and I don’t wish to be buried with
them—and the righteous—and I don’t wish their bones to be disinterred
for my sake.”

Chapter 11. Stopping for Funeral Processions (Janāʾiz) and Sitting

at Graves
629. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Wāqid b. Saʿd b.
Muʿādh, from Nāfiʿ b. Jubayr b. Muṭʿim, from Masʿūd b. al-Ḥakam, from ʿAlī
b. Abī Ṭālib, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) would stand up for funeral
processions and then sit down after they passed.
630. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib would rest
his head on graves and lie down on them. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘In our
view, sitting on graves was forbidden only to prevent people from relieving
themselves there.’”
631. According to Mālik, Abū Bakr b. ʿUthmān b. Sahl b. Ḥunayf reported
that he heard Abū Umāma b. Sahl b. Ḥunayf say, “We would attend funeral
processions, and the people in the back would not sit down until they had
been given permission.”

Chapter 12. The Prohibition against Keening over the Deceased

632. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Jābir b. ʿAtīk reported
that his maternal grandfather, ʿAtīk b. al-Ḥārith b. ʿAtīk, told him that Jābir b.
ʿAtīk told him that when ʿAbd Allāh b. Thābit was ill, the Messenger of God
(pbuh) went to visit him but found him unconscious. He called out to him,
but ʿAbd Allāh did not reply. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “To God we
belong and to Him we return!” He then said, “We were too late to reach you,
Abū Rabīʿ!” Then the womenfolk cried out and sobbed loudly, so Jābir told
them to be quiet. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Leave them be, but
when the inevitable comes, let none of them keen.” They said, “Messenger
of God, what do you mean by ‘the inevitable’?” He said, “When he dies.” ʿAbd
Allāh’s daughter said, “By God, I really hoped that you would die a martyr,
for you had already equipped yourself for battle.” The Messenger of God
said, “God has already rewarded him in accordance with his intention. And
what is it, you think, that makes someone a martyr?” They said, “Dying on
216 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

the battlefield for the sake of God.” The Messenger of God said, “There are
seven other kinds of martyrs: those who die of the plague; those who die of
drowning; those who die of pleurisy; those who die of dysentery; those who
die in a fire; those who die under a collapsed building; and women who die
in childbirth.”250
633. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr reported from his father,
from ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, that when someone mentioned to ʿĀʾisha,
the Mother of the Believers, that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar had said, “The dead
are tormented by the keening of the living,” ʿAmra heard ʿĀʾisha say, “May
God forgive Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (i.e., ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar). Certainly he did
not intentionally lie, but he must have forgotten or misunderstood, for the
Messenger of God (pbuh) passed by a deceased Jewish woman whose family
was keening over her, and it was only then that he said, ‘You are keening
over her, yet she is being tormented in her grave.’”

Chapter 13. Fortitude in the Face of Tragedy

634. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab,
from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Hellfire will
not touch any Muslim who endures the death of three children except
momentarily, in fulfillment of God’s oath.”251
635. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr b. Ḥazm reported from his
father, from Abū al-Naḍr al-Salamī, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
“Any Muslim who is bereaved of three children and bears it with fortitude
shall be shielded from Hell.” A woman who was with the Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, “Or two, Messenger of God?” so he said, “Or two.”
636. According to Mālik, it reached him from Abū al-Ḥubāb Saʿīd b. Yasār,
from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “The believer
endures the inevitable losses of children and relatives with fortitude and
patience, until he meets God free of sin.”

250 The terms plague, pleurisy, and dysentery are used as generic references to severe medical
conditions.
251 This is a reference to the Quranic verse Wa-in minkum illā wāriduhā (“And each one of you
shall certainly enter it [i.e., the fire of Hell]”). Maryam, 19:71. The sense of the report is that a
person who has suffered the loss of three children is exposed to Hell only for a moment that
suffices to make the Quranic statement literally true, but he or she avoids the substantive
torment of Hell.
Book 15 217

Chapter 14. Miscellaneous Reports about Fortitude in the Face

of Tragedy
637. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad
reported that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Let my personal tragedies
comfort Muslims in their own.”252
638. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported from
Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, “God grants the prayer of anyone who is struck by tragedy and
then says—as God has commanded him—‘To God we belong and to Him
we return. God, reward me for patiently enduring my tragedy, and make
tomorrow better than today!’” Umm Salama said, “When Abū Salama died,
I said that, but I thought to myself, ‘Who could be better for me than Abū
Salama?’” But then God gave her His Messenger, who married her.
639. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad
said, “One of my wives died, and Muḥammad b. Kaʿb al-Quraẓī came to offer
his condolences. He told me about a learned Israelite who possessed great
knowledge and was intensely devoted to worship. He had a wife whom
he admired and adored. When she died, he was so grief-stricken over her
that he withdrew into a room and locked himself in, withdrawing from the
society of men. No one visited him. Then a woman heard about his condition,
so she went to see him and said, ‘I have an issue that requires me to obtain a
legal opinion from him, and nothing less than speaking to him directly will
satisfy me.’ The people departed, but she remained at his door and said, ‘I
must see him.’ Someone then went and said to him, ‘There is a woman here
who wishes to ask your opinion on some matter. She insists, saying, “All I
want is to speak to him directly.” The people have already dispersed, but she
is refusing to leave your door.’ He said, ‘Let her in,’ so she went in and said,
‘I have come to seek your legal opinion on a matter.’ He said, ‘What about?’
She said, ‘I borrowed a piece of jewelry from a woman who is my neighbor,
and I have worn it for long time and have even loaned it to others. Now
she has demanded it back. Should I return it to her?’ He said, ‘Yes, by God!’
The woman said, ‘But I have had it for a long time.’ He said, ‘That is all the
more reason for you to return it to her, insofar as she loaned it to you for
a long time.’ She said, ‘Certainly, yes, may God have mercy on you! Do you
then grieve over what God loaned you and then took back, even though He
has a greater right to it than you?’ Suddenly he perceived the reality of his
situation, and God benefited him through her words.”

252 For example, the Prophet (pbuh) had seven children, but only one of them, Fāṭima, outlived
him.
218 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 15. What Has Come Down regarding Disinterment

640. According to Mālik, Abū al-Rijāl Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
reported that he heard his mother, ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, say, “The
Messenger of God cursed both men and women who desecrate graves,”
meaning those who disinter the dead.
641. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet
(pbuh), would say, “Breaking the bone of a Muslim who is dead is no different
from doing so when he is alive,” meaning that both acts are equally sinful.

Chapter 16. Miscellaneous Matters Related to Burial (Janāʾiz)

642. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from ʿAbbād b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. al-Zubayr that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), told him that
she heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) say before he died, while his head
was resting on her chest and she was listening to him closely, “God, forgive
me and have mercy on me, and lodge me with the best company.”
643. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet
(pbuh),253 said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘No Prophet dies before
he is asked whether he wishes to depart.’” She said, “I heard him say, ‘God!
The best company!’ so I knew that he was departing.”
644. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Every morning and evening, the dead are
shown their destinations in the next life. If a person is one of the people of
Paradise, his destination will be with them. If he is one of the people of Hell,
his destination will be with them. He will be told, “But here you will stay
until the Day of Resurrection.”’”
645. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “The earth consumes the
entire human body except the tailbone. From it he was created, and from it
he will be reconstituted.”
646. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Kaʿb
b. Mālik al-Anṣārī told him that his father, Kaʿb b. Mālik, would relate that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “The soul of the believer is a bird that
wanders freely among the trees of Paradise until God restores it to his body
on the day He resurrects him.”

253 The Arabic text of the RME simply has zawj ṣallā allāh ʿalayhi wa-sallam without clarifying
the omission of al-nabī or rasūl allāh. The printed edition of Sharḥ al-Zurqānī omits zawj.
Book 15 219

647. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “God, Blessed and Sublime
is He, said, ‘If My servant longs to meet Me, I long to meet him, and if he is
loath to meet Me, I am loath to meet him.’”
648. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “A man who never did a
single pious deed instructed his family to burn him when he died and to
scatter his ashes over land and sea. He feared that if God were to seize him,
no one on earth would be made to suffer as he would. When the man finally
died, his family did as he had instructed. God then ordered the land and the
sea to gather all of the man’s remains, wherever they might be. He then said
to the man, ‘Why did you do this?’ The man said, ‘Out of my dread for You,
my Lord, and You know best.’” Abū Hurayra said, “So He forgave him.”
649. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Every child is born in
conformity with pristine nature (fiṭra). It is his parents who make him a Jew
or a Christian. A child is like a camel that emerges from its mother perfectly
formed. Do you notice anything about it that is mutilated?”254 They asked
him, “What happens to those who die as minors?” He said, “God knows best
what they would have become had they reached adulthood.”
650. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “The Hour will not come
until a man passing the grave of another says, ‘If only I were in his place.’”
651. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b. Ḥalḥala al-Dīlī reported from
Maʿbad b. Kaʿb b. Mālik that Abū Qatāda b. Ribʿī would relate that a funeral
bier (janāza) once passed before the Messenger of God (pbuh), so he said,
“Some are relieved, and others bring relief.” They said, “Messenger of God,
who is the one who is relieved, and who is the one who brings relief?” He
said, “The faithful servant is the one who is relieved from the sufferings and
adversities of this world, departing to God’s mercy. The wicked servant’s
death brings relief to the people, land, trees, and beasts.”
652. According to Mālik, Abū al-Naḍr, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿUmar b.
ʿUbayd Allāh, said, “When ʿUthmān b. Maẓʿūn died and his funeral bier
passed before the Messenger of God (pbuh), he said, ‘You departed from
this life without indulging in any of its pleasures.’”

254 The Prophet (pbuh) was referring to the Arab custom of cutting parts of camels, such as their
noses or ears, as a way of marking them.
220 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

653. According to Mālik, ʿAlqama b. Abī ʿAlqama reported that his mother
said, “I heard ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), say, ‘The Messenger of
God (pbuh) arose one night, put on his clothes, and went out. So I ordered
Barīra, my handmaiden, to follow him. She followed him until he reached
al-Baqīʿ, and he stood there in front of it for as long as God wished and then
left. Barīra came back before him and told me what he had done, but I didn’t
mention it to him until he awoke the next morning, at which point I brought
it up. He said, “I was dispatched to seek God’s blessings and forgiveness for
the sake of those interred there.”’”
654. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that Abū Hurayra said, “Bury your
dead quickly, for they are one of two sorts: the righteous, whom you deliver
to a better world; or the wicked, whom you are well rid of.”

The Book of Funerals (Kitāb al-Janāʾiz) Has Come to

an End, with Abundant Praise to God. May God Grace
Our Prophet Muḥammad and His Family and Grant
Them Perfect Tranquility.
 Book 16
The Book of the Alms-Tax (Zakāt)255

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

Chapter 1. The Property That Is Subject to the Alms-Tax (Zakāt)

655. According to Mālik b. Anas, ʿAmr b. Yaḥyā al-Māzinī reported that his
father said, “I heard Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī say, ‘The Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “No alms-tax (ṣadaqa)256 is due on fewer than five camels; none is due
on less than 600 grams (five awāq) of silver;257 and none is due on less than
610 kilograms (five awsuq)258 of cereal crops.”’”
656. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Rahmān b.
Abī Ṣaʿṣaʿa al-Anṣārī al-Māzinī reported from his father, from Abū Saʿīd
al-Khudrī, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “No alms-tax is due on
less than 610 kilograms of dates; none is due on less than 600 grams of
silver; and none is due on fewer than five camels.”

255 The payment of the alms-tax (zakāt) is obligatory on those with means and constitutes one of
the “five pillars” of Islam. The religious purpose of the alms-tax is to purify one’s wealth, and
for that reason it is levied only on Muslims. On the other hand, it also serves the social pur-
pose of redistribution of wealth and income from the more fortunate to the poor, and from
that perspective, it bears characteristics that make it resemble a tax, including the prospect
that the state may enforce it coercively.
256 The Quran uses the words ṣadaqa and zakāt to refer to the payment of alms. Muslim jurists
settled on the term zakāt to refer to the mandatory alms-tax and used the term ṣadaqa to
refer to charity.
257 Awāq is the plural of awqiya, which is a measure of weight for silver. When the caliph ʿAbd
al-Malik b. Marwān struck coins in Arabic for the first time, forty dirhams of pure silver repre-
sented the weight of one awqiya. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 2:94. Each awqiya is approximately
125 grams according to the Ḥanafīs, but 119 grams according to the other Sunnī schools of law.
ʿAlī Jumuʿa, al-Makāyīl wa’l-mawāzīn al-sharʿiyya (Cairo: al-Quds, 2001), 21. According to the
majority of jurists, the weight of a silver dirham is approximately 2.975 grams, so the minimum
amount of silver needed for liability for the alms-tax would have been between 595 and 625
grams. For ease of reference, we have pegged the amount at 600 grams.
258 Awsuq is the plural of wasaq, a measure of weight. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 2:139. The
majority of jurists, including the Mālikīs, define the wasaq as approximately 122 kilograms,
but the Ḥanafīs define it as 195 kilograms. Jumuʿa, al-Makāyīl, 41. Mālikī jurists also define
five awsuq as the amount of food that an individual needs to sustain himself for a year.

221
222 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

657. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz wrote to
his representative in Damascus about the alms-tax, saying, “The alms-tax
is levied only on cereal crops, precious metals, and livestock.” Mālik said,
“The alms-tax is due on only three kinds of property: cereal crops, precious
metals, and livestock.”

Chapter 2. The Alms-Tax (Zakāt) on Gold and Silver

658. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. ʿUqba, the freedman (mawlā) of
al-Zubayr, reported that he asked al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad whether he must
pay the alms-tax on a large sum of money that he received from a slave
of his with whom he had entered into a manumission contract (mukātab),
when the slave paid the contractual amount in advance in return for his
immediate manumission. Al-Qāsim said, “Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq would not
levy the alms-tax on money until a year had passed with the money in its
owner’s possession.” He also said, “Whenever Abū Bakr gave the people their
stipends, he would ask each one of them, ‘Do you have in your possession
any money on which the alms-tax is due?’ and if someone said yes, Abū Bakr
would withhold that amount from his stipend. If he said no, Abū Bakr would
give the person his stipend in full.”
659. According to Mālik, ʿUmar b. Ḥusayn reported from ʿĀʾisha bt. Qudāma
that her father said, “Whenever I went to ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān to collect my
stipend, he would ask me, ‘Do you have any money in your possession on which
the alms-tax is due?’ If I said yes, he would deduct the amount owed on that
money from my stipend, but if I said no, he would pay me my stipend in full.”
660. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“Money is not subject to the alms-tax until a year passes with the money in
its owner’s possession.”
661. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb said, “The first person to deduct the
alms-tax directly from stipends was Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān.”259

259 Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān was a member of the clan of the Banū Umayya, traditional rivals of the
Banū Hāshim (the clan of the Prophet, pbuh). His father, Abū Sufyān, led the Meccan opposi-
tion to the Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh) and became a Muslim only when the Prophet (pbuh)
returned to Mecca triumphant. Muʿāwiya, however, became a Muslim prior to the conquest of
Mecca. He served as the governor of the Levant during the caliphates of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
and ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān. When ʿUthmān was murdered, Muʿāwiya demanded that the killers be
brought to justice and refused to recognize ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib as the rightful caliph, leading to the
first civil war in Islamic history. After ʿAlī’s murder, Muʿāwiya was recognized as the caliph in
41/660, and he moved the capital to Damascus. He reigned until the year 60/680. The reign
of Muʿāwiya, who is conventionally considered the founder of the Umayyad dynasty, marks the
end of the Rightly Guided Caliphate (al-khilāfa al-rāshida) and the beginning of dynastic rule.
In this text, Muʿāwiya deducts zakāt from the stipends as taxes due on the stipends themselves,
not to offset the alms-tax due on other money, as done in the previous reports.
Book 16 223

662. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The long-established ordinance about which
there is no dissent among us (al-sunna allatī lā ikhtilāfa fīhā ʿindanā) is that
the alms-tax is due on eighty-five grams (twenty dinars)260 of pure gold, just
as it is due on 600 grams of pure silver (200 dirhams).’”261
663. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘No alms-tax is due on twenty gold dinar coins
if they are obviously underweight; however, if the number of underweight
gold dinar coins is so great that their weight reaches the weight of twenty
gold dinar coins of full weight, the alms-tax becomes due.’” Yaḥyā said,
“Mālik said, ‘No alms-tax is due on less than twenty pure gold dinars.’”
Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘No alms-tax is due on 200 silver dirham coins that
are obviously underweight; however, if the number of underweight silver
dirham coins is so great that their weight reaches the weight of 200 silver
dirham coins of full weight, the alms-tax becomes due. If any underweight
coins circulate in commerce and merchants accept them as though they
were full-weight coins, the alms-tax is due on them, whether the coins are
dirhams or dinars.’”
664. Mālik said, regarding a man who has 160 full-weight silver dirham
coins at a time when the prevailing exchange rate in his town is eight dirhams
for every gold dinar, “He is not obliged to pay the alms-tax on them.262 The
alms-tax is due only on twenty dinars of pure gold, or 200 silver dirhams.”
665. Mālik said that a man who obtains five dinars, whether as a gain (fāʾida)
from a prior investment or from any other source, then deploys the sum
in trade, and then liquidates his investment less than a year later,263 with
the proceeds equaling or exceeding the minimum amount that is subject
to the alms-tax (i.e., twenty gold dinars), is immediately obliged to pay the
alms-tax on the amount realized. This is the case even if he liquidated the
investment just one day before (or after) a year had passed from the date
of the investment. He is not, however, again liable for the alms-tax on that
money until a year passes from the day on which he last paid the alms-tax.264

260 A dinar is 4.25 grams of pure gold.

261 A dirham is approximately 2.975 grams of pure silver.
262 In other words, he is not obliged to pay the alms-tax on his silver coins even though they are,
in worth, the equivalent of twenty gold dinars.
263 We have assumed here that the individual acquires a property for trade and then sells it at
an opportune time. Such a trader the Mālikīs call a muḥtakir. The same principle, however,
would also apply to a retail merchant, who acquires inventory and then sells it at whatever
price is available in the market. Such a merchant the Mālikīs term a mudīr. In the latter case,
if the value of the merchant’s inventory reaches the minimum amount on which the alms-tax
is due, he is required to pay the alms-tax, even though he hasn’t liquidated his inventory.
264 Mālik, uniquely among all Sunnī jurists, adopts the position that once commercial profits
reach the minimum required for liability to the alms-tax when added to the investor’s cash
basis in the investment, they are subject to the alms-tax immediately, not only after the
passage of a year. The majority of jurists distinguish between profits and the cash basis of the
224 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

666. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a man who had ten dinars that he
invested in trade and that grew to twenty dinars after one year, that he was
obliged to pay the alms-tax immediately and could not defer payment for
an additional year from the day on which the amount became subject to the
alms-tax. This is because one year had already passed from the date when
he first had ten dinars; however, no additional alms-tax is due on the money
until one year passes from the day on which he last paid the alms-tax.”
667. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr
al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā) concerning income gained from hiring
out (ijāra) slaves, money that slaves pay their masters out of their own
earnings (kharāj), rent (kirāʾ) on dwellings, and instalment payments
received from a slave who is a party to a manumission contract (mukātab)
is that no alms-tax is due on any of them, whether the amounts are small
or large, until a year has passed from the day on which the owner took
possession of the cash.”265
668. Mālik said, regarding two or more partners who own gold and silver
jointly, that if the share of any partner in the partnership is equal to or
exceeds twenty gold dinars or 200 silver dirhams, the partner must pay
the alms-tax on that share. No alms-tax, however, is due from a partner
whose share is less than the minimum amount subject to the alms-tax. If the
partners’ combined shares exceed the minimum amount, but one partner’s
share is larger than those of the others, the alms-tax is taken from each
partner in proportion to his share of the total, provided that each partner’s
share is at least equal to the minimum amount subject to the alms-tax. That
is because the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “No alms-tax is due on less
than 600 grams of pure silver (five awāq).” Mālik said, “Of all the views that
I have heard, this is the one I prefer most.”

investment and therefore do not subject profits to the alms-tax until the investor has held the
profits for a year. A minority of jurists levy the alms-tax on commercial profits immediately
if the cash basis of the investment already satisfies the minimum amount required to impose
the alms-tax and a year has passed since the original investment was made. Mālik is the only
jurist to combine the cash basis of an investment with the profits realized on its disposition
to impose an immediate obligation to pay the alms-tax, as long as the investor acquired the
cash used for the original investment at least a year earlier. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 2:145.
265 In this case, the alms-tax is not due immediately because the owner has not sold the asset
and recovered his basis in the investment in cash. Such income is the equivalent, therefore,
of newly received money, which the owner enjoys the right to deploy productively (ḥaqq
al-tanmiya) before paying any tax on it. Accordingly, a year must pass with the money in the
owner’s possession before he becomes liable to pay the alms-tax on it, if the amount received
was in excess of the required minimum. It the amount was less than the minimum required,
however, he is entitled to hold it free of any obligation to pay the alms-tax until such time as
the money in his possession reaches the minimum.
Book 16 225

669. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘If a man has entrusted his gold and silver
to various people, he must add up the total of these amounts and pay the
alms-tax due on that sum.’”
670. Mālik said, “Whoever has acquired gold or silver is not obligated to pay
any alms-tax on it until one year has passed from the day he acquired it.”

Chapter 3. The Alms-Tax (Zakāt) Due on Mineral Wealth (Maʿādin)

Extracted from the Earth
671. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported from more
than one source that the Messenger of God (pbuh) assigned the right to
exploit the mines (maʿādin) of al-Qabaliyya, which were located in the
direction of al-Furʿ,266 to Bilāl b. al-Ḥārith al-Muzanī. No levy other than the
alms-tax has ever been imposed on those mines up to this day.
672. Mālik said, “It is my view, and God knows best, that no alms-tax should
be taken from mineral wealth until its output reaches the equivalent of
eighty-five grams (twenty dinars) of gold or 600 grams (200 dirhams) of
silver. Once that threshold has been reached, however, the alms-tax becomes
due immediately. Thereafter, as long as the vein remains productive, all
subsequent production is immediately subject to the alms-tax. If the vein
is depleted, but later more can be extracted, the new supply is dealt with
in the same way as the original case: payment of the alms-tax becomes due
only when the renewed output reaches the minimum amount, as in the
original case.”267
673. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Mines are treated like crops, insofar as the
alms-tax is levied on mineral wealth in the same fashion as it is levied on
crops. It is deducted from what comes out of the ground on the day it is
extracted without waiting for a year to elapse, just as a tenth is taken from
crops on the day of harvest without waiting for a year to pass.’”

Chapter 4. The Alms-Tax (Zakāt) Due on Buried Treasure (Rikāz)

674. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab and
from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger
of God (pbuh) said, “The alms-tax due on buried treasure is one-fifth.”
675. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule about which there is no dissent
among us and which I heard the people of knowledge affirm (al-amr alladhī

266 A place between Mecca and Medina.

267 In other words, no alms-tax is due until the output again reaches the equivalent of eighty-five
grams (twenty dinars) of gold or 600 grams (200 dirhams) of silver.
226 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

lā ikhtilāfa fīhi ʿindanā wa’lladhī samiʿtu min ahl al-ʿilm) is that “buried
treasure” refers to valuables buried prior to Islam,268 as long as its finder
did not intentionally deploy any capital, expense, or hard labor or incur any
other inconvenience in order to find it. If capital was required, however, and
hard labor was incurred, and if the venture was only sometimes successful,
then whatever is found is not considered buried treasure.’”

Chapter 5. Items on Which No Alms-Tax (Zakāt) Is Due: Jewelry, Gold

Ore, and Amber
676. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported from his
father that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), was responsible for her
fraternal nieces, who were orphans in her care. They had gold jewelry, but
she did not pay the alms-tax on such jewelry.
677. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would give
his daughters and handmaidens gold jewelry but did not pay the alms-tax
on that jewelry.
678. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The alms-tax is due on gold ore and on any
gold or silver jewelry that is not worn. It must be weighed annually, and
one-fortieth is taken from it, provided that it weighs at least eighty-five
grams (twenty dinars) in pure gold or 600 grams (200 dirhams) in silver.
If it weighs less than that, no alms-tax is due. Jewelry is subject to the
alms-tax only when it is kept for purposes other than ornamentation. Gold
ore and broken jewelry that its owner intends to repair and wear later are
equivalent to ordinary household items. For that reason, members of the
household do not pay the alms-tax on them.’”
679. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘No alms-tax is due on pearls, musk, or amber.’”

Chapter 6. The Alms-Tax (Zakāt) Due on the Property of Orphans and

on Commercial Investment of Orphans’ Property
680. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said,
“Invest orphans’ property in commerce; don’t let the alms-tax deplete it.”
681. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported that his father
said, “One of my brothers and I were in the care of ʿĀʾisha. Because we were
orphans and in her care, she would pay the alms-tax due on our property.”

268 If the “buried treasure” could be dated to the Islamic era, it was considered lost property and
had to be handed over to the state for safekeeping until the true owner could be found.
Book 16 227

682. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet
(pbuh), would turn over the property of orphans in her care to merchants,
who would invest that property in commerce for them.
683. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he purchased some
property for his orphaned nephews who were in his care. It was later sold
for a substantial profit.
684. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘There is nothing objectionable in investing
orphans’ property in commerce, if the person investing their property is
trustworthy. Further, I do not believe that he is liable for any losses that
might result.’”

Chapter 7. The Alms-Tax (Zakāt) Due on a Decedent’s Estate (Mīrāth)

685. Mālik said, “If a man dies without having paid the alms-tax that is due
on his property, it is to be collected out of the one-third of his property
available for testamentary disposition,269 but no more is to be taken. The
payment of unpaid alms-tax is given priority over the payment of other
bequests. I consider unpaid alms-tax to be the equivalent of a debt, which
is why I believe it ought to be given priority over bequests.” Mālik also said,
“This is the case only when the deceased makes a testamentary disposition
for payment of the unpaid alms-tax. If the deceased fails to leave such an
instruction but his family pays it anyway, that is a good thing. However, the
family is under no obligation to do so.”
686. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The long-established ordinance among us about
which there is no dissent (al-sunna ʿindanā allatī lā ikhtilāfa fīhā) is that no
alms-tax is due on inherited property that consists of debts, goods, realty,
or male or female slaves until a year has passed from the date on which the
items were sold and payment in cash was received or the debt was collected.’”
687. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The long-established ordinance among us
(al-sunna ʿindanā) is that no alms-tax is due on money270 inherited by an
heir until a year has passed from the date of the inheritance.’”

Chapter 8. The Alms-Tax (Zakāt) Due on Debt

688. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from al-Sāʾib b. Yazīd that
ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān would say, “This is the month in which the alms-tax is

269 A Muslim is permitted to make a testamentary disposition (i.e., a will) of up to one-third of

the value of his estate. At least two-thirds of the decedent’s estate must pass to the dece-
dent’s legal heirs.
270 That is, gold or silver.
228 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

due. Whoever owes a debt, therefore, should pay it. This way, every person
receives what he is owed and may pay any alms-tax that is due out of the
proceeds of such debts.”
689. According to Mālik, Ayyūb b. Abī Tamīma al-Sakhtiyānī reported that
ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz issued a decree with respect to money that a public
official had misappropriated. He ordered that it be returned to its owner
but that the alms-tax that had accumulated over the years should first be
deducted. He later amended his prior decree with a subsequent decree,
namely, that the alms-tax be taken from misappropriated money only once,
because its rightful owner had effectively lost use of his property.271
690. According to Mālik, Yazīd b. Khuṣayfa reported that he asked Sulaymān
b. Yasār whether a man who had money in hand but also owed a debt for the
same amount was obliged to pay the alms-tax on that money. He said, “No.”
691. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule about which there is no dissent
among us (al-amr alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi ʿindanā) is that the creditor is not
obliged to pay the alms-tax on a debt owed to him until he collects it. Even
if it remains outstanding with the borrower for a number of years before
he collects it, he need pay the alms-tax on it only once. If he collects an
instalment of the debt on which no alms-tax is due (because it is less than
the minimum amount liable to the alms-tax) but has other money on which
the alms-tax is due, the instalment is added to the rest of his money, and he
pays the alms-tax on the total sum.’ Mālik said, ‘If he has no liquid money
other than that instalment of the debt that he collected, and it falls short of
the minimum amount on which the alms-tax is due, he is not obliged to pay
the alms-tax on it. He should, however, keep track of the instalments he has
collected, for if he later collects additional instalments that, when added
to that which he has already collected, exceed the minimum amount, he is
obliged to pay the alms-tax on the total. Whether or not he has consumed
prior instalments of the debt, he is obliged to pay the alms-tax on everything
collected. Once the sum he has collected on the debt he is owed amounts to
eighty-five grams (twenty dinars) of pure gold or 600 grams (200 dirhams)
of silver, he pays the alms-tax on it. He thereafter pays the alms-tax on
any subsequent amounts received, be they small or large, according to
the amount received.’ Mālik said, ‘The proof that the alms-tax on a debt
is to be paid only once, even if the debt was outstanding for several years
before it was repaid, is that commercial goods may remain in a merchant’s

271 This is because the alms-tax is due only on property that the owner could have profitably
invested. In the case of misappropriated money, the true owner effectively lost control of his
property and therefore lacked the opportunity to invest it profitably, thus relieving him of the
obligation to pay alms-tax on it.
Book 16 229

possession for many years before he sells them, but he pays the alms-tax
on the prices he receives for them only once, in that year. This is so because
neither the creditor nor the owner of commercial goods is obliged to use
other property that he may own to pay the alms-tax due on the debt owed
to him or on his commercial goods. The alms-tax that is due on an item of
property is to be satisfied only from that particular item of property; the
alms-tax due on one item of property need not be satisfied from another
piece of property.’”
692. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) regarding
a debtor who has enough commercial goods on hand to discharge any debt
that he owes and who also has an amount of cash on which the alms-tax is
due is that he must pay the alms-tax on that cash.’” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘If,
however, the commercial goods and cash he has on hand are sufficient only
to discharge his debt, he is not obliged to pay any alms-tax. He is obliged to
pay the alms-tax only when his cash on hand exceeds his debt and the cash
sum is at least the minimum amount on which the alms-tax must be paid.’”

Chapter 9. The Alms-Tax (Zakāt) Due on Commercial Goods

693. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Zurayq b. Ḥayyān (who
was in charge of collecting the alms-tax in Egypt during the terms of al-Walīd,
Sulaymān, and ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz)272 said that ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz sent
him an edict that said, “Inspect the goods in the possession of the Muslim
merchants who pass your way. Assess the value of all of their cargo that is
intended for immediate sale, deduct from that amount the value of eighty-five
grams (twenty dinars) of gold, and take one-fortieth of the remainder in
satisfaction of the alms-tax. However, if the value of the goods is less than
eighty-five grams (twenty dinars) of gold, leave the cargo alone and do not
take anything. As for non-Muslim merchants who are permanent residents
in Muslim territory: assess the value of all of their cargo that is intended
for immediate sale, deduct from that amount the value of 42.5 grams (ten
dinars) of gold, and take one-fortieth of the remainder. But if the value of the
goods is less than 42.5 grams (ten dinars) of gold, leave the cargo alone and
do not take anything. Record the amount you take from them and give them a
receipt, which suffices them until the same time next year.”
694. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
regarding commercial goods that are intended for immediate sale is that if
a man pays the alms-tax on his money, then buys commercial goods such as

272 Al-Walīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān (r. 86–96/705–715), Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik b. Mar-
wān (r. 96–99/715–717), and ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Marwān (r. 99–101/717–720) were
successive Umayyad caliphs.
230 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

cloth, slaves, or similar things, and then sells them before a year has passed
since he last paid the alms-tax, he does not pay alms-tax on the money that
he receives from the sale of those goods until a year has passed from the
day on which he paid the alms-tax on the original amount. If he does not sell
the commercial goods for some years, however, he is not obliged to pay the
alms-tax on them, and even if he retains the goods for a long time without
selling them, he pays the alms-tax on them only once, when he sells them.’”
695. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule in our view regarding a man who
purchases wheat or dates with gold or silver for purposes of trade, retains
them in his inventory until a year has passed, and then sells them is that he
pays the alms-tax on the goods only at the time when he sells them. This
is provided that the price he receives is at least the minimum amount on
which the alms-tax is due. This case is different from that of crops that a
man harvests from his land or of dates that he gathers from his palm trees.’”
696. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘As for money that a man invests in commercial
trade but that does not yield sufficient profit for him to incur the alms-tax:
the man should determine a month of the year when he appraises the
monetary value of the commercial goods that he holds in inventory, adding
to that sum any gold and silver coin or bullion he owns as of that date. If
their aggregate sum is at least the minimum amount on which the alms-tax
is due, he must then pay the alms-tax on that amount.’”
697. Mālik said, “The same principle applies to Muslims who trade and
to those who do not. They have to pay the alms-tax only once every year,
whether or not they engaged in commerce that year.”

Chapter 10. What Has Come Down regarding Hoarding

698. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār said, “I heard ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar, when asked what a ‘hoard’ (kanz)273 was, say, ‘It is money on which
the alms-tax (zakāt) has not been paid.’”
699. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported from Abū Ṣāliḥ
al-Sammān that Abū Hurayra would say, “On the Day of Resurrection,
anyone who had money on which he failed to pay the alms-tax will see his
wealth transformed into a smooth, poisonous, white-headed serpent with
two venom-swollen glands bulging over its maw, which will seek him out
until it grips him and says, ‘I am your hoard.’”

273 A reference to al-Tawba, 9:34, which condemns those who hoard gold and silver and do not
spend it to further godly ends.
Book 16 231

Chapter 11. The Alms-Tax (Ṣadaqa)274 on Livestock (Māshiya)

700. Mālik said that he had read ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb’s edict (kitāb) regarding
the alms-tax. He said, “I found written therein the following:
‘In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.
This is the edict clarifying the alms-tax with respect to livestock.
§1. On twenty-four camels or fewer, the alms-tax is due in sheep
(ghanam): one yearling (shāt)275 for every five camels. On anything
above that, up to thirty-five camels, a she-camel in its second year
is due or, if there is no she-camel in its second year, a male camel in
its third year. On anything above that, up to forty-five camels, a she-
camel in its third year is due. On anything above that, up to sixty
camels, a she-camel in its fourth year is due. On anything above
that, up to seventy-five camels, a she-camel in its fifth year is due.
On anything above that, up to ninety camels, two she-camels, each
in its third year, are due. On anything above that, up to 120 camels,
two-she camels, each in its fourth year, are due. On any number of
camels greater than 120, a she-camel in its third year is due for
every forty camels and a she-camel in its fourth year is due for
every fifty.
§2. On grazing sheep, if their number is between forty and 120,
one yearling is due. On anything above that, up to 200 sheep, two
yearlings are due. On anything above that, up to 300 sheep, three
yearlings are due. On anything above that, for every one hundred
sheep, one yearling is due. A ram is not to be given as payment of
the alms-tax, nor is an old or injured animal, except as the alms-
tax collector sees fit. Separate flocks should not be joined together
to make one flock, nor should a mingled flock be divided into two
or more flocks, in order to avoid paying the alms-tax. Whenever
two or more persons commingle their flocks, any alms-tax that is
collected must be apportioned between them proportionately.
§3. On silver, if it reaches 600 grams (five awāq), one-fortieth is
levied.’”

274 It is Mālik’s custom to refer to the alms payable on livestock as ṣadaqa rather than zakāt.
275 The Arabs in Mālik’s time used ghanam to refer to both sheep and goats. For stylistic reasons,
we have decided to translate the term as “sheep,” with the understanding that it is also inclu-
sive of goats. Arabs of that time also referred to individual sheep and goats of up to two years
of age as shāt. We have chosen to translate this term as “yearling.” English permits use of the
word “yearling” for both newborn lambs and kids up to the completion of their second year.
232 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 12. What Has Come Down regarding the Alms-Tax (Zakāt) on
Cattle (Baqar)
701. According to Mālik, Ḥumayd b. Qays al-Makkī reported from Ṭāwūṣ
al-Yamānī that Muʿādh b. Jabal al-Anṣārī took one calf in its second year from
every thirty cows, and one cow in its third year from every forty cows.276
Once a herd of less than thirty head was brought to him, so he refrained
from taking anything from it, saying, “I have not heard anything about it
from the Messenger of God (pbuh), so when I next meet him, I shall ask
him.” But the Messenger of God (pbuh) died before Muʿādh b. Jabal could
return to Medina and ask him.277
702. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The best view that I have heard regarding
someone who owns flocks of sheep (ghanam) cared for by two or more
shepherds in different places is that the several flocks are treated as one,
and the owner pays the alms-tax on the combined amount. This case is
analogous to that of a man who owns gold and silver, which he has entrusted
to various people who are scattered about; he must add up all those deposits
and pay the alms-tax that is due on the aggregate sum.’”
703. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a man who has both sheep (ḍaʾn)
and goats (maʿz), ‘They should be added up, and if together they reach the
minimum amount on which the alms-tax is due, the alms-tax must be paid.
It is certainly the case that they are both “sheep,” and ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb’s
edict says, “On grazing sheep, if they reach forty, one yearling.”’”
704. Mālik said, “If there are more sheep than goats, and the owner owes
only one yearling, the alms-tax collector takes a lamb. If the goats are more
numerous than the sheep, he takes a kid. If the goats and the sheep are equal
in number, the alms-tax collector takes a yearling of either kind, as he wishes.”
705. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The same applies to Arabian and Bactrian
camels.278 They are added together to determine liability for the alms-tax.
Indeed, they are both “camels.” If there are more Arabian camels than
Bactrians, and the owner owes only one camel, the alms-tax collector
should take an Arabian. If, on the other hand, the Bactrians outnumber the
Arabians, he should take a Bactrian. If they are equal in number, he may
take whichever kind he wishes.’”

276 According to some authorities, the cow to be taken in the latter case should be in its fourth
year. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 2:170.
277 The Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh) had dispatched Muʿādh b. Jabal al-Anṣārī to Yemen to serve
as his governor there during the last years of his mission.
278 Arabian camels have a single hump, whereas Bactrian camels, which are native to Central
Asia, have two.
Book 16 233

706. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The same applies to cows and buffalo. They
are added together to determine liability for the alms-tax. Indeed, they
are both “cattle.” If there are more cows than buffalo, and the owner owes
only one cow, the alms-tax collector should take a cow. If there are more
buffalo, he should take a buffalo. If they are equal in number, he may take
whichever kind he wishes. If the alms-tax is due on both, it is taken from
the two kinds.’”279
707. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The alms-tax is not due from anyone who has
acquired livestock, be it camels, cattle, or sheep, until a year has passed
from the date of their acquisition, unless he previously owned an amount of
livestock on which the alms-tax was due—either five camels, thirty cattle,
or forty sheep. If he already owns five camels, thirty cattle, or forty sheep
and then acquires additional camels, cattle, or sheep, whether by purchase,
as a gift, or through inheritance, he must pay the alms-tax on the latter when
he pays the alms-tax on the livestock that he already owned, even if a year
has not passed from the date he acquired the additional livestock and even
if the previous owner paid the alms-tax on the animals on the day before
the new owner bought or inherited them. The new owner must pay the
alms-tax on the newly acquired livestock when he pays the alms-tax due on
the livestock that he already owned. This is the very same rule that applies
to silver on which the owner paid the alms-tax and then used to buy goods
from another man. When the second man sold the goods for the silver of
the first man, the second man became liable to pay the alms-tax due on
the silver he received in exchange for those goods—and so he must pay it.
As a result, the first man paid the alms-tax on the silver the day before the
purchase, and the second man then paid the alms-tax on that very same
silver the next day when he took it in exchange for the goods he sold to the
first man.’”
708. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a man who had too few sheep to
incur liability for the alms-tax but then purchased or inherited a number of
additional sheep sufficient by itself to render him liable for the alms-tax, that
he is not obliged to pay alms-tax on any of his sheep until a year has passed
from the day on which he acquired the additional sheep, whether they
were purchased or inherited. That is because whenever an individual owns
livestock—be they camels, cattle, or sheep—in a quantity less than that
which renders him liable to pay the alms-tax, he does not own the requisite
quantity of livestock to render him liable for subsequent acquisitions. That
is to say, until he acquires the minimum amount of each kind of livestock on

279 As would be the case, for example, if there were thirty cows and thirty buffalo, in which case
the alms-tax collector should take one calf from the cows and one calf from the buffalo.
234 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

which the alms-tax is due, he is not liable for subsequent acquisitions. Once
he has acquired the minimum amount of livestock on which the alms-tax is
due, however, whatever he subsequently acquires, whether much or little,
is added to what he previously owned, and the alms-tax is payable at once
on all of them.”
709. Mālik said, “If a man has camels, cattle, and sheep, and the alms-tax
is due with respect to each kind, and he then acquires an additional camel,
cow, or yearling (shāt), he must include it with the rest of his livestock when
he calculates and pays the alms-tax that is due on his livestock. Of all the
views I have heard regarding this issue, that is the view I prefer most.’”
710. Mālik said, regarding a man who is obliged to pay the alms-tax on his
livestock but does not have the specific animal required of him, “If what is
due is a she-camel in her second year but he does not have one, a male camel
in its third year is taken instead. If what is due is a she-camel in its third,
fourth, or fifth year and the owner does not have one, he must purchase
one to satisfy his obligation. The owner should not, in my opinion, give the
alms-tax collector the monetary value of what is due.”
711. Mālik said, regarding camels and cows used in transporting water,
irrigation, and plowing, “I think that the alms-tax is due on all of these
animals once their number reaches the minimum that renders the
alms-tax obligatory.”

Chapter 13. What Has Come Down regarding the Alms-Tax Payable by
Those Who Commingle (Khulaṭāʾ)280 Their Livestock
712. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, concerning two persons who have commingled
(khulaṭāʾ) their livestock, ‘If they share a shepherd, a stud, a pasture, and
the water, the two are comminglers, as long as each of them can identify
his own property. If one of them cannot distinguish his property from that
of his companion, he is not a commingler; rather, he is a partner.281 The
alms-tax (ṣadaqa) is not obligatory on the comminglers until each one of
them independently owns a quantity of livestock on which the alms-tax is

280 The Arabic term khulaṭāʾ (sing. khalīṭ) refers to two or more individuals who pasture their
livestock together but do not own them in common.
281 Mālik is here distinguishing between two kinds of cooperative ventures in animal husbandry:
in the first, called a khulṭa, the participants share only the inputs required for livestock rais-
ing, but each retains individual ownership of the animals in his flock by ensuring that his
animals are marked in a way that distinguishes them from the animals of his colleague. In
this case, the participants are called khulaṭāʾ, or “comminglers.” But when the participants
commingle their flocks in such a fashion that it is impossible to determine individual own-
ership of the specific animals that make up the commingled flock, they form a partnership
(sharika) and are called partners (shurakāʾ, sing. sharīk).
Book 16 235

due. An example that clarifies this principle is that of two comminglers, one
of whom has forty or more yearlings (shāt) and the other has fewer than
forty. In this case, the alms-tax is due only on the one who owns forty or
more. No alms-tax is due on the commingler who owns fewer than that. If
each one of them owns a quantity of livestock on which the alms-tax is due,
the two flocks are assessed together to determine the amount of alms-tax
that is due in the aggregate, and they are jointly liable for the alms-tax
due on their commingled flock. If one of the two has a thousand yearlings,
or some smaller number on which the alms-tax is due, and the other has
forty or more yearlings, they are comminglers. Each one is liable to pay
the alms-tax that is due on the entire flock in proportion to his share of
the commingled property. The one with one thousand head is liable for his
proportionate share of the alms-tax, and the one with forty head is liable for
his proportionate share of the alms-tax.’”
713. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Two persons who commingle their camels
are the same as two who commingle their sheep (ghanam): they are
jointly liable for the alms-tax due on the entirety of the commingled herd,
provided that each of them owns the minimum number of camels on which
the alms-tax is due. That is because the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “No
alms-tax is due on fewer than five camels,” and ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “If
the number of grazing sheep reaches forty, one yearling is due.” Of all the
views I have heard regarding this issue, this view is the one I prefer most.’”
714. ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “Animals that are grazed separately should
not be joined together into one flock, nor should animals that are grazed
together be separated into different flocks, in each case in order to avoid
paying the alms-tax.” Mālik said, “What he meant by that is that the owners
of livestock should not do this. An example of what he meant by ‘animals
that are grazed separately should not be joined together into one flock’ is
the case of three men, each of whom owns forty yearlings. Accordingly, each
is liable to pay the alms-tax on his flock. But when the alms-tax collector
arrives, they commingle their flocks so that together they owe only one
yearling. This is prohibited. An example of what he meant by ‘nor should
animals that are grazed together be separated into different flocks’ is the
case of two comminglers, each of whom owns 101 yearlings. Accordingly,
they jointly owe three yearlings on their commingled flock. But when the
alms-tax collector arrives, they separate their flocks so that each is liable
to pay only one yearling. This is prohibited. That is why it is said, ‘Animals
that are grazed separately should not be joined together into one flock, nor
should animals that are grazed together be separated into different flocks,
in each case in order to avoid paying the alms-tax.’ This is what I have heard
about this issue.”
236 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 14. What Has Come Down regarding the Inclusion of

Newborn Kids and Lambs (Sakhl) in Calculating the Alms-Tax
715. According to Mālik, Thawr b. Zayd al-Dīlī reported from a son of ʿAbd
Allāh b. Sufyān al-Thaqafī, from his grandfather Sufyān b. ʿAbd Allāh, that
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb appointed him as an alms-tax collector.282 He would
include newborn kids and lambs (sakhl) in assessing alms-tax obligations.
The people objected, saying, “Do you include newborn kids and lambs even
though you do not accept them as payment?” When Sufyān returned to
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, he mentioned this issue to him, and ʿUmar said, “Yes,
we include even the newborn kid or lamb that the shepherd must carry
on his back, but we do not accept it as payment. But neither do we take
a fattened animal intended for slaughter (akūla), nor a mother nursing
its child (rubbā), nor a pregnant ewe (mākhiḍ), nor a ram (faḥl). We take
only six-month-old females or animals in their second year, because that
is the median between the least valuable newborn sheep (ghanam) and
the best, most valuable sheep.” A sakhla is a newborn sheep; a rubbā is
a female that has just given birth to a lamb and is nursing it; a mākhiḍ
is a pregnant ewe; and an akūla is a sheep that is being fattened to be
slaughtered for its meat.
716. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man owns a number of
sheep on which he is not liable to pay the alms-tax, but one day before the
alms-tax collector’s arrival his flock increases as a result of births to the
point that it now reaches the minimum number on which the alms-tax is
obligatory: “If the number of sheep, including their newborn offspring,
reaches the level at which the alms-tax is due, the alms-tax is due on them
that year. That is so because the newborn offspring are a result of the flock’s
natural growth. That distinguishes this case from that of flock increases
resulting from purchase, gift, or inheritance. This case is similar to that of
commercial goods whose value at the time of their acquisition is below the
minimum amount on which the alms-tax is due but which, when sold by
their owner, fetch a cash profit sufficient to render the alms-tax obligatory.
In this case the owner pays the alms-tax on the profit and on the original
capital amount in that year. Had the growth in his property been the result
of an acquisition through purchase, gift, or inheritance, however, he would
not have been obligated to pay the alms-tax on that growth until a year
had passed from the day he acquired or inherited the additional property.
Newborn sheep are part of the flock in the same way that the profit is part
of the capital. They differ, however, in one aspect. When a man owns an

282 According to the editors of the RME, Sufyān was sent to the town of Ṭāʾif in the Hijaz, not far
from Mecca.
Book 16 237

amount of money on which the alms-tax is obligatory and then acquires

additional money, he sets aside the newly aquired money and does not
include it with his previously owned money when he calculates the alms-tax
that is due on the latter. He does not add his newly acquired money to his
previously owned money when calculating the alms-tax until a year has
passed from the day on which he acquired the additional money. But if a
man owns a flock of sheep or a herd of cattle or camels sizeable enough to
render the alms-tax obligatory and then acquires an additional camel, cow,
or yearling (shāt), he includes the new animal along with the others of its
kind when paying the alms-tax on that kind of animal, provided again that
he already owned a quantity of that particular kind of animal that made
the alms-tax obligatory. This is the best of all the views that I have heard
regarding this issue.”

Chapter 15. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to the Assessment of

the Alms-Tax (Ṣadaqa) for Two or More Consecutive Years
717. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
concerning a man who is liable for the alms-tax on his herd of one
hundred camels but who is not visited by the alms-tax collector until the
alms-tax for the following year is due, by which time all but five camels
of his herd have died, is that the alms-tax collector takes the alms-tax
for the current and the previous year from the owner’s five surviving
camels, in this case amounting to two yearlings, one for each year. This
is so because the alms-tax becomes due on the owner only on the day
of assessment. Whether the animals have perished or multiplied, the
alms-tax collector assesses the alms-tax on what the owner possesses
on the day of assessment. Even if several years have passed without the
owner paying the alms-tax due on his animals, the owner is not obliged
to pay alms-tax on any livestock other than what the alms-tax collector
finds in the owner’s possession. If his animals had all perished, or if he
owed several years of alms-tax on them but nothing was collected from
him until his animals died out or their number withered to less than the
minimum on which the alms-tax is due, he would not be obliged to pay
any alms-tax, nor would he be liable for any alms-tax on the dead animals
or on any other property that he previously owned.’”

Chapter 16. The Prohibition against Sharp Dealing When Collecting

the Alms-Tax (Ṣadaqa) from the Public
718. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā
b. Ḥabbān, from al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad, that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet
238 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

(pbuh), said, “A flock of sheep (ghanam) consisting of animals collected as

alms-tax was driven past ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb. He noticed that one of the
animals had an udder swollen with milk. He asked, ‘What is that animal
doing here?’ They said, ‘It was collected as part of the alms-tax.’ ʿUmar said,
‘Its owner would not have given it voluntarily. Do not subject people to
hardship. Do not take from Muslims the best of their animals, and avoid
taking lactating females.’”283
719. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā
b. Ḥabbān said, “Two men from the tribe of Ashjaʾ told me that Muḥammad
b. Maslama al-Anṣārī would come to them to collect the alms-tax. He would
say to the livestock owners, ‘Give me what you owe on your livestock.’ He
always accepted whatever yearling (shāt) the owner gave him, provided
that it satisfied the owner’s obligation.”284
[Link]ḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The long-established ordinance among us and
that which I found the people of knowledge following (al-sunna ʿindanā
wa’lladhī adraktu ʿalayhi ahl al-ʿilm) is that Muslims must not be subjected
to sharp dealing when they pay their alms-tax (zakāt). Whatever they give
of their property should be accepted from them.’”285

Chapter 17. Receiving Alms (Ṣadaqa) and Who Is Permitted to

Receive Them
721. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Apart from the needy, only five
categories of people may take property that has been collected as alms: a
soldier campaigning for the sake of God; an administrator of the alms-tax;
a debtor; someone who purchases with his own money property from a
poor person who originally received that property as alms; and someone
who receives as a gift property from his poor neighbor who originally
received it as alms.”
722. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) regarding the
distribution of alms is that it is determined exclusively by the good-faith
judgment of the ruler (wālī). When distributing alms, the ruler ought to

283 According to the editors of the RME, the word ṭaʿām was understood by commentators to
mean “milk.” Zurqānī reports that Mālik was asked what ʿUmar’s admonition meant, and he
said it was a prohibition against the alms-tax collector’s taking a lactating animal (labūn) as
payment of the alms-tax. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 2:182.
284 That is, he did not inquire too closely into the quality of the animal that was given in satisfac-
tion of the obligation.
285 In other words, individual owners have the right to specify what of their property to give to
the alms-tax collector in satisfaction of their obligation to pay the alms-tax. This does not
mean, however, that the owners cannot be coerced to pay the alms-tax.
Book 16 239

use his good-faith judgment to prioritize that category of eligible recipients

that is in fact the most needy and numerous. It may well be the case that
the class of beneficiaries that should receive the alms changes from one
year to the next. In each case, preference is given to those who are needier
and more numerous, whatever class that might be at the time at which
the ruler exercises his good-faith judgment. This, in my experience, is in
accord with the teachings of the people of knowledge of whom I approve.
Administrators of the alms receive no fixed share of the alms. They receive
only what the ruler (imām) specifies for them in good faith.”

Chapter 18. What Has Come Down regarding Collecting the Alms-Tax
(Ṣadaqa) and Strictly Enforcing Its Payment
723. According to Mālik, it reached him that Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq said, “Were
they to refuse me even a length of rope used to hobble a camel, I would fight
them over it.”
724. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam said, “Once ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
drank some milk and liked it very much. He asked the man who poured it
for him where he had gotten it. The man told him that he and some others
had gone to a well (whose name he mentioned), found some livestock that
had been collected as alms-tax watering there, and milked some of the
animals. He said, ‘I put some of that milk in my waterskin, and this is it.’
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb then put his hand into his mouth and threw it up.”
725. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
concerning anyone who withholds a determinate obligation owed to God
and who cannot be persuaded by the Muslims to fulfill it voluntarily is that
the Muslims are obliged to use force against him until he fulfills his duty.’”
726. According to Mālik, it reached him that an official in the government
of ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz wrote to him about a man who had refused to
pay the alms-tax (zakāt) that was due on his property. ʿUmar wrote back
to him, instructing him, “Let the man be, and do not collect any alms-tax
from him when you collect it from the other Muslims.” Mālik said, “When
the man heard about this, he became deeply ashamed, so he offered to pay
the alms-tax that he had previously refused to pay. The official wrote back
to ʿUmar and told him what had happened. ʿUmar wrote back to him and
told him, ‘Accept it from him.’”
240 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 19. The Alms-Tax (Zakāt) Based on the Estimated Yield of

Date Palms and Grapevines
727. According to Mālik, a source that he deemed reliable reported from
Sulaymān b. Yasār and Busr b. Saʿīd that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “Regarding date palms and grapevines, if they are watered by rain,
springwater, or an aquifer, one-tenth of their harvest is due as alms-tax; and
if they are irrigated, one-twentieth is due.”
728. According to Mālik, Ziyād b. Saʿd reported that Ibn Shihāb said, “The
alms-tax (ṣadaqa) may not be discharged with poor-quality dates such as
juʿrūr, muṣrān al-faʾra, or ʿadhq Ibn Ḥubayq.286 Such dates should be included
in the assessment, but they should not accepted as payment of the alms-tax.”
Mālik said, “This rule is the equivalent of the principle that applies to sheep
(ghanam), whose newborns are included in the assessment but are not
accepted as payment of the alms-tax. Sometimes a person might possess
some property, including fresh dates, from which no alms-tax ought to be
collected. An example is burdī287 and similar varieties of high-quality dates.
The alms-tax should be collected from neither the poorest-quality dates
nor the highest-quality ones but only from median-quality dates.”
729. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr
al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā) concerning fresh fruit is that the yield of date
palms and grapevines alone is estimated prior to harvest. Their yield is
estimated at the time when the fruit first becomes viable and may lawfully
be sold. This is because fresh dates and grapes may be eaten as they are,
without first being dried. Accordingly, the owners are required to have the
quantity of their crops estimated, and that estimate determines the amount
of the alms-tax due from them. This is done to ease people’s lives and to
avoid constraining anyone in their affairs. Once made, the estimate of the
quantity of these fruits is conclusive, and thereafter their owners are left
alone and may do with them whatever they wish, including eating them.
They then pay the alms-tax due on the fruit on the basis of the estimate, not
of the amount actually harvested.’”
730. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘As for crops that are not eaten fresh—such as
grains, which are eaten only after they have been harvested—they are never
to be estimated. Rather, once such crops have been harvested, threshed,
and sifted, leaving only the seeds, it is the duty of their owners to pay the
applicable alms-tax on their crops, as long as the harvest produces at least
the minimum on which the alms-tax is due. The owners of these crops

286 These are varieties of dates that are of extremely poor quality.
287 A high-quality variety of dates.
Book 16 241

are trusted to pay what they owe without an alms-tax collector coming to
collect it from them. This is the rule about which there is no dissent among
us (al-amr alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi ʿindanā).’”
731. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The agreed-upon rule among us is that once
the fruit of date palms becomes viable and may lawfully be sold, the owners
of date palms are required to have the quantity of their dates estimated.
Their liability for the alms-tax on their dates is determined conclusively on
the basis of that estimate, and the alms-tax is collected from them in the
form of dried dates at harvest. If a calamity happens to destroy the crop in
its entirety after its output is estimated but before the crop is harvested,
the owner is freed of the obligation to pay the alms-tax on that fruit. If part
of the crop survives, however, and it weighs at least 610 kilograms (five
awsuq) using the measure (ṣāʿ) of the Prophet (pbuh), the alms-tax is
calculated only on that amount. The owner is not liable for the alms-tax in
respect of the crops that the calamity destroyed. The same rule applies also
to grapevines.’”
732. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘If a man has property that is scattered in
various places or owns shares in scattered pieces of property, none of which
is by itself large enough to incur liability for the alms-tax but which, when
added together, constitute an amount on which the alms-tax would be due,
he must aggregate them and pay the alms-tax that is due.’”

Chapter 20. The Alms-Tax (Zakāt) Due on Grains and Olives

733. According to Mālik, he asked Ibn Shihāb about the alms-tax due on
olives, and Ibn Shihāb said, “One-tenth is due on them.”
734. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The one-tenth that is taken from olives is
levied only after they have been pressed, provided that the weight of the
olives is at least 610 kilograms (five awsuq). If the olives’ weight is less than
610 kilograms, no alms-tax is due.’”
735. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Olive trees are like date palms: if they are
watered by rain, springwater, or an aquifer, one-tenth of the harvest is due,
and if they are irrigated, one-twentieth is due. The output of olive trees,
however, is not to be estimated.’”
736. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The long-established ordinance among us
(al-sunna ʿindanā) concerning edible grains that people can store is that
one-tenth is taken from that which has been watered by rain, springwater,
or an aquifer and that one-twentieth is taken from that which has been
irrigated if in either case the harvest exceeds five awsuq (approximately
242 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

610 kilograms) using the original measure (ṣāʿ) of the Messenger of God
(pbuh). The alms-tax is levied on anything in excess of 610 kilograms (five
awsuq) in accordance with the rate that applies to it.’”
737. Mālik said, “The grains and pulses288 that are subject to the alms-tax
are wheat, barley, pearl barley (sult),289 corn, millet, rice, lentils, peas, beans,
sesame seeds, and similar grains that constitute staples. They are all subject
to the alms-tax after they have been harvested and reduced to edible form.
The people are taken at their word with respect to the quantity of their
crops, and whatever they give as payment of the alms-tax is accepted.”
738. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked when the alms-tax on olives should
be paid: before the expenses of storage are incurred or after? He said,
‘Expenses are not taken into consideration. The owners of olives are asked
about their crops just as the people who produce grains and legumes are.
The alms-tax is taken from them on the basis of what they declare. Whoever
declares 610 kilograms or more of olives pays one-tenth of its oil after his
olives have been pressed. Whoever declares less than that does not have to
pay alms-tax on his oil.’”
739. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Whoever sells his cereal crops when they are
ripe and ready in the husk is liable for the alms-tax that is due on them;
their purchaser is not liable.’”
740. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The sale of cereal crops is not valid until their
grains are dry in the husk and they no longer need water.’”
741. Yaḥyā said, “Concerning the statement of God, Blessed and Sublime is
He, ‘Render what is due on it on the day of its harvest,’290 Mālik said, ‘It is
a reference to the alms-tax, and God knows best. I heard people say that.’”
742. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘When someone sells his orchard or his land,
including immature cereal crops or fruit, the purchaser is liable for the
alms-tax, if any, on those cereals or fruit at harvest. If the cereal crops and
the fruit are viable and ready for sale at the time of the transaction, the
seller is liable for the applicable alms-tax unless the seller has stipulated
that the purchaser be liable for paying the alms-tax.’”

288 Pulses include such legumes as peas, chickpeas, and lentils.

289 A type of barley with no husk.
290 Al-Anʿām, 6:241.
Book 16 243

Chapter 21. Dates That Are Not Subject to the Alms-Tax (Zakāt)
743. Mālik said, “If a man has harvested 488 kilograms (four awsuq) of
dried dates or the same amount of raisins,291 wheat, or pulses, he is not
required to add these crops together, and he is not liable for the alms-tax
with respect to any of them—not the dates, the grapes, the wheat, or the
pulses—until any one of them amounts to five awsuq (approximately
610 kilograms) using the measure (ṣāʿ) of the Prophet (pbuh), since
the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘No alms-tax is due on less than 610
kilograms of dates.’”
744. Mālik said, “If any one of those categories amounts to 610 kilograms,
the alms-tax is due, but if it does not reach that amount, no alms-tax is due.
For example, a man who harvests 610 kilograms of dates, even if they are of
different kinds and colors, adds them all together and must pay the alms-tax
on them; however, if they do not add up to that amount, no alms-tax is due
on them.”
745. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The same rule applies to the various kinds of
cereal crops, such as brown wheat, white wheat, barley, and pearl barley,
all of which are treated as one kind. If a man harvests an aggregate total of
at least 610 kilograms of these grains, the alms-tax is due on the total. If,
however, the combined total falls short of that amount, no alms-tax is due.’”
746. Mālik said, “The same rule applies to raisins of all kinds, whether black
or red. If a man harvests (and dries) at least 610 kilograms of raisins, the
alms-tax becomes due on them, but if the harvest falls short of that amount,
no alms-tax is due.”
747. Mālik said, “The same rule applies to pulses; they all fall into one
category, like cereal crops, dates, and raisins, even if they differ in kind and
color. Pulses include chickpeas, lentils, beans, and peas, as well as anything
else the people understand to be pulses. If a man harvests at least 610
kilograms of pulses using the original measure of the Prophet (pbuh), even
if the harvest is made up of different kinds of pulses, not just one kind, they
are added together and the alms-tax is due on them.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik
said, ‘ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb distinguished between pulses and cereals when
these were collected from the Nabateans.292 He determined that pulses

291 This assumes that no conclusive estimate (kharṣ) of the harvest has been made. Al-Mawsūʿa
al-fiqhiyya, 1st ed., 45 vols. (Kuwait: Kuwaiti Ministry of Endowments, 1983), 19:100. If,
however, a conclusive estimate of the harvest has been made, Mālikīs assess liability for the
alms-tax on grapes and dates on the basis of the estimated amount, not what the farmer
actually harvested and dried, as set forth in report nos. 729 and 731 above.
292 According to the editors of the RME, in this context “the Nabateans” refers to the
non-Arabic-speaking peoples of the Fertile Crescent.
244 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

constituted one category, of which he took one-tenth of the harvest, but of

cereals and raisins he took one-twentieth.’”
748. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘If someone were to ask how it can be that pulses
are added together for purposes of the alms-tax and the alms-tax is levied
on the aggregate, even though one is permitted to trade two measures of
one kind for one measure of another whereas cereals cannot be traded at
a rate of two for one, one would say to him that gold and silver are likewise
assessed together for purposes of the alms-tax, even though gold coins might
be exchanged hand-to-hand for many times more in silver coins.’”293
749. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding two men who jointly own date palms
from which they harvest 976 kilograms (eight awsuq) of dates, ‘They are
not obliged to pay any alms-tax on the harvest. If one of them harvests 610
kilograms and the other 488 kilograms or less from the same piece of land,
the alms-tax is due from the owner of the former amount, but no alms-tax
is due from the one who harvested 488 kilograms or less.’”
750. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘This is the practice (ʿamal) that applies to
all partners, whether the partnership involves cereal grains that have been
harvested, dates cut from branches, or grapes off the vine. If each partner’s
share of the harvest is at least 610 kilograms, whether of dried dates,
raisins, or cereals, he is liable for the alms-tax on them. But a partner whose
share is less than 610 kilograms is not liable for the alms-tax. The alms-tax
is paid only by someone whose harvest of cereals, dried dates, or raisins is
at least 610 kilograms.’”
751. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The long-established ordinance among
us (al-sunna ʿindanā) regarding these categories—that is, dried dates,
wheat, raisins, and cereals—is that whatever cash proceeds their owner
receives from selling what he has stored up after paying the alms-tax due
on his crops at the time of their harvest is not subject to the payment of an
additional alms-tax until a year has passed from the day of the sale, so long
as the crops were harvested from his own fields and were not acquired for
purposes of commerce. This is the same rule that applies to foods, cereals,
and commercial goods that someone acquires and keeps for a number of
years, then sells for gold or silver. In that case, he is not liable to pay the
alms-tax on the sale price until a year has passed from the day of the sale. If,
however, these goods were intended for commerce, the owner must pay the

293 The question points out that in the law of sales, the various kinds of pulses are deemed to be
of different genera, which permits them to be traded in unequal quantities. The implication
is that there is a contradiction between their treatment as different genera in the law of sales
and Mālik’s insistence that they be treated as one category for the alms-tax.
Book 16 245

alms-tax on them when he sells them, if he has held them for a year from the
day on which he last paid the alms-tax on the cash used to purchase them.’”

Chapter 22. Fruits, Fodder, and Vegetables That Are Excluded from
the Alms-Tax (Zakāt)
752. Mālik said, “The long-established ordinance about which there is no
dissent among us and that which I have heard from the people of knowledge
(al-sunna allatī lā ikhtilāfa fīhā ʿindanā wa’lladhī samiʿtu min ahl al-ʿīlm) is
that no alms-tax (ṣadaqa) is due on any kind of fruit, whether pomegranates,
peaches, figs, or anything else that is a fruit, whether or not it resembles
them.”
753. Mālik said, “No alms-tax is due on animal fodder or vegetables when
they are harvested, nor is any alms-tax due on their sale price when sold,
until one year has passed from the day of the sale and the receipt of payment.”

Chapter 23. What Has Come Down regarding the Alms-Tax (Ṣadaqa)
on Slaves, Horses, and Honey
754. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported from Sulaymān b.
Yasār, from ʿIrāk b. Mālik, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, “A Muslim does not have to pay alms-tax on his slave or
his horse.”
755. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sulaymān b. Yasār that
the Levantines said to Abū ʿUbayda b. al-Jarrāḥ, “Levy the alms-tax on our
horses and slaves,” but he refused.294 He then wrote to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb,
seeking his advice on this issue, and ʿUmar refused to authorize the proposed
levy. The Levantines again requested the levy, and so Abū ʿUbayda again
wrote to ʿUmar, who wrote back to him saying, “If the Levantines insist,
collect the levy and then distribute its proceeds among them and grant
their slaves a stipend out of the proceeds.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘ʿUmar’s
statement, may God have mercy on his soul, to “distribute its proceeds
among them” means “their poor.”’”
756. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Ḥazm said, “An edict
(kitāb) came from ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz to my father295 when he was at
Minā, saying, ‘Do not collect any alms-tax on honey or horses.’”

294 Abū ʿUbayda b. al-Jarrāḥ (d. 18/639) was the general who completed the conquest of the
Levant during the caliphate of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb and later served as his governor there
until he died of the plague in Jordan.
295 Abū Bakr b. ʿAmr b. Ḥazm, the father of Mālik’s source for this report, served as the judge of
Medina. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 2:202.
246 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

757. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār said, “I asked Saʿīd b.

al-Musayyab about the alms-tax payable on Turkish horses, and he said,
‘Since when is the alms-tax levied on horses?’”

Chapter 24. The Annual Poll-Tax (Jizya)296 Levied on People of the

Book (Ahl al-Kitāb)
758. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb said, “It reached me that the Messenger
of God (pbuh) collected an annual poll-tax from the Zoroastrians of Bahrain,
that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb took such a tax from the Zoroastrians of Persia, and
that ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān took it from the Berbers of the Maghrib.”
759. According to Mālik, Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī reported from his
father that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb brought up the subject of the Zoroastrians
and said, “I have no idea how to treat them.” ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf said, “I
attest that I heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) say, ‘Treat them as you treat
the People of the Book (ahl al-kitāb).’”
760. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from Aslam, the freedman (mawlā)
of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb specified the annual poll-tax
payable by non-Muslims living in regions where gold was the dominant
currency to be four gold dinars,297 and that due from non-Muslims living
where silver was the dominant currency to be forty silver dirhams.298 In
addition, they were required to provide provisions for Muslim travelers or
for the Muslims dwelling in their midst and to quarter traveling Muslims,
but for no more than three days.
761. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from his father that he
said to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, “There is a blind she-camel in the herd of pack
camels.” Aslam said, “ʿUmar then said, ‘Take it to a household that may
benefit from it.’ I said, ‘But it is blind.’ ʿUmar replied, ‘They can herd it with
the other camels.’ I said, ‘How can it eat from the ground when it is blind?’
ʿUmar said, ‘Was it one of the animals given by non-Muslims as part of their
annual poll-tax or one of those given by Muslims as part of their alms-tax?’
I said, ‘Indeed, it was given by non-Muslims.’ ʿUmar said, ‘By God, you just
want to eat it!’ I said, ‘It bears the brand of the annual poll-tax.’299 ʿUmar

296 Jizya is the term for the annual poll-tax that was collected from adult male non-Muslims
who were permanent residents of Islamic territories. Ahl al-kitāb refers to the adherents of
pre-Islamic revealed religions who follow a written scripture, such as Christians and Jews.
297 Such as Egypt and the Levant.
298 Such as Iraq and the territories of the former Sassanian Empire.
299 Aslam was defending himself against the insinuation that he was seeking illegal (and
self-serving) ends: had the camel been given by Muslims as part of the alms-tax, he would
not have been entitled to any part of it, but since it had been given by non-Muslims as part of
their poll-tax, he was eligible to benefit from it.
Book 16 247

therefore ordered that it be slaughtered. He possessed nine platters, and

whenever he came into possession of some fruit or other delicacy, he would
place it on those platters and send them to the wives of the Prophet (pbuh).
The platter he would send to his own daughter, Ḥafṣa,300 would be the last
of the nine. If one of the platters had less than the others, that one would
be Ḥafṣa’s lot. ʿUmar put some of the meat of the slaughtered camel on the
platters and sent them to the wives of the Prophet (pbuh). He ordered that
the rest of the meat of the slaughtered camel be prepared, and a banquet
was held, to which he invited the Emigrants and the Medinese.”
762. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘I do not think that livestock should be taken
from non-Muslims who are permanent residents of Islamic territory beyond
what is already included in their annual poll-tax.’”
763. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz sent an
edict to his governors that said, “Relieve anyone who has embraced Islam
among the non-Muslim population of his obligation to pay the annual
poll-tax.”
764. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘It has long been the established ordinance
(maḍat al-sunna) that no poll-tax is levied on the women or children of the
People of the Book and that the poll-tax is levied only on non-Muslim males
who have reached puberty.’”
765. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Neither the People of the Book (ahl
al-dhimma)301 nor the Zoroastrians pay the alms-tax (ṣadaqa) on their palms,
vines, crops, or livestock, because the alms-tax was imposed on Muslims to
purify their wealth and to redistribute it among their poor, whereas the
annual poll-tax was imposed on the People of the Book to humble them.
As long as they stay in their native region where they came to terms with

300 ʿUmar’s daughter Ḥafṣa was one of the wives of the Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh).
301 Ahl al-dhimma is the legal term for non-Muslims permanently residing in and under the pro-
tection of the Islamic state. It is a broader category than ahl al-kitāb insofar as it may apply,
in Mālik’s view, to any non-Muslim, even if he or she is not an adherent of a revealed religion.
For that reason, a more accurate translation would be “protected people.” In this text, how-
ever, Mālik seems to be referring to Christians and Jews in particular. “Protected people” are
so called because they and the Muslims have undertaken mutual covenants, the non-Muslims
promising to abide by the nonreligious provisions of Islamic law, to pay the annual poll-tax,
and to refrain from supporting the enemies of the Islamic state, and the Muslims promising
to accord the non-Muslims substantially the same rights (other than political rights) afforded
to Muslims under Islamic law, including protection from all external enemies and internal
aggression, whatever the source. Like any obligation, the Muslims’ covenant of protection is
intangible and exists solely by virtue of the capability of a person to undertake an obligation
toward another. Muslim jurists call this capacity dhimma. A beneficiary of this undertaking
is known as a dhimmī, i.e., a person who is entitled to call on the collective conscience of the
Muslim community for protection.
248 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

the Muslims, they are exempt from all taxes on their property other than
the annual poll-tax, as per their treaty with the Muslims. If, however, they
do business in other Muslim lands, traveling back and forth between them,
one-tenth of the value of their commercial property intended for current
sale is taken as a tax. This is because the annual poll-tax was imposed on
them only in accordance with the terms of the peace treaty to which they
agreed with the Muslims and whose terms provided only that they be
protected against their enemies while remaining in their own territories.
Accordingly, whenever one of them leaves his home territory to do business
elsewhere in Muslim lands, he is obliged to pay one-tenth of the value of
his commercial goods intended for current sale when he sets out on a
trading venture. This applies, for example, if he is an Egyptian going to the
Levant, a Levantine going to Iraq, an Iraqi going to Medina or Yemen, or
anything like that. Nor are any of the livestock, dates, or cereal crops of the
People of the Book or the Zoroastrians subject to the alms-tax. That has
long been the established ordinance (maḍat bi-dhālik al-sunna). Muslims
are not to interfere with their religious practices, and their affairs continue
as they otherwise were prior to Islam. If they travel back and forth between
different Muslim territories several times in any one year, they are obliged
to pay one-tenth of the value of their commercial goods each time they
cross a border, because that privilege was not included in their original
treaty with the Muslims, nor was it a right granted to them at that time in
the original treaty. This is what I found the people of knowledge in our town
following (hādhā alladhī adraktu ʿalayhi ahl al-ʿilm bi-baladinā).’”

Chapter 25. The Taxes (ʿUshūr) That Apply to the Crops of the
Protected People
766. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh,
from his father, that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb would collect from the Nabateans
only one-twentieth of their cereals and olive oil in order to encourage
increased delivery of these goods to Medina, but he would collect one-tenth
of their pulses.
767. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that al-Sāʾib b. Yazīd said, “I,
along with ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd, oversaw the market of Medina
during the term of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, and we would collect one-tenth
from the Nabateans.”
768. According to Mālik, he asked Ibn Shihāb on what basis ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb would take one-tenth from the Nabateans. Ibn Shihāb said, “That
is what was taken from them during the Days of Ignorance prior to Islam
(jāhiliyya), so ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb maintained the same practice in Islam.”
Book 16 249

Chapter 26. Purchasing What Has Been Given as Alms (Ṣadaqa) and
Taking It Back
769. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that his father said, “I
heard ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb say, ‘I once gave a noble horse to a man to ride to
battle for the sake of God, but the man did not take care of it. I considered
repurchasing it from him, thinking that he would sell it cheaply. I therefore
asked the Messenger of God (pbuh) whether he thought that would be
advisable, but he said, “Do not buy it, even if he offers to sell it for one
dirham, because the person who takes back his gift is like a dog who eats
his own vomit.”’”
770. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that ʿUmar
b. al-Khaṭṭāb gave a man a horse to ride to battle for the sake of God but
then wanted to buy it back from him, so he asked the Messenger of God
(pbuh) whether he thought that would be advisable. The Prophet (pbuh)
said, “Don’t buy it, and don’t take your gift back.”
771. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was once asked about a man who gave another
man a gift and then discovered that it was now in the possession of a third
person, who was offering it for sale. The original owner wanted to know
whether he could buy it. Mālik said, ‘That he refrain from so doing would be
preferable in my opinion.’”

Chapter 27. Who Is Subject to an Obligation to Pay Alms (Zakāt) on

the Occasion of the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast (ʿĪd al-Fiṭr)
772. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would pay
the alms due on the occasion of the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast for
his young male slaves who lived in Wādī al-Qurā and in Khaybar.302
773. According to Mālik, the best view he had heard regarding what a man
must pay as alms on the occasion of the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan
Fast was that he should pay alms on behalf of all those whom he is legally
obliged to support and for whom he must provide maintenance. He
must pay, therefore, for his slaves who have entered into manumission
contracts (mukātab) with him;303 for his slaves whom he has declared to

302 Wādī al-Qurā is a place just outside of Medina. Khaybar is an oasis fortress town located
approximately four days’ march north of Medina. Both were sites of intense date cultivation.
Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 2:214.
303 Such a contract is called kitāba or mukātaba and ordinarily involves the slave agreeing to
purchase his freedom from his master. The contract will usually provide that the payment be
made over time in instalments. A slave who has entered such a contract with his master is
called a mukātab and enjoys full contractual capacity against third parties. For further details
on the legal treatment of such slaves, see Book 29.
250 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

be manumitted upon his death (mudabbar);304 and for all of his chattel
slaves, be they present in his household or not, as long as they are Muslims,
whether or not they are held for trade. He is not, however, obliged to pay
alms for his slaves who are not Muslims.
774. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, concerning a runaway slave, ‘Whether or not
the master knows his slave’s whereabouts, if the slave is likely to be still
nearby and the master has reason to believe that he is still alive and will
return, my view is that the master should pay alms for him. If the runaway
has been missing for a lengthy period of time and his master has given up
hope of his return, my view is that he is not obliged to pay alms for him.’”
775. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Bedouin must pay the alms for the Feast of
Breaking the Ramadan Fast just as settled people who live in villages must
pay them. That is because the Messenger of God (pbuh) made it obligatory
on every Muslim, free or slave, male or female.’”

Chapter 28. The Measure of the Alms (Zakāt) That Are Due on the
Occasion of the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast (ʿĪd al-Fiṭr)
776. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) imposed on Muslims, be they free or slave, male
or female, alms due on the occasion of the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan
Fast in an amount equal to one measure (ṣāʿ) of dates or barley.
777. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿIyāḍ b. ʿAbd Allāh b.
Saʿd b. Abī Sarḥ al-ʿĀmirī that he heard Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī say, “We would
pay the alms of the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast with a measure of
wheat, barley, dried dates, buttermilk, or raisins, using the measure of the
Prophet (pbuh).”
778. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
always pay the alms of the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast in dried
dates, except once, when he paid them in barley.
779. Mālik said, “The penance for a broken oath or the like, the alms due on
the occasion of the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast, and the alms-tax
(zakāt) on grains for which one-tenth or one-twentieth is due—these are
all paid using measures of 500 grams (a mudd), which is the measure used
by the Prophet (pbuh), except in the case of ẓihār,305 whose penance is

304 For further details on the legal treatment of such slaves, see Book 30.
305 Ẓihār was a pre-Islamic practice akin to divorce, in which a man would declare that his wife
was to him like his mother’s back, meaning that intimate relations with her were as incon-
ceivable to him as having relations with his mother would be. The Quran imposed an obli-
gation of penance on any man who used such a phrase toward his wife and then wished to
return to her. Al-Mujādila, 58:2–3.
Book 16 251

discharged using the measure of Hishām,306 which is the larger of the two
and approximately 650 grams.”

Chapter 29. When the Alms (Zakāt) of the Feast of Breaking the
Ramadan Fast (ʿĪd al-Fiṭr) Should Be Paid
780. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
send the alms due for the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast to the alms
administrator two or three days before the feast.
781. According to Mālik, it was his view that the people of knowledge
preferred to pay the alms due for the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast
after dawn had broken on the day of the feast but before they set out to the
place of prayer.
782. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘There is great latitude, God willing, with
respect to when the alms due for the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast
are to be paid; they can be paid before or after setting out for the prayer on
the day of the feast.”

Chapter 30. Those for Whom Payment of the Alms (Zakāt) of the
Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast (ʿĪd al-Fiṭr) Is Not Obligatory
783. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘A man is not obliged to pay the alms due for the
Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast for any slaves who belong to his slaves,
for his own employees, or for his wife’s slaves, except for any of those who
serve him personally and whose services are indispensable to him.307 He is
not obliged to pay the alms for the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast for
any of his non-Muslim slaves, whether or not he holds them for trade.’”

The Book of the Alms-Tax (Zakāt) Has Come

to an End, with Praise to God as Befits Him.
May God Grace His Prophet Muḥammad and His
Family and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.

306 According to the editors of the RME, the Hishām referenced here is Hishām b. Ismāʿīl
al-Makhzūmī, who served as the governor of Medina during the reign of ʿAbd al-Malik b. Mar-
wān. The precise size of the mudd of Hishām, although recognized to be larger than that of the
Prophet (pbuh), is a matter of some controversy among the Mālikīs, with some saying that it
is the equivalent of one and two-thirds of the mudd of the Prophet (pbuh) and others claiming
it equaled two mudds of the Prophet (pbuh). According to Bājī, as reported by the editors of
the RME, Mālik adopted the measure of Hishām in this instance not because it had revelatory
significance but because he believed it would definitively satisfy the penitent’s obligation. A
Prophetic mudd is approximately 500 grams, whereas a ṣāʿ is approximately 2,000 grams.
307 It is ambiguous whether this exception refers to all three mentioned categories or just the first.
 Book 17
The Book of Fasting (Ṣiyām)

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family
and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.

Chapter 1. What Has Come Down regarding Sighting the Crescent

Moon Indicating the Beginning and the End of the Ramadan Fast
784. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) was discussing Ramadan and said, “Don’t fast
until you see the crescent moon of Ramadan, and don’t celebrate the Feast
of Breaking the Ramadan Fast (ʿīd al-fiṭr) until you see the crescent moon
of Shawwāl.308 If the sky above you is cloudy, estimate when the moon
should appear.”
785. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported from ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “The month has twenty-nine
days, so don’t fast until you see the crescent moon of Ramadan, and don’t
celebrate the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast until you see the crescent
moon of Shawwāl. If the sky above you is cloudy, estimate when the moon
should appear.”
786. According to Mālik, Thawr b. Zayd al-Dīlī reported from ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿAbbās that the Messenger of God (pbuh) spoke once of Ramadan
and said, “Don’t fast until you see the crescent moon of Ramadan, and
don’t celebrate the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast until you see
the crescent moon of Shawwāl. If the sky above you is cloudy, then fast a
complete month of thirty days.”

308 The Islamic calendar is a lunar calendar consisting of twelve months of either twenty-nine
or thirty days. Ramadan is the ninth month and Shawwāl the tenth of the Muslim calendar.
Unlike the Jewish lunar calendar, the Muslim lunar calendar does not adjust itself periodi-
cally to realign with the solar calendar. Consequently, relative to the solar calendar, the Mus-
lim calendar moves up every (solar) year by approximately eleven solar days.

253
254 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

787. According to Mālik, it reached him that the crescent moon was once seen
in the afternoon during the term of ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān, but he did not break his
fast until that evening, when the sun disappeared below the horizon.
788. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say that even if someone is by himself when
he sees the crescent moon that indicates the beginning of Ramadan, he
should still fast, because it is not permissible for him to eat on a day that he
knows is part of Ramadan.”
789. Mālik added, “If, however, someone is by himself when he sees the
crescent moon at the beginning of Shawwāl, he must not break his fast,
because people accuse those who are not fasting of being untrustworthy.
Such untrustworthy persons, when discovered not to be fasting, often
say, ‘We’ve already seen the crescent moon.’ Therefore, whoever sees the
crescent moon of Shawwāl during the day should not break his fast but
should continue fasting for the rest of that day. This is because the crescent
moon belongs to the coming night.”
790. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘If people are fasting on the day of the
Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast, erroneously thinking that it is part of
Ramadan, and then a reliable source comes to them, telling them that the
crescent moon of Ramadan was seen the day before they began observance
of the Ramadan fast and that this day that they are fasting is the first day of
Shawwāl,309 they should immediately cease fasting when they receive this
news. They do not, however, perform the Feast Prayer if the news reaches
them after noon.’”

Chapter 2. Those Who Resolve to Fast before Dawn

791. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“Only someone who has resolved to fast before dawn breaks may fast.”
792. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that ʿĀʾisha and Ḥafṣa, two of
the Prophet’s (pbuh) wives, said something similar.310

Chapter 3. What Has Come Down regarding Breaking the Fast

793. According to Mālik, Abū Ḥāzim b. Dīnār reported from Sahl b. Saʿd
al-Sāʿidī that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “People shall continue to
prosper as long as they break their fast promptly.”

309 In other words, it is not the thirtieth day of Ramadan, as they believed, but rather the first day
of Shawwāl, that is, the day of the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast.
310 These reports are the basis for the Mālikī rule that the fast is not valid unless the person fasting
has made an intention to fast prior to the start of the day that he intends to fast. Because the day
begins with the dawn, the person desiring to fast must resolve to do so before dawn breaks.
Book 17 255

794. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥarmala al-Aslamī reported

from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “People
shall continue to prosper as long as they break their fast promptly.”
795. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Ḥumayd b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān that before ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb and ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān broke the
fast, they would perform the Sunset Prayer (ṣalāt al-maghrib) when they
saw the darkness of the night approaching from the eastern horizon. Then
they would break the fast after the prayer. That was during Ramadan.

Chapter 4. What Has Come Down regarding the Fasting of Someone

Who Awakes in a State of Ritual Preclusion (Junub)
796. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Maʿmar al-Anṣārī
reported from Abū Yūnus, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿĀʾisha, that he
overheard a man standing at the door of the Messenger of God (pbuh)
saying to him, “Messenger of God, I sometimes get up in the morning in a
state of ritual preclusion, and I wish to fast.” The Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “I, too, get up in the morning in a state of ritual preclusion, and I wish
to fast, so I bathe and I fast.” The man said to him, “But you are not like
us: God has already forgiven whatever wrong you have done or might yet
do.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) became angry and said, “By God, I hope
that no man is more fearful of God than me, nor more knowledgeable about
what to avoid.”
797. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Rabbih b. Saʿīd reported from Abū Bakr b.
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Ḥārith b. Hishām that ʿĀʾisha and Umm Salama, two of
the wives of the Prophet (pbuh), said, “During Ramadan, the Messenger of
God (pbuh) would awake in the morning in a state of ritual preclusion as a
result of sexual intercourse—not from a wet dream—and then would fast.”
798. According to Mālik, Sumayy, the freedman of Abū Bakr b. al-Ḥārith b.
Hishām, reported that he heard Abū Bakr b. al-Ḥārith b. Hishām say, “My
father and I were with Marwān b. al-Ḥakam311 when he was the governor
of Medina, and someone mentioned to him that Abū Hurayra was saying
that whoever gets up in the morning in a state of ritual preclusion must
not fast that day. Marwān said, ‘I swear to you, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān,312 you

311 He served as the governor of Medina twice during the caliphate of Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān (r.
41–60/660–680).
312 According to the notes of the RME, the father of Abū Bakr, the source of this report, was
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, not al-Ḥārith, who was in fact Abū Bakr’s grandfather. Abū Bakr’s full
name appears in other manuscript copies of the Muwaṭṭaʾ as Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b.
al-Ḥārith b. Hishām. The very next hadith, no. 799, which presents a truncated version of this
report, mentions the source as “Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān.”
256 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

shall immediately set off for ʿĀʾisha and Umm Salama, the Mothers of the
Believers, and ask them both about that.’ ʿAbd al-Raḥmān set off to see
ʿĀʾisha, and I accompanied him. He greeted her and then said, ‘Mother
of the Believers, we were with Marwān b. al-Ḥakam, and someone
mentioned that Abū Hurayra says that whoever awakes in the morning
in a state of ritual preclusion cannot fast that day.’ ʿĀʾisha said, ‘No, it is
not as Abū Hurayra says, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. Would you shun the practice
of the Messenger of God (pbuh)?’ ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said, ‘No, by God!’
ʿĀʾisha said, ‘I attest that the Messenger of God (pbuh) would get up in the
morning during Ramadan in a state of ritual preclusion following sexual
intercourse, not a wet dream, and then fast that day.’ Then we left to go
see Umm Salama, and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān asked her about the same issue,
and she said substantially the same thing as ʿĀʾisha had. Then we left and
returned to Marwān b. al-Ḥakam, and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān told him what they
both had said. Marwān said, ‘I swear to you, Abū Muḥammad, you shall
ride my mount—it is at the gate—and go see Abū Hurayra, who is at his
estate in al-ʿAqīq, and let him know what they said.’ ʿAbd al-Raḥmān rode
off and I accompanied him until we arrived at Abū Hurayra’s estate. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān briefly made small talk with him and then raised this issue.
Abū Hurayra said, ‘I have no knowledge about this; I simply reported what
someone told me.’”
799. According to Mālik, Sumayy, the freedman of Abū Bakr, reported from
Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from ʿĀʾisha and Umm Salama, two of the
wives of the Prophet (pbuh), that they said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh)
would get up in the morning in a state of ritual preclusion following sexual
intercourse, not a wet dream, and then would fast.”

Chapter 5. What Has Come Down regarding the Dispensation for a

Fasting Man to Kiss His Wife
800. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār that a
man kissed his wife with desire while fasting in Ramadan, and he became
extremely distressed.313 He therefore dispatched his wife to inquire on his
behalf about this. She went to see Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet
(pbuh), and raised this issue with her. Umm Salama told her that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) would kiss her while he was fasting. So the woman
returned and told her husband what Umm Salama had said, but he became
even more distraught and exclaimed, “We are not like the Messenger of
God (pbuh)! God permits whatever He wishes to the Messenger of God

313 Because sexual intercourse during the daylight hours is prohibited as part of fasting, the man
feared that kissing his wife with sexual desire might have invalidated his fast.
Book 17 257

(pbuh).” His wife returned to Umm Salama and found the Messenger
of God (pbuh) there with her. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “What
troubles this woman?” Umm Salama told him. He said, “Didn’t you tell her
that I do that myself?” She said, “I did indeed. She returned to her husband
and told him so, but he only became more distressed and said, ‘We are not
like the Messenger of God (pbuh)! God permits whatever He wishes to
the Messenger of God (pbuh).’” Then the Messenger of God (pbuh) grew
angry and said, “By God, I am more fearful of God than any of you, and more
knowledgeable of His limits.”
801. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, would say, “The Messenger of God
(pbuh) would certainly kiss one of his wives while fasting,” and then she
would giggle.
802. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that ʿĀtika bt. Saʿīd b. Zayd
b. ʿAmr b. Nufayl, the wife of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, would affectionately kiss
ʿUmar’s head while he was fasting, and he would not forbid her.
803. According to Mālik, Abū al-Naḍr, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿUmar b.
ʿUbayd Allāh, reported that ʿĀʾisha bt. Ṭalḥa told him that she was with
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), when the former’s husband, ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakr al-Ṣiddīq (ʿĀʾisha’s nephew), came in.
He was fasting at the time, and ʿĀʾisha said to him, “What’s stopping you
from cuddling with your wife, kissing her, and being flirtatious with her?”
He said, “May I kiss her, even though I am fasting?” She said, “Yes, why not?”
804. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that Abū Hurayra and Saʿd
b. Abī Waqqāṣ permitted a fasting man to kiss his wife with desire.

Chapter 6. What Has Come Down Warning against Kissing

When Fasting
805. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet
(pbuh), would say, whenever she brought up the fact that the Messenger of
God (pbuh) would kiss his wives while fasting, “Which of you can exercise
self-control like the Messenger of God (pbuh)?”
806. Mālik said, “Hishām b. ʿUrwa said that ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr said, ‘In my
opinion, kissing rarely invites a fasting man to good.’”
807. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār that
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās was asked about a fasting man who wished to kiss his
wife. ʿAbd Allāh permitted old men to do so, but discouraged young men.
258 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

808. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
prohibit a fasting man from kissing and intimately touching his wife.

Chapter 7. What Has Come Down regarding Fasting While Traveling314

809. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd, from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās, that the Messenger of
God (pbuh) left for Mecca during Ramadan in the year of the conquest of
Mecca (ʿām al-fatḥ) and fasted until he reached al-Kadīd.315 He then broke
his fast, as did everyone else. The people would put into practice whatever
the Messenger of God (pbuh) had most recently done.
810. According to Mālik, Sumayy, the freedman (mawlā) of Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān, reported from Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from one of the
Companions of the Messenger of God (pbuh), that while en route to Mecca
in the year of the conquest, the Messenger of God (pbuh) commanded the
people not to observe the fast. He said, “Strengthen yourselves for your
enemy.” However, the Messenger of God (pbuh) himself fasted. Abū Bakr
b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said, “The one who narrated this report to me said, ‘At
al-ʿArj316 I saw the Messenger of God (pbuh) pour water over his head, either
because of thirst or because of the heat. Then someone said to the Messenger
of God, “A group of people decided to fast, despite your instructions, when
they realized that you were fasting.”’ When the Messenger of God was at
al-Kadīd, therefore, he asked for a bowl of water and drank, so everyone
broke their fast.”
811. According to Mālik, Ḥumayd al-Ṭawīl reported that Anas b. Mālik said,
“Once, we were traveling with the Messenger of God (pbuh) in Ramadan.
Those who fasted did not rebuke those who did not; those who did not fast
did not rebuke those who did.”
812. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
Ḥamza b. ʿAmr al-Aslamī said to the Messenger of God (pbuh), “Messenger of
God, I am a man who fasts. Shall I fast when I am traveling?” The Messenger
of God said, “Fast or do not fast, as you wish.”

314 The plain sense of the Quran—“So whoever of you is ill or traveling, let him fast an equivalent
number of other days”—suggests that a Muslim should not fast during the month of Rama-
dan if he is ill or traveling. Al-Baqara, 2:185. As the reports in this chapter suggest, however,
the early community understood this verse as granting a fasting person permission to refrain
from fasting under these circumstances but not obliging him to do so.
315 A place between Medina and Mecca.
316 According to the editors of the RME, a place on the way to Mecca from Medina at a distance
of approximately three marāḥil (approximately 312 km) from Medina. A marḥala is defined
as a day’s journey, or approximately twenty-four mīls, that is, 104 km. Jumuʿa, al-Makāyīl, 56.
Book 17 259

813. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would not
fast when traveling.
814. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that the
latter would travel during Ramadan. Hishām said, “We would travel with
him. ʿUrwa would fast and we would not, but he would not tell us to fast.”

Chapter 8. What One Should Do If One Returns from or Intends to Set

Out on a Journey during Ramadan
815. According to Mālik, it reached him that if ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb was
traveling during Ramadan and knew that he would reach Medina by
morning, he would fast that day.
816. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Whoever is traveling and knows that he will
reach his home early in the morning, but dawn breaks before he arrives,
should fast that day. Whoever intends to travel in Ramadan, but dawn
breaks and he has yet to depart, should fast that day.’”
817. Mālik said that if a man returns from a journey in Ramadan and is not
fasting, and his wife is not fasting because she has just completed bathing
after her period, he may have sexual intercourse with her.

Chapter 9. The Expiation for Breaking the Ramadan Fast

818. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Ḥumayd b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf, from Abū Hurayra, that a man broke his fast in Ramadan
and the Messenger of God (pbuh) ordered him to expiate his sin by
manumitting a slave, fasting two successive months, or feeding sixty needy
people. He said, “I don’t have the means to manumit a slave.” A large basket
of dried dates was brought to the Messenger of God, so he said, “Take these
and give them to the poor as charity.” He said, “Messenger of God, there is
no one poorer than myself.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) laughed heartily
and said, “Eat them!”
819. According to Mālik, ʿAṭāʾ b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Khurasānī reported that
Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab said, “A bedouin came to the Messenger of God (pbuh),
beating his chest and pulling out his hair, saying, ‘I have perished!’ The
Messenger of God said to him, ‘And why is that?’ He said, ‘I had intercourse
with my wife while fasting in Ramadan.’ The Messenger of God said to
him, ‘Can you manumit a slave?’ The man said, ‘No!’ Then he said, ‘Can you
slaughter a camel and give away its meat?’ He said, ‘No!’ The Messenger
of God said, ‘Have a seat.’ A large basket of dried dates was brought to the
Messenger of God, and he said, ‘Take these and give them away as charity.’
260 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

So the man said, ‘But there is no one poorer than myself.’ The Messenger
of God said to the man, ‘Eat them, and fast one day in place of the day on
which you had intercourse during Ramadan.’” Mālik said, “ʿAṭāʾ said, ‘I asked
Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, “How many dried dates were in that basket?” He said,
“Between thirty and forty kilograms (fifteen to twenty ṣāʿ).”’”
820. Mālik said, “I heard the people of knowledge say that a man who is
expiating his violation of the Ramadan fast and then violates that make-up
fast by, for example, having intercourse with his wife that day or doing
something else is not obliged to perform a second expiation. He only has to
make up for that day.” Mālik said, “Of all the views I have heard about this,
this view is the one I prefer most.”

Chapter 10. Cupping317 a Man Who Is Fasting

821. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUmar would be cupped while he was fasting. Nāfiʿ said, “He later
gave it up and would be cupped only after he had broken his fast.”318
822. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ and
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would be cupped while they were fasting.
823. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that he
would be cupped while he was fasting, and he would not break his fast.
Hishām said, “I only saw my father being cupped when he was fasting.”
824. Mālik said, “Cupping is discouraged for those who are fasting out of
fear that they will be weakened and become unable to complete their fast.
In the absence of such a concern, it is not discouraged. If a man is cupped
in Ramadan and then completes his fast, I do not think he is subject to any
penalty, nor would I order him to make up the fast day on which he was
cupped. Cupping is discouraged only when it poses a risk to completing the
fast. Accordingly, whoever is cupped and feels well enough to keep the fast
until evening is not subject to any penalty, nor must he make up that day.”

Chapter 11. Fasting on the Day of ʿĀshūrāʾ319

825. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said, “The day of ʿĀshūrāʾ was a day

317 A common traditional medicinal practice, believed to improve blood circulation.

318 The editors of the RME report that one of the commentators of the Muwaṭṭaʾ interprets Ibn
ʿUmar’s actions as reflecting his own perception of his ability to withstand cupping. Accord-
ingly, when his health was good, he engaged in this practice while fasting, but when old age
had weakened him, he would undergo cupping only after he had broken his fast so as to have
the strength to endure the procedure.
319 ʿĀshūrāʾ is the tenth day of Muḥarram, the first month of the Islamic calendar.
Book 17 261

on which the Quraysh would fast in the Days of Ignorance prior to Islam
(jāhiliyya). The Messenger of God (pbuh) also observed it in those days.
When the Messenger of God (pbuh) came to Medina, he continued to observe
it and ordered the Muslims to observe it as well. When the Ramadan Fast
was imposed, however, it became the obligatory fast, and the obligation to
observe the Fast of ʿĀshūrāʾ lapsed. Therefore, whoever wishes may continue
to fast on ʿĀshūrāʾ, and whoever wishes may refrain from it.”
826. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Ḥumayd b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf that he heard Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān say from the pulpit
of the Prophet’s Mosque, on the day of ʿĀshūrāʾ in the year in which he
performed the Pilgrimage (ḥajj), “People of Medina! Where are your learned
men? I heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) say about this day, ‘This is the
day of ʿĀshūrāʾ; observance of a fast on this day has not been prescribed for
you, but I observe it. Therefore, whoever wishes to observe it may do so, but
whoever does not need not.’”
827. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb dispatched
a messenger to al-Ḥārith b. Hishām with the message, “Tomorrow is the day
of ʿĀshūrāʾ. Fast, therefore, and command your family to fast as well.”

Chapter 12. Fasting on the Two Feast Days (ʿĪd al-Fiṭr and ʿĪd al-Aḍḥā),320
and Fasting Every Day
828. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā b. Ḥabbān reported from
al-Aʿraj, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited
fasting on the two feast days (ʿīd al-fiṭr and ʿīd al-aḍḥā).
829. According to Mālik, he heard the people of knowledge say, “There is
nothing objectionable in fasting day after day, as long as one breaks the
fast on the days on which the Messenger of God (pbuh) forbade fasting—
the days of Minā,321 the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast, and the Feast
of the Sacrificial Animals—in accordance with what has reached us.”
Mālik said, “Of all the views that I have heard about this, this view is the
one I prefer most.”322

320 These are the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast and the Feast of the Sacrificial Animals,
respectively. The latter takes place on the tenth day of Dhū al-Ḥijja and commemorates Abra-
ham’s sacrifice of a ram in lieu of his son.
321 These are the days during the Pilgrimage season when the pilgrims symbolically cast pebbles
at the Devil at the conclusion of the Pilgrimage.
322 This opinion assumes that the person is fasting only during daytime hours and breaking his
fast each evening.
262 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 13. The Prohibition against Continuous Fasting (Wiṣāl)323

830. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited continuous fasting. They said, “But
Messenger of God, don’t you fast continuously?” He said, “My constitution is
not like yours; God satisfies my hunger and thirst.”
831. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Be wary of continuous
fasting! Be wary of continuous fasting!” They said, “But don’t you fast
continuously, Messenger of God?” He said, “My constitution is not like yours.
My Lord feeds me and quenches my thirst even as I sleep.”

Chapter 14. The Fast of the Penitent Who Kills Another Unintentionally
(Qatl al-Khaṭaʾ)324 or Who Declares His Wife to Be Like the Back of His
Mother (Ẓihār)
832. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘If someone who killed another
unintentionally or declared his wife to be like the back of his mother
starts to fulfill the obligatory two consecutive months of fasting due as
expiation, then contracts a debilitating illness that forces him to interrupt
his fast, but then recovers from his illness and is strong enough to resume
fasting, he must do so immediately, starting from the point at which he
previously stopped.’”
833. Mālik said, “Similarly, a woman who is obliged to fast because she
killed another unintentionally must not delay resumption of her fast once
she completes her period. She resumes her fast from the last day she fasted.”
834. Mālik said, “No one who is under an obligation to fast two consecutive
months as commanded in the Book of God may interrupt his or her fast for
reasons other than illness or menstruation. One may not travel and thereby
break the fast.” Mālik said, “Of all the views I have heard about that, this
view is the best.”

323 Fasting in Islam is limited to the hours between dawn and sunset. To fast continuously, there-
fore, is to continue one’s fast into the night until the next day’s fast.
324 A person who accidentally kills another is not subject to criminal penalty in Islamic law. If
the accident took place in Muslim territory, compensation must be paid to the victim’s family
and a Muslim slave must be manumitted. If the accident took place outside of Muslim terri-
tory and the victim was a Muslim, the defendant must manumit a Muslim slave, but there
is no obligation to pay compensation, unless the non-Muslim territory is at peace with the
Muslims. If the defendant is unable to manumit a slave, he must expiate by fasting two con-
secutive months. Al-Nisāʾ, 4:92.
Book 17 263

Chapter 15. What an Ill Man Does regarding His Fast

835. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The rule that I have heard from the
people of knowledge (al-amr alladhī samiʿtu min ahl al-ʿilm) is that if an
illness befalls a man and as a result fasting becomes very difficult for him
and exhausts him, he may suspend his fast. The same principle applies to
someone so ill that he finds it extremely difficult to stand for obligatory
prayers—it being understood that only God knows the person’s true
condition and whether he has a genuine excuse. If it is in fact so, he performs
the prayer from a seated position, because God’s religion is ease. God has
permitted a traveler to suspend his fast when he is traveling, even though
the traveler is better able to fast than is a sick man who is not on a journey.
God says in His Book, “So whoever of you is ill or traveling, let him fast an
equivalent number of other days.”325 God has therefore permitted a traveler
to suspend the fast when he is traveling, even though he is better able to
fast than a sick man is. Of all the views that I have heard, this view is the one
I prefer most, and it is the agreed-upon rule (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayh).’”

Chapter 16. A Vow (Nadhr) to Fast, and Fasting for the Benefit of the
Deceased
836. According to Mālik, it reached him from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab that he
was asked whether a man who had vowed to fast a month could observe
additional voluntary fasts. Saʿīd said, “Let the man fulfill his vow first, and
then he may observe other voluntary fasts.”
837. Mālik said, “It reached me that Sulaymān b. Yasār held a similar view.”
838. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘If a man dies without having fulfilled
a vow, whether the vow required him to manumit a slave, to fast, to give
charity, or to slaughter a camel, but he made a testamentary disposition
for this obligation to be discharged out of his estate, then the slave, the
charity, or the camel is to be taken from the one-third of his estate subject
to testamentary dispositions.326 Fulfillment of the obligations arising out
of such vows is given priority over his other testamentary dispositions,
unless they are of a similar nature. That is because the obligations he owes
in respect of unfulfilled vows and other obligatory matters327 are not the
equivalent of what he voluntarily promised to give away to others. Amounts

325 Al-Baqara, 2:185.

326 In Sunnī inheritance law, the testator is allowed to dispose of only one-third of his estate
via testamentary disposition (i.e., a will). The rest of the estate is distributed in accordance
with mandatory rules of distribution that specify the heirs and the share of the estate that
each receives.
327 “Other obligatory matters” might include, for example, unpaid obligations to pay the alms-tax.
264 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

owed in respect of unfulfilled vows are satisfied exclusively out of the

one-third of his estate set aside for testamentary dispositions, not from the
entirety of the decedent’s capital. Were it permissible for the decedent to
settle such amounts from the capital of his estate, the decedent might well
choose to defer payment of these obligations until he is on his deathbed
and his property is about to pass to his heirs. Then, at that moment, he
would acknowledge the obligations, even though a court could never have
enforced them.328 If such acknowledgments were binding, he might delay
acknowledging them until he was on his deathbed and only then specify
them, in which case they might be so large that they would consume the
entirety of his estate. He is therefore not allowed to do that.’”329
839. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would be
asked, “Can someone fast or perform prayer on behalf of someone else?” He
would reply, “No one can fast or perform prayer on behalf of someone else.”

Chapter 17. What Has Come Down regarding Making Up Missed Days
of Fasting for Ramadan or for Penance
840. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from his brother that once,
on a cloudy day in Ramadan, ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb broke his fast thinking that
the sun had set. A man came to him and said, “Commander of the Faithful,
the sun is still visible!” ʿUmar said, “Calm down; this is not a big deal. We
certainly acted in accordance with our best judgment.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik
said, ‘In our opinion, he meant, by “Calm down; this is not a big deal,” that
the day’s fast could be made up—and God knows best—and that its burden
is light and easy. What he was saying is that he would fast another day in
its place.’”
841. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“Whoever does not observe the Ramadan fast because of an illness or travel
should make up the days he missed by fasting them consecutively, as though
they were in the month of Ramadan.”

328 Although vows such as manumitting a slave, giving certain sums in charity, or sacrificing an
animal for the poor involve tangible property interests, in these cases, in contrast to commit-
ments to give a gift or manumit a specific slave, there is no specific beneficiary who could
sue in court to compel fulfillment of the vow. Therefore, the obligation to perform the vow is
binding only in a moral sense.
329 Mālik’s ruling in this case is an exemplary instance of his use of the concept of sadd al-dharīʿa
(“blocking the means” or “preclusion”). If a dying person has vowed to perform certain acts
of charity but has failed to fulfill his vows during his lifetime, he can fulfill them in death
only out of the one-third portion of his estate dedicated to bequests. Otherwise, Mālik rea-
soned, people could claim unfulfilled pious obligations, whether unfulfilled vows or unpaid
alms-tax, on their deathbeds to deprive their legal heirs of their inheritance precisely at the
time when they know that they will no longer be able to enjoy their property themselves.
Book 17 265

842. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās and
Abū Hurayra disagreed on the issue of making up days missed in Ramadan.
One of them said, “They need not be fasted consecutively,” and the other
said, “They must be fasted consecutively.” Ibn Shihāb said, “I do not know
which one said, ‘They need not be fasted consecutively.’”
843. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“If a man induces himself to vomit while fasting, he must make up that day,
but if he vomits spontaneously, he is not obliged to make up that fasting day.”
844. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he heard Saʿīd b.
al-Musayyab being asked about making up missed days of fasting in
Ramadan, and Saʿīd said, “In my opinion, it is best to make up missed days
of Ramadan fasting consecutively, one after another.”
845. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, regarding someone who made up
missed days of Ramadan fasting in a nonconsecutive fashion, ‘He is not
obliged to fast them again consecutively. What he fasted was sufficient for
him. I would have preferred it, however, had he fasted them consecutively.’”
846. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘Whoever eats or drinks inadvertently
or absentmindedly in Ramadan, or during any other fast day that he is
obliged to observe, must fast another day in that day’s place.’”
847. According to Mālik, Ḥumayd b. Qays told him, “I was with Mujāhid330
while he was circumambulating the Kabah, and a man came to him and
asked him whether fasts that are imposed for penance must be fasted
consecutively or whether they can be fasted nonconsecutively. I said to
him, ‘Yes, he can fast them nonconsecutively if he wishes.’ Mujāhid said, ‘He
should fast them consecutively because in Ubayy b. Kaʿb’s recitation of the
Quran, they are referred to as three consecutive days.’”331
848. Mālik said, “I prefer that a person observing a fast that is specified in
the Quran complete the fasting days consecutively.”
849. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about how the woman described in the
following case should perform her religious duties of prayer and fasting.

330 An early exegete of the Quran (d. 103/721) who was a student of the Companion ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿAbbās.
331 This report concerns the proper understanding of the verse “God does not take you to
account for oaths that you make casually, but He does take you to account for those made
in earnest. The penance of an oath made in earnest is feeding ten poor people from the very
food that you feed your own family, or clothing them, or manumitting a slave. Whosoever is
unable to do any of these should fast three days.” Al-Māʾida, 5:89. What Mujāhid meant is that
Ubayy b. Kaʿb understood the verse to command the penitent to fast the three required days
consecutively.
266 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Assume the woman begins her day fasting in Ramadan and then finds fresh
blood suddenly flowing from her, even though it is not the usual time of her
period. She then waits until evening to see if the bleeding continues, but she
does not notice anything. Then, on the next day, she awakes, and fresh blood
again flows from her, but in a smaller amount than the previous day. Then,
a few days before her period, this bleeding comes to a complete stop. Mālik
said, ‘That was menstrual blood. When she sees it she should suspend her
fast; later, she should make up the days she did not fast. When the blood’s
flow comes to a complete stop, she should bathe and resume her fast.’”
850. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether someone who embraces Islam
on the last day of Ramadan must make up the entirety of the Ramadan fast
that he missed, or whether he must make up the fasting day of Ramadan
on which he became Muslim. He said, ‘He is under no obligation to make
up any prior fasting days. Rather, he begins fasting from that day onward. I
prefer that he make up the fasting day on which he embraced Islam insofar
as he was a Muslim for part of that day.’”

Chapter 18. Making Up Voluntary Fasts

851. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that ʿĀʾisha and Ḥafṣa, two of
the wives of the Prophet (pbuh), woke up and began to observe a voluntary
fast, but then they received a gift of food, so they broke their fast and ate it.
The Messenger of God (pbuh) came in and saw them. ʿĀʾisha said, “Ḥafṣa,
being blunt and bold like her father, spoke before me, saying, ‘Messenger of
God, ʿĀʾisha and I began the morning observing a voluntary fast, but then
we received a gift of food, so we broke our fast and ate it.’ The Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, ‘Fast another day in this day’s place.’”
852. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘A man who eats and drinks inadvertently
or absentmindedly during a voluntary fast does not have to make up that
day; rather, he should continue his voluntary fast for the rest of that day
and should not abandon it. If something occurs unexpectedly on the day
of a voluntary fast that causes a man to interrupt his fasting, and if the
only reason he interrupted his fast was for that valid excuse and he did not
desire to break his fast, then he is not obliged to make it up. Neither do I
believe that he is obliged to repeat the performance of a voluntary prayer
(ṣalāt), if he interrupted it because of a physical need of the body that he
could not restrain, and it was of the kind whose occurrence necessitates the
performance of ablutions (wuḍūʾ) prior to praying.’”
Book 17 267

853. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘It is not acceptable that a person should begin
any voluntary pious act, whether prayer, fasting, the Pilgrimage (ḥajj), or a
similar act, and then abandon it prior to having completed it in accordance
with its mandatory rules.332 Accordingly, if he begins performance of the
prayer by magnifying God (saying “God is great,” Allāhu akbar), he is not to
stop until he has performed two complete cycles (rakʿa) of prayer; if he is
fasting, he is not to break the fast until he has finished that day’s fast; and
if he begins performance of the Pilgrimage, he is not to return home until
he has completed it. If he begins to circumambulate the Kabah, he is not to
stop until he has completed seven circuits. Once he has begun such acts, he
must complete them, unless something serious happens to him, such as a
serious illness or any other event that generally excuses people from ritual
obligations. This is because God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says in His Book,
“Eat and drink until the white thread of dawn appears to you distinct from its
black thread, and then complete your fast till the night appears.”333 Therefore,
once he has begun the fast, he must complete it. God also said, “Complete the
Pilgrimage and the Visitation (ʿumra) for the sake of God.”334 Consequently,
even if a man has already performed the obligatory Pilgrimage but then
undertakes a second Pilgrimage, he must not abandon the consecrated state
(iḥrām) of a pilgrim335 and return home in the unrestricted state (ḥalāl) of
a nonpilgrim until he has completed that Pilgrimage. Anyone who begins a
voluntary pious act (nāfila) must complete it, just as he must complete an
obligatory pious act. This is the best view that I have heard.’”

Chapter 19. What a Person Offers in Lieu of Fasting If He Does Not

Observe the Ramadan Fast on Account of Incapacity
854. According to Mālik, it reached him that Anas b. Mālik reached such an
advanced age that he lost the ability to fast, so he would instead feed the poor.
855. Mālik said, “I do not believe feeding the poor is obligatory for someone
too old to fast; but if he is able to do so, it is better for him. If a person offers
food in lieu of fasting, he should give approximately 500 grams (one mudd)
of food, using the measure of the Prophet, for every day he misses.”

332 The phrase Mālik uses is ʿalā sunnatih.

333 Al-Baqara, 2:198.
334 Al-Baqara, 2:196. The Visitation also entails a journey to Mecca and the performance of cer-
tain rites there, but unlike the Pilgrimage, it may be performed at any time during the year,
and its rites are circumscribed in comparison to those of the Pilgrimage.
335 When a person resolves to perform the Pilgrimage or the Visitation, he enters into a conse-
crated state, known as iḥrām, in which many acts that are ordinarily permissible are pro-
hibited. Leaving this consecrated state is known as iḥlāl or taḥallul, which indicates that the
restrictions that bound the pilgrim as long as he was performing the Pilgrimage or the Visi-
tation have ended and he is now free to resume his normal life.
268 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

856. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar was asked
what a pregnant woman should do if the fast becomes extremely difficult
for her and she fears for her fetus. He said, “She should suspend her fast,
and for every day she misses, she feeds a poor person approximately 500
grams of wheat, using the measure of the Prophet (pbuh).”
857. Mālik said, “The people of knowledge are of the view that she must
make up the days that she misses, because God said, ‘Whoever of you is ill
or traveling, let him fast an equivalent number of other days.’336 They see
that condition as an illness, in combination with her fear for her child.”
858. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported that his
father would say, “If Ramadan arrives, and someone who was obliged to
make up fasting days from the previous year’s Ramadan has not done so
yet, despite having been healthy enough to fast, that person must feed a
poor person approximately 500 grams of wheat for every day of fasting that
he missed, and he must still make up those missed days.”
859. According to Mālik, it reached him that a similar view was held by
Saʿīd b. Jubayr.

Chapter 20. Miscellaneous Matters Related to Making Up Missed

Fasting Days
860. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān that he heard ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), say,
“Sometimes I would have fasting days from the previous Ramadan to make
up but would not be able to fast them until Shaʿbān.”337

Chapter 21. Fasting on a Day regarding Which There Is Doubt

861. According to Mālik, he heard the people of knowledge forbid people
from fasting when they were uncertain whether it was the last day of
Shaʿbān or the first day of Ramadan, if they fasted with the intention
(niyya)338 of fasting for Ramadan. Their opinion was that whoever fasted
that day without having personally seen the crescent moon of Ramadan had
to fast another day to make it up, even if it was subsequently determined
that it had in fact been the first day of Ramadan. They did not, however, see
any harm in observing a voluntary fast on that day.339 Yaḥyā said, “Mālik

336 Al-Baqara, 2:190.

337 Shaʿbān is the month before Ramadan.
338 Niyya is the Arabic term for “intention.” According to the Mālikīs, the proper intention is a
prerequisite for the valid performance of every ritual act in Islamic law.
339 The principle here is that a condition for the validity of the Ramadan fast is certainty that it
is in fact Ramadan. If a person is not certain that the day is part of Ramadan, he cannot fast it
Book 17 269

said, ‘This is the rule among us and the one I found the people of knowledge
in our town following (hādhā al-amr ʿindanā wa’lladhī adraktu ʿalayhi ahl
al-ʿilm bi-baladinā).’”

Chapter 22. Miscellaneous Matters Related to Fasting

862. According to Mālik, Abū al-Naḍr, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿUmar b.
ʿUbayd Allāh, reported from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān that ʿĀʾisha, the
wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) would fast
so many consecutive days (outside of Ramadan) that we wondered whether
he ever stopped fasting. He would then go so long without fasting (outside
of Ramadan) that we would wonder whether he ever fasted. I never saw
the Messenger of God (pbuh) fast an entire month except in Ramadan, and
I never saw him fast more days in any month outside of Ramadan than he
did in Shaʿbān.”
863. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Fasting is a shield, so
a fasting man should neither utter obscenities nor lash out in anger. If
someone challenges him to a fight or curses him, he should say, ‘I am fasting,
I am fasting.’”
864. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “By Him whose hand holds
my soul, a fasting man’s unpleasant breath smells sweeter to God than musk
does. God says, ‘For My sake, he turns away from his carnal desires and puts
aside his food and drink. Fasting is exclusively for Me, and I certainly shall
reward it. Every good deed is rewarded tenfold up to seven hundred-fold—
except for fasting, which is exclusively for Me, and I reward it without limit.”
865. According to Mālik, his paternal uncle Abū Suhayl b. Mālik reported
from his father that Abū Hurayra said, “When Ramadan arrives, the gates
of Paradise are opened, the gates of Hell are closed, and the demons are
locked up.”
866. According to Mālik, he never heard the people of knowledge disapprove
of using the toothbrush (siwāk) during Ramadan at any time of day, neither
at the beginning nor at the end of the day. Mālik said, “I did not hear any of
the people of knowledge disapprove of or forbid that.”
867. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik speak about whether it was desirable to fast
six days in Shawwāl after the Feast of Breaking the Fast (ʿīd al-fiṭr). He said

on the assumption that it is. Even if it turns out that the day did, in fact, belong to Ramadan,
he still needs to fast another day in its stead because the prerequisite for a valid Ramadan
fast—knowledge that Ramadan has begun—was not satisfied.
270 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

that he knew of no person of knowledge and understanding who observed

such a fast. Mālik also said, ‘Neither has it reached me that any of the pious
ancestors observed it. Furthermore, the people of knowledge disapprove
of it and fear that it is an unauthorized innovation in religion, and that the
ignorant and rough folk would assimilate such a fast to the Ramadan fast if
they knew that the people of knowledge permitted it and if they saw them
observing it.’”
868. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘I never heard any of the people of
knowledge and understanding or any of those who are exemplars of upright
conduct prohibit fasting on Friday. Observing a fast on Fridays is good, and I
knew of one person of knowledge who did so, and I believe that he singled
out Friday for fasting.’”

The Book of Fasting (Ṣiyām) Is Complete. Praise Be to

God as Befits Him, and God’s Grace on Muḥammad,
His Servant and Messenger.
 Book 18
The Book of the Night of Power (Laylat al-Qadr)340

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

May God Grace Our Prophet Muḥammad and His Family
and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.

Chapter 1. What Has Come Down regarding the Night of Power

(Laylat al-Qadr)
869. According to Mālik, Yazīd b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Usāma b. al-Hādī reported
from Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. al-Ḥārith al-Taymī, from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān, that Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh)
would spend the middle ten days of Ramadan in pious seclusion (iʿtikāf)
in the mosque. One year, he went into pious seclusion until the night of
the twenty-first day of Ramadan, which was ordinarily the night on which
he would conclude his pious seclusion. He said, ‘Those of you who have
gone into pious seclusion with me should continue for the last ten days
of Ramadan. I was granted a vision this night,341 but then I was made to
forget it. I saw myself prostrating that morning in a place of water and
mud. Seek it during the last ten nights of Ramadan, and especially on every
odd-numbered night of the last ten.’” Abū Saʿīd said, “It rained that night,
and the mosque, whose roof was made of palm fronds, leaked. With my
own eyes, I saw the Messenger of God (pbuh) leave the mosque the next
morning with traces of water and mud on his forehead and nose.”342

340 The Night of Power (laylat al-qadr) is mentioned explicitly in the Quran as the night on which
God first revealed the Quran. It is a blessed night, and the Quran describes it as “better than a
thousand months”; al-Qadr, 97:1–5. Numerous reports attributed to the Prophet Muḥammad
(pbuh) identify the night as falling within the last ten nights of Ramadan, and of these ten
nights, the odd-numbered nights are singled out for special veneration as candidates for the
Night of Power.
341 That is, he was shown which night was the Night of Power.
342 He emerged on the morning of the twenty-first. In the Islamic calendar, the day begins with
sunset. Accordingly, the morning of the day comes after its night.

271
272 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

870. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Seek the Night of Power during the last ten
nights of Ramadan.”
871. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported from ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Seek the Night of Power in
the last seven nights of Ramadan.”
872. According to Mālik, Abū al-Naḍr, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿUmar
b. ʿUbayd Allāh, reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. Unays al-Juhanī said to the
Messenger of God (pbuh), “Messenger of God, my house is quite a distance
from the mosque. Tell me, is there a special night on which I should come?”
The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to him, “Come on the twenty-third night
of Ramadan.”
873. According to Mālik, Ḥumayd al-Ṭawīl reported that Anas b. Mālik
said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) came out to us in Ramadan and said,
‘I was granted a vision this Ramadan night,343 but then two men quarreled
violently, so it vanished. Seek it on the ninth, seventh, and fifth nights.’”344
874. According to Mālik, it reached him that some of the Companions of
the Messenger of God (pbuh) dreamed that the Night of Power took place
during the last seven nights of Ramadan. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
“I see that your visions have all converged on the Night of Power being in
the last seven nights of Ramadan, so whoever seeks it should do so in the
last seven nights.”
875. According to Mālik, he heard a person of knowledge whom he trusted
say, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) was shown the lifespans of the people
who had lived before him, or whatever God wished to show him concerning
such things, and it was as though he feared that the lifespans of his
community would be too short to accumulate the good deeds that others
with their long lives had attained. So God gave him the Night of Power,
which is better than a thousand months.”345
876. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab would say,
“Whoever attends the Evening Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿishāʾ) in the mosque on the
Night of Power has a share of its reward.”

343 That is, he was given a vision of the Night of Power.

344 He meant when there were nine, seven, and five days remaining of Ramadan, so on the
twenty-first, twenty-third, and twenty-fifth nights, respectively.
345 According to the editors of the RME, a marginal note on the principal manuscript of the
Muwaṭṭaʾ states that this hadith is one of four in the broader Islamic hadith tradition that
were transmitted exclusively by Mālik.
Book 18 273

The Book of the Night of Power (Laylat al-Qadr) Is

Complete, with Abundant Praise to God. May God
Grace Muḥammad and His Family.
 Book 19
The Book of Pious Seclusion (Iʿtikāf)

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family
and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.

Chapter 1. Reports about Pious Seclusion (Iʿtikāf)

877. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr, from
ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh),
said, “When the Messenger of God (pbuh) secluded himself in the mosque
for pious purposes (iʿtikāf), he would sometimes place his head close to
me346 so that I could comb his hair. He would go into a roofed room only to
relieve himself.”
878. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
that whenever ʿĀʿisha went into pious seclusion, she would not even inquire
about the sick except as she was walking, and would not stop to do so.
879. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘A person engaged in pious seclusion should
not trouble himself with any worldly concerns, nor should he leave his
place of pious seclusion in furtherance of them, whether for himself or
others. He should leave it only to relieve himself. Were he to leave his place
of pious seclusion for the sake of another person, then visitation of the
sick, performance of the funeral prayer (ṣalāt al-jināza), and marching in a
funeral procession would have the greatest claims over him.’”
880. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘A person engaged in pious seclusion is not
actually in seclusion unless he refrains from everything that a person in
pious seclusion avoids, such as visiting the sick, praying over the dead, and
entering a roofed room, except to relieve himself.’”

346 The Prophet’s house adjoined the mosque, making it possible for ʿĀʾisha to comb his hair
while she stayed in her home and he was in the mosque.

275
276 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

881. According to Mālik, he asked Ibn Shihāb whether a man engaged in

pious seclusion could enter a covered room to relieve himself. He said, “Yes,
there is nothing objectionable in that.”
882. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule among us about which there is no
dissent (al-amr ʿindanā alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīh) is that it is not forbidden to
engage in pious seclusion in a mosque that hosts the Friday Congregational
Prayer (ṣalāt al-jumuʿa). The only reason, in my opinion, that one is
discouraged from engaging pious seclusion in mosques that do not host
the Friday prayer is the fear that someone secluded in such a mosque
would have to leave that mosque to attend the prayer or otherwise miss
it. If, however, a person is not under an obligation to attend the Friday
Congregational Prayer elsewhere, I see no harm in his engaging in pious
seclusion in a mosque that does not host the Friday prayer, because God,
Blessed and Sublime is He, says, “While you are engaged in pious seclusion
in the mosques.”347 God thus refers to all mosques without specifying any
particular kind. For this reason, it is permissible for a person to go into pious
seclusion in a mosque that does not host the Friday prayer as long as he is
not under an obligation to leave it to attend the prayer in another mosque.
Someone who is engaged in pious seclusion should spend the night only in
the mosque in which he is secluded; however, he may sleep in his tent if it is
in one of the mosque’s courtyards. I have not heard that a person engaged
in pious seclusion can pitch his tent in any place other than the mosque
or one of its courtyards. One thing that indicates that a person engaged in
pious seclusion must spend the night in the mosque is ʿĀʾisha’s statement,
“When the Messenger of God (pbuh) was engaged in pious seclusion, he
would go into a roofed room only to relieve himself.”’”
883. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘One should not engage in pious seclusion on the
roof of the mosque or in the minaret—that is, in the chamber located there.’”
884. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The person desiring to engage in pious
seclusion should enter his desired place of seclusion before the sun sets
on the night in which he wishes to begin his seclusion, so that he is ready
to begin it at the beginning of the night on which he desires to engage in
pious seclusion.’”
885. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The person engaged in pious seclusion should
devote himself entirely to pious devotion, thinking of nothing that would
ordinarily preoccupy his thoughts, whether commerce or other matters.
There is nothing objectionable, however, in his directing someone to look
after his estate, the affairs of his family, the sale of some of his property, or

347 Al-Baqara, 2:186.

Book 19 277

anything else that does not require his direct attention. There is nothing
objectionable in his appointing someone else to do such things for him, so
long as they are relatively mundane.’”
886. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘I have not heard any of the people of knowledge
mention that it would be permissible for someone seeking to engage in
pious seclusion to specify any conditions regarding how he will engage
in it. Pious seclusion is nothing other than a complete act of worship, like
prayer (ṣalāt), fasting, the Pilgrimage (ḥajj), and similar devotional acts,
be they obligatory or voluntary. Anyone who performs any of these acts
must perform them in accordance with the ordinances that have long been
established (bi-mā maḍā min al-sunna) with regard to them. He may not
introduce anything in respect of these devotional acts that differs from
what the Muslims have always practiced (mā maḍā ʿalayhi al-muslimūn),
whether it is a condition that he imposes before he begins his seclusion
or something that he introduces after beginning it. The Messenger of God
(pbuh) practiced pious seclusion, and the Muslims learned from him the
ordinances (sunna) of pious seclusion.’”348
887. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Pious seclusion and jiwār349 are synonymous,
and pious seclusion for a village-dweller is the same as it is for a bedouin.’”

Chapter 2. The Indispensable Elements of Pious Seclusion (Iʿtikāf)

888. According to Mālik, it reached him that al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad and
Nāfiʿ, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, said, “Fasting must
take place with pious seclusion. God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says in
His Book, ‘Eat and drink until the white thread of dawn appears to you
distinct from its black thread, and then complete your fast till the night
appears. And do not be intimate with your wives while you are engaged in
pious seclusion in the mosques.’350 God mentions pious seclusion only in
connection with fasting.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule among us is in
accordance with that (ʿalā dhālika al-amr ʿindanā).’ Fasting is a mandatory
element of pious seclusion.”

348 For Mālik and the Mālikīs, pious seclusion is a ritual like other rituals of Islam that is subject to
certain rules, including that a person engaged in pious seclusion must fast and must remain in
the mosque. Accordingly, if a person were, for example, to swear an oath that he will engage in
a day of pious seclusion but then fail to fast, the oath would be ineffective, because its object is
not a valid act of devotion insofar as pious seclusion requires the observance of a fast. Although
the oath is not binding, if the person making the oath actually begins his act of pious seclusion,
he is obliged to complete it in accordance with its rules. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 2:81.
349 Jiwār literally means “presence in the vicinity of something,” so Mālik is explaining that the
word jiwār can be used interchangeably with the ordinary term for pious seclusion, iʿtikāf.
350 Al-Baqara, 2:186.
278 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 3. The Departure of Someone Engaged in Pious Seclusion

(Iʿtikāf) for the Feast of Breaking the Ramadan Fast (ʿĪd al-Fiṭr)
889. According to Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā al-Laythī, Ziyād b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān351
reported from Mālik b. Anas, from Sumayy, the freedman (mawlā) of Abū
Bakr b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, that Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān was engaged
in pious seclusion, and to relieve himself, he would pass through a roofed
section of a closed room in Khālid b. al-Walīd’s abode. He would not emerge
from pious seclusion until he attended the prayer for the Feast of Breaking
the Ramadan Fast with the Muslims.”
890. According to Mālik, he had seen that when some of the people of
knowledge went into pious seclusion during the last ten days of Ramadan,
they would not return to their families until they had celebrated the Feast
of Breaking the Ramadan Fast with the people. Yaḥyā said that Ziyād said,
“Mālik said, ‘This reached me from the people of virtue who have left
us.’” Yaḥyā said that Ziyād said, “Mālik said, ‘Of all the views I have heard
regarding this issue, that is the one I prefer most.’”

Chapter 4. Making Up Incomplete Acts of Pious Seclusion (Iʿtikāf)

891. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) wanted to go into pious seclusion, and
when he went to the place where he wished to perform it, he found some
tents there. When he saw the tents, he asked about them and was told that
they belonged to ʿĀʾisha, Ḥafṣa, and Zaynab.352 The Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “Do you think they intend piety by pitching them here?” Then he left
and did not go into pious seclusion until Shawwāl, when he spent ten days
in pious seclusion.”
892. Yaḥyā said that Ziyād said, “Mālik was asked about a man who entered
the mosque for pious seclusion during the last ten days of Ramadan
and stayed there for one or two days. He then became ill, so he left the
mosque. When he regains his health, is he under an obligation to make
up the unfinished days of pious seclusion, and if so, during which month?
Mālik said, ‘He should, when he recovers, make up whatever days of pious

351 According to the editors of the RME, Ziyād b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, known as Shabṭūn (d. 204/819),
transmitted the Muwaṭṭaʾ to Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā in Andalusia before Yaḥyā himself traveled east,
where he was able to study directly with Imām Mālik. While in Medina, Yaḥyā heard the
entirety of the Muwaṭṭaʾ from Mālik except for certain topics within the Book of Pious Seclu-
sion. Because Yaḥyā was uncertain whether he had heard these passages directly from Mālik,
he preserved them in his recension of the Muwaṭṭaʾ through Ziyād b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān’s nar-
ration rather than his own.
352 Three of the Prophet Muḥammad’s wives.
Book 19 279

seclusion remain in Ramadan or in any other month. It reached me that the

Messenger of God (pbuh) intended to engage in pious seclusion in Ramadan
but then returned without doing it. When Ramadan ended, he went into
pious seclusion for ten days in Shawwāl.’”
893. Yaḥyā said that Ziyād said, “Mālik said, ‘Someone who is engaged in
pious seclusion voluntarily and someone who is obliged to engage in pious
seclusion353 are similarly situated with respect to what is lawful for them
and what is prohibited for them. I have not heard that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) ever engaged in pious seclusion except voluntarily.’”
894. Yaḥyā said that Ziyād said, “Mālik said, ‘A woman who goes into pious
seclusion and then menstruates during the time of seclusion should return
to her house. When her period finishes, she should immediately return to
the mosque. She should not delay, and she should resume her seclusion
from where she previously left off. Similar to that is the case of a woman
who must fast two consecutive months and menstruates during that time.
When her period comes to an end, she must promptly resume her fast from
the point where she stopped.’”
895. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) would relieve himself in a roofed room when he was in pious
seclusion.
896. Ziyād said that Mālik said, “The person engaged in pious seclusion
should not leave to attend a funeral procession (janāza), even that of his
own parents.”

Chapter 5. Marriage during Pious Seclusion (Iʿtikāf)

897. Yaḥyā said that Ziyād said, “Mālik said, ‘There is nothing objectionable
in the conclusion by a person in pious seclusion of a marriage contract so
long as there is no intimate contact.’”
898. Mālik said, “Also, a woman in pious seclusion may be betrothed so long
as there is no intimate contact.”
899. Mālik said, “Whatever is forbidden to a man engaged in pious seclusion
with respect to his wife during the day is also prohibited to him during
the night.”
900. Mālik said, “It is unlawful for a man to touch his wife with desire while
he is engaged in pious seclusion, nor may he receive any sexual gratification

353 Engaging in pious seclusion is in itself a voluntary act of piety. In certain circumstances, how-
ever, it may become obligatory, such as following a vow to engage in pious seclusion.
280 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

from her, whether through a kiss or anything else. I have not heard any
of the people of knowledge prohibit either a man or a woman engaged
in pious seclusion from marrying, so long as there is no intimate contact.
Nor is it prohibited for a fasting person to marry. There is a difference
between the marriage of someone engaged in pious seclusion and that of
a pilgrim in the consecrated state (iḥrām). The pilgrim in the consecrated
state is permitted to eat and drink, to visit the sick, and to attend funeral
processions, but he may not wear perfume; the man or woman engaged in
pious seclusion, by contrast, may use oil and perfume and groom his or her
hair, but he or she is not permitted to attend funeral processions or funeral
prayers or to visit the sick. Therefore, the law regarding the marriages of
the two groups is different. This is on account of what have long been the
established ordinances (li-mā maḍā min al-sunna) regarding the marriage
of a pilgrim in the consecrated state, a person engaged in pious seclusion,
and a fasting person.’”

The Book of Pious Seclusion (Iʿtikāf) Has

Come to an End, with Praise to God for
the Excellence of His Assistance.
 Book 20
The Book of Pilgrimage (Ḥajj)

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family
and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.

Chapter 1. Bathing (Ghusl) in Preparation for Entering the Consecrated

State (Iḥrām)354
901. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported from his
father, from Asmāʾ bt. ʿUmays, that she gave birth to Muḥammad b. Abī
Bakr at al-Baydāʾ.355 When Abū Bakr mentioned that to the Messenger
of God (pbuh), he said, “Tell her first to bathe and then to enter the
consecrated state.”
902. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that Asmāʾ bt. ʿUmays gave birth to Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr at Dhū al-Ḥulayfa.
Abū Bakr told her to bathe before entering the consecrated state.
903. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
bathe in anticipation of entering the consecrated state before setting out on
the Pilgrimage (ḥajj), again when he entered Mecca to circumambulate the
Kabah, and in preparation for standing at ʿArafāt.

354 The actual title of this chapter is “Bathing in Order to Enter,” with entry into the consecrated
state being implied. When a person resolves to perform the Pilgrimage (ḥajj) or the Visita-
tion (ʿumra), he enters into a consecrated state, known as iḥrām, in which many acts that are
ordinarily permissible become prohibited. A person in the consecrated state is referred to as
a muḥrim. Leaving this consecrated state is known as iḥlāl or taḥallul, which indicates that
the restrictions that bound the pilgrim as long as he was performing the Pilgrimage or the
Visitation have ended, and he is now free to resume his normal life.
355 A place between Mecca and Medina.

281
282 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 2. The Bath (Ghusl) of the Person (Muḥrim) in the Consecrated

State (Iḥrām)
904. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from Nāfiʿ, from Ibrāhīm
b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥunayn, from his father, that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās and
al-Miswar b. Makhrama once had a disagreement at al-Abwāʾ.356 ʿAbd Allāh
said, “A person in the consecrated state is permitted to wash his head,” but
al-Miswar b. Makhrama said, “No, he is not.” ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥunayn, the father
of Ibrāhīm b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥunayn, said, “ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās then sent me
to Abū Ayyūb al-Anṣārī. I found him as he was bathing between the two
posts of a well, covering himself with a piece of cloth. I greeted him, and he
said, ‘Who are you?’ I said, ‘I am ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥunayn. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās
sent me to you to ask you how the Messenger of God (pbuh) would wash his
head when he was in the consecrated state, if indeed he did so.’ Abū Ayyūb
put his hand on the garment and pulled it down until I could see his head
and then said to the man who was pouring water for him, ‘Pour!’ So the man
poured water over Abū Ayyūb’s head. He then passed his hands from the
front to the back of his head and back again to the front, and then he said,
‘This is what I saw the Messenger of God (pbuh) do.’”
905. According to Mālik, Ḥumayd b. Qays reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Abī Rabāḥ
that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said to Yaʿlā b. Munya as he was pouring water on
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb when the latter was bathing, “Pour water on my head.”
Yaʿlā then said to him, “Are you trying to make me responsible?357 If you tell
me to pour, however, I will do so.” ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said to him, “Pour, the
water will only make my head shaggier.”358
906. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that whenever ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
neared Mecca, he would spend the night at Dhū Ṭuwā, between the two
mountain passes there. When morning came, he would perform the Morning
Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ) and then enter Mecca from the mountain pass on the
highest side of the city. If he had set out to perform the Pilgrimage (ḥajj) or
the Visitation (ʿumra), he would not enter Mecca until he had first bathed at
Dhū Ṭuwā. He would also instruct everyone with him to bathe there before
they entered Mecca.

356 A place in the direction of Mecca.

357 Yaʿlā was concerned that by pouring water on ʿUmar’s head he might kill some insects in
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb’s hair in violation of rules prohibiting a person in the consecrated state
from killing any living thing.
358 In this report and the preceding one, the concern about washing the head arises out of the
fear that washing the head too vigorously might cause the pilgrim to inadvertently kill an
insect in the hair, thus violating the prohibition against killing any living thing while in the
consecrated state.
Book 20 283

907. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
not wash his head when he was in the consecrated state unless he had a
wet dream.
908. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘I heard the people of knowledge say that there
is nothing objectionable in a person in the consecrated state washing his
head with a palm leaf or the like, once he has cast his pebbles at Minā359 and
before he shaves his head. That is because once he throws the pebbles at
Minā, it becomes permissible for him to kill lice, to shave his hair, to clean
himself of filth, and to wear ordinary clothing.’”

Chapter 3. Clothing That May Not Be Worn While in the Consecrated

State (Iḥrām)
909. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that a
man asked the Messenger of God (pbuh), “What clothing is a person in
the consecrated state permitted to wear?” The Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “Do not wear tunics, turbans, trousers, hooded cloaks, leather socks—
although if one cannot find sandals, one may wear leather socks after
cutting them off below the ankles—or any clothes that have been dyed with
saffron or wars.”360
910. Yaḥyā said that Mālik was asked about a report in which the Prophet
(pbuh) allegedly said, “If you cannot find an undergarment, wear trousers.”
Mālik said, “I have never heard this report, and it is inconceivable to me
that someone in the consecrated state could wear trousers under any
circumstances. Trousers are one of the items of clothing that the Messenger
of God (pbuh) expressly prohibited those in the consecrated state from
wearing. In contrast to the case of leather socks, he did not make an
exception for trousers.”

Chapter 4. Wearing Dyed Clothing While in the Consecrated State

(Iḥrām)
911. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported from ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿUmar that the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited anyone in the
consecrated state from wearing clothing that had been dyed with saffron or
wars, and he said, “Whoever does not find sandals may wear leather socks
after he cuts them off below the ankles.”

359 A place outside of Mecca where the pilgrims cast pebbles symbolically at the Devil. This rit-
ual takes place on the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth days of Dhū al-Ḥijja, the last month of the
Muslim calendar. After throwing stones on the first day, the pilgrims are allowed to exit the
consecrated state.
360 A yellowish or reddish dye produced from a plant found in Yemen.
284 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

912. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that he heard Aslam, the freedman
(mawlā) of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, tell ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb saw Ṭalḥa b. ʿUbayd Allāh wearing a dyed garment while he was
in the consecrated state, whereupon ʿUmar said to him, “What is this dyed
garment that I see you wearing, Ṭalḥa?” Ṭalḥa replied, “Commander of the
Faithful, it’s just clay.” ʿUmar said, “You and your companions are leaders
whom the people take as exemplars. Were an ignorant man to see what you
are wearing, he might very well say that Ṭalḥa b. ʿUbayd Allāh wore dyed
clothing when he was in the consecrated state. Accordingly, as long as you
are in the consecrated state, do not wear any clothing that appears to have
been dyed, even if, in fact, it has not been.”
913. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father, from
Asmāʾ bt. Abī Bakr, that while in the consecrated state, she would wear
clothes dyed with safflower, but not those dyed with saffron.
914. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether someone entering the
consecrated state could don clothing that had been perfumed, once the
perfume’s scent had dissipated. He said, ‘Yes, as long as there is no visible
trace of saffron or wars on it.’”

Chapter 5. Wearing a Pocket Belt (Minṭaqa) While in the Consecrated

State (Iḥrām)
915. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar disapproved
of a person in the consecrated state wearing a pocket belt.
916. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he heard Saʿīd b.
al-Musayyab say, regarding a person in the consecrated state who is wearing
a pocket belt under his clothes, “There is nothing objectionable in that, if he
ties the ends together into a knot.” Mālik said, “Of all the views I have heard
regarding this issue, I prefer this one.”

Chapter 6. Covering One’s Face While in the Consecrated State (Iḥrām)

917. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad
said, “Al-Furāfiṣa b. ʿUmayr al-Ḥanafī informed me that he saw ʿUthmān b.
ʿAffān at al-ʿArj covering his face while he was in the consecrated state.”
918. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“Everything above the chin is part of the head; therefore, someone in the
consecrated state should not cover it.”
919. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar shrouded his
son Wāqid b. ʿAbd Allāh. He died at al-Juḥfa while he was in the consecrated
Book 20 285

state. ʿAbd Allāh covered his son’s head and face and said, “Had we not been
in the consecrated state, we would have perfumed his corpse.”
920. Mālik said, “A man performs deeds only while he is alive. When he
dies, his deeds come to an end.”
921. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“A woman in the consecrated state should neither cover her face nor wear
gloves.”
922. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that Fāṭima bt. al-Mundhir
said, “We would cover our faces while we were in the consecrated state. Asmāʾ
bt. Abī Bakr al-Ṣiddīq was with us at the time, and she did not object.”

Chapter 7. What Has Come Down regarding Wearing Perfume during

the Pilgrimage (Ḥajj)
923. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported from his
father that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said, “I would apply
perfume to the Messenger of God (pbuh) before he entered the consecrated
state (iḥrām) and again when he exited it, before he circumambulated
(ṭawāf)361 God’s House.”
924. According to Mālik, Ḥumayd b. Qays reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Abī Rabāḥ
that a bedouin came to the Messenger of God (pbuh) when he was at
Ḥunayn.362 The bedouin was wearing a tunic that had traces of yellow on
it. He said, “Messenger of God, I entered the consecrated state to perform
the Visitation (ʿumra). What do you command me to do?” The Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, “Remove your tunic, wash its yellowness off, and perform
your Visitation in the same way as you would perform your Pilgrimage.”
925. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from Aslam, the freedman (mawlā)
of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb noticed the scent of perfume
while he was at al-Shajara,363 so he asked, “Who is wearing perfume?”

361 Circumambulation of the Kabah consists of making seven counterclockwise laps around the
Kabah. It is performed during the Pilgrimage and the Visitation, and optionally by anyone
who is in the Sacred Mosque. Some acts of circumambulation are obligatory parts of the
Pilgrimage rites, including the circumambulation referred to in this report. Upon exiting the
consecrated state following casting pebbles at Minā, the pilgrims march to Mecca to circum-
ambulate God’s House and then return to Minā. This circumambulation is known as ṭawāf
al-ifāḍa, which we have translated as the “Circumambulation of the March,” insofar as the
pilgrims march to Mecca en masse to perform that obligatory circumambulation.
362 A valley located in the Hijaz that was the site of a major battle between the Muslims and the
pagan tribes of Hawāzin and Thaqīf shortly after the Prophet (pbuh) conquered Mecca in
year 8 of the Hijra (629 CE).
363 A place approximately 6–7 km outside of Medina.
286 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān said, “I am, Commander of the Faithful!” ʿUmar

said, “It’s you, by the life of God?” Muʿāwiya said, “Umm Ḥabība364 applied
perfume to me, Commander of the Faithful.” ʿUmar said, “I insist that you go
back and wash it off completely.”
926. According to Mālik, al-Ṣalt b. Zuyayd reported from several members
of his family that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb noticed the scent of perfume while
he was at al-Shajara. Kathīr b. al-Ṣalt was at his side. ʿUmar said, “Who is
wearing perfume?” Kathīr said, “I am! I matted my hair and wanted to shave
it.” ʿUmar said, “Go to a sharaba and rub your head until you remove the
perfume’s scent,” so Kathīr did so. Mālik said, “A sharaba is a pool dug at the
base of a date palm in which water is collected.”
927. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr, and Rabīʿa
b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān all reported that al-Walīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik asked Sālim b.
ʿAbd Allāh and Khārija b. Zayd b. Thābit365 if he could use perfume after he
had cast pebbles at Minā and shaved his head but before he performed the
Circumambulation of the March (ṭawāf al-ifāḍa). Sālim prohibited him from
doing so, but Khārija b. Zayd b. Thābit allowed him to do it.
928. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable in a man applying oil to
himself before he enters the consecrated state and before he sets out from
Minā to God’s House after casting his pebbles, as long as the oil does not
have a scent.”
929. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether a person in the consecrated state
could eat food that had saffron in it. He said, ‘There is nothing objectionable
in such a person eating it if it has been roasted, but if it has not been roasted
he must not eat it.’”

Chapter 8. The Designated Stations (Mawāqīt) for Entering the

Consecrated State (Iḥrām)
930. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “The people of Medina should enter the
consecrated state at Dhū al-Ḥulayfa,366 the people of the Levant at al-Juḥfa,367
and the people of Najd at Qarn.”368 ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “It reached me

364 Muʿāwiya’s sister and a wife of the Prophet (pbuh).

365 Khārija b. Zayd b. Thābit (d. 99/717) was one of the “seven jurists of Medina” and a son of the
prominent Companion and jurist Zayd b. Thābit.
366 An abandoned village on the way from Medina to Mecca. It lay at a distance of nine or ten
days’ march from Mecca. Of the various points at which pilgrims must enter the consecrated
state, it is the furthest from Mecca. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 2:356.
367 An abandoned village lying in a flood plain at a distance of five or six days’ march from Mecca.
368 A mountain lying to the east of Mecca, two days’ march away.
Book 20 287

that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘The people of Yemen should enter
the consecrated state at Yalamlam.’”369
931. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported that ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) commanded the people of
Medina to enter the consecrated state at Dhū al-Ḥulayfa, the people of the
Levant at al-Juḥfa, and the people of Najd at Qarn.” ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said,
“As for these three places, I heard them directly from the Messenger of God
(pbuh). I was also told that the Messenger of God said, ‘The people of Yemen
should enter the consecrated state at Yalamlam.’”
932. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar once
entered the consecrated state at al-Furuʿ.370
933. According to Mālik, a source he deemed reliable reported that ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUmar once entered the consecrated state from Jerusalem.371
934. According to Mālik, it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
entered the consecrated state at al-Jiʿirrāna372 to perform the Visitation
(ʿumra).

Chapter 9. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to Entering the

Consecrated State (Iḥrām)
935. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) would chant (talbiya), “I am at Your service, God,
I am at Your service. I am at Your service; no partner have You. I am at
Your service. Praise and blessings belong to You, as does the dominion. No
partner have You.”373 Nāfiʿ said, “ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would add, ‘I am at Your
service, I am at Your service, I am at Your service and at Your call. Good is in
Your hands; I am at Your service. The yearning is unto You, as is action.’”374
936. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) would perform two cycles (rakʿa) of prayer in
the mosque at Dhū al-Ḥulayfa, and then, when he mounted his camel and it
stood up, he would begin chanting.”

369 A place two days’ march south of Mecca.

370 A place on the road from Medina to Mecca before Dhū al-Ḥulayfa, at a distance of four nights’
journey from Mecca. Kāndihlawī, Awjaz al-masālik, 6:448.
371 Īliyāʾ, an Arabic name for Jerusalem.
372 A place between Mecca and Ṭāʾif, where the Prophet (pbuh) divided the spoils seized by the
Muslims in the Battle of Ḥunayn in year 8 of the Hijra (629 CE).
373 Labbayka allāhumma labbayk; labbayka lā sharīka laka labbayk; inna al-ḥamda wa’l-niʿmata
laka wa’l-mulk; lā sharīka lak.
374 Labbayka labbayka labbayka wa-saʿdayk; wa’l-khayru bi-yadayka wa’l-raghbāʾ ilayka wa’l-ʿamal.
288 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

937. According to Mālik, Mūsā b. ʿUqba reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh
that he heard his father say, “You lie against the Messenger of God (pbuh)
when you claim that he began his chanting at this very spot in your desert.
The truth is that he only began to chant from the mosque,” meaning the
mosque at Dhū al-Ḥulayfa.
938. According to Mālik, Saʿīd b. Abī Saʿīd al-Maqburī reported from ʿUbayd
b. Jurayj that he said to ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, “Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, I have
seen you do four things that I have not seen any of your companions do.” He
said, “What are they, Ibn Jurayj?” He said, “I noticed that you touch only the
two Yemeni corners of God’s House. I have seen you wear hairless leather
sandals. I have seen you dye your clothes yellow. And when you were in
Mecca and people began to chant when they saw the crescent moon of Dhū
al-Ḥijja, I noticed that you did not begin to chant until the Day of Watering
(yawm al-tarwiya).”375 ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “As for the corners of God’s
House, I never saw the Messenger of God (pbuh) touch them beyond the
two Yemeni corners. As for the sandals, I saw the Messenger of God (pbuh)
wear hairless leather sandals and perform ablutions in them, so I like to
wear them. As for the yellow dye, I noticed that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) would use it to dye his clothes, so I decided to dye my clothes yellow
like him. As for chanting upon entering the consecrated state, I never saw
the Messenger of God (pbuh) do that until his mount rose and began to
move forward.”
939. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would pray
in the mosque at Dhū al-Ḥulayfa and then go outside and mount his camel.
When his camel stood up with him firmly in the saddle, he would enter the
consecrated state and begin to chant.
940. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān began
to chant at the mosque of Dhū al-Ḥulayfa when his mount stood up with
him firmly in the saddle, relying on the advice that Abān b. ʿUthmān had
given him.

Chapter 10. Raising the Voice When Beginning to Chant (Talbiya)

upon Entering the Consecrated State (Iḥrām)
941. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Ḥazm reported from
ʿAbd al-Malik b. Abī Bakr b. al-Ḥārith b. Hishām, from Khallād b. al-Sāʾib
al-Anṣārī, from his father, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Gabriel

375 The eighth day of Dhū al-Ḥijja. It is so named because on that day the pilgrims provision
themselves with water from Mecca before heading out to Minā the next day to perform the
rites of the Pilgrimage.
Book 20 289

came to me and commanded me to tell my companions (or ‘whoever is with

me’) to raise their voices when chanting (or ‘upon entering the consecrated
state’).” He meant one of the two expressions.376
942. According to Mālik, he heard the people of knowledge say that a
woman is not obliged to raise her voice when she chants, but she ought to
chant loudly enough to be audible to herself.
943. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘A person in the consecrated state (muḥrim)
should not raise his voice in chanting if he is in a mosque in which
congregational prayers are held. In that case, his chanting should be audible
only to himself and those near him. The exceptions are the Sacred Mosque
(al-masjid al-ḥarām) in Mecca and the mosque at Minā. He should raise his
voice in both of these places.’”
944. Mālik said, “I heard some of the people of knowledge recommend
chanting at the conclusion of each prayer (ṣalāt) and at the top of every hill
en route.”

Chapter 11. Performing the Pilgrimage by Itself (Ifrād)377

945. According to Mālik, Abū al-Aswad Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Messenger
of God (pbuh), said, “We set out with the Messenger of God (pbuh) in the
year of the Farewell Pilgrimage (ḥajjat al-wadāʿ).378 Some of us entered
the consecrated state (iḥrām) with the intention of performing only the
Visitation (ʿumra), while others intended to perform both the Pilgrimage
(ḥajj) and the Visitation. Others still intended to perform only the
Pilgrimage. The Messenger of God (pbuh) entered the consecrated state
with the intention to perform only the Pilgrimage. Those who had entered
the consecrated state to perform the Visitation exited the consecrated state
after completing the Visitation. Those who had entered the consecrated
state to perform only the Pilgrimage or to perform both the Pilgrimage
and the Visitation did not exit the consecrated state until the Day of the
Slaughter of the Sacrosanct Animals (yawm al-naḥr).”379

376 In other words, the narrator is uncertain which of the two phrases the Prophet (pbuh) actu-
ally used. Regardless of the actual words spoken, the alternatives have the same meaning.
377 Ifrād refers to a pilgrim’s performance of only the rites of the Pilgrimage (ḥajj), not those of
the Visitation (ʿumra). In most cases, pilgrims perform both sets of rites on one trip.
378 This took place in year 10 of the Hijra (632 CE). It was so called because the Prophet (pbuh)
died in that year.
379 Yawm al-naḥr falls on the tenth day of Dhū al-Hijja and overlaps with the Feast of the Sacrificial
Animals. On this day, the pilgrims slaughter any sacrificial animals that they have brought with
them on the Pilgrimage.
290 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

946. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported from his

father, from ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) performed the Pilgrimage by itself.
947. According to Mālik, Abū al-Aswad Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān—
Mālik said, “He was an orphan under the guardianship of ʿUrwa b.
al-Zubayr”—reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr, from ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of
the Believers, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) performed the Pilgrimage
by itself.
948. According to Mālik, he heard the people of knowledge say, “A person
who enters the consecrated state intending to perform the Pilgrimage by
itself but then later wishes to perform the Visitation in addition to the
Pilgrimage may not do so.” Mālik said, “That is what I found the people of
knowledge in our town following (dhālika alladhī adraktu ʿalayhi ahl al-ʿilm
bi-baladinā).”

Chapter 12. Intending to Perform the Pilgrimage (Ḥajj) and the

Visitation (ʿUmra) on the Same Trip (Qirān)380
949. According to Mālik, Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad reported from his father that
al-Miqdād b. al-Aswad went to see ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib at al-Suqyā, where he was
feeding some young camels a mash of crushed grains and leaves. Al-Miqdād
said to ʿAlī, “This fellow, ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān, is prohibiting people from
performing the Pilgrimage and the Visitation on the same trip.” Al-Miqdād
said, “ʿAlī stopped what he was doing, and traces of the crushed grains
and leaves were still on his hands—and I will never forget the sight of the
crushed grains and leaves on his forearms. He went to see ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān
and said to him, ‘Are you prohibiting people from performing the Pilgrimage
and the Visitation on the same trip?’ ʿUthmān said, ‘That is my opinion.’ ʿAlī
left angrily, saying, ‘I am at Your service, God, I am at Your service, for the
Pilgrimage and the Visitation together on the same trip.’”
950. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that someone
who intends to perform the Pilgrimage and the Visitation together on the
same trip should not cut a single strand of his hair, nor should he exit the
consecrated state until he has slaughtered a sacrosanct animal (hady),381 if
he has one. He is to exit the consecrated state only at Minā on the Day of the
Slaughter of the Sacrosanct Animals (yawm al-naḥr).”

380 Qirān refers to a person’s intention to perform the Visitation and the Pilgrimage on the same
occasion.
381 Hady refers to an animal that has been specifically designated for sacrifice at God’s House.
Book 20 291

951. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported from

Sulaymān b. Yasār that when the Messenger of God (pbuh) set out for the
Pilgrimage in the year of the Farewell Pilgrimage (ḥajjat al-wadāʿ), some
of his companions had the intention of performing the Pilgrimage by
itself, some intended to perform both the Pilgrimage and the Visitation
on the same trip, and some went with the sole intention of performing the
Visitation. Those who intended to perform only the Pilgrimage or both the
Pilgrimage and the Visitation did not exit the consecrated state until the Day
of the Slaughter of the Sacrosanct Animals at Minā. Those who performed
only the Visitation exited the consecrated state after completing the rites of
the Visitation in Mecca.
952. According to Mālik, he heard some of the people of knowledge say,
“A person who entered the consecrated state (iḥrām) with the intention
to perform only the Visitation but who then later wants to perform the
Pilgrimage as well may do so, as long as he has not circumambulated
the House (ṭawāf), nor marched between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa
(saʿy).382 In fact, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar did this. He said, ‘If I am prevented
from reaching God’s House, we will do what we did when we were with
the Messenger of God (pbuh).’ He then turned to his companions and said,
‘They are both subject to the same rule. I call you to witness that I am now
resolved to perform the Pilgrimage, even though I originally set out to
perform only the Visitation.’”
953. Mālik said, “The companions of the Messenger of God (pbuh) in the
year of the Farewell Pilgrimage entered the consecrated state with the
intention of performing only the Visitation, but then the Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, ‘Whoever has brought a sacrosanct animal (hady) with him
should now resolve to perform the Pilgrimage in addition to the Visitation.
He should not exit the consecrated state until he has completed the
performance of both.’”

Chapter 13. The Cessation of Chanting (Talbiya)

954. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr al-Thaqafī reported that
he asked Anas b. Mālik, while the two of them were en route early in the
morning from Minā to ʿArafāt, “What was it that you did on this day with

382 Saʿy refers to the ritual of going back and forth seven times between the hillocks of Ṣafā and
Marwa that is done during the Pilgrimage or the Visitation. It symbolizes Hajar’s search for
water for Ishmael, her son. Often the term ṭawāf is used to denote this rite instead of the term
saʿy. Because the former term is also used to designate the practice of circumambulating the
Kabah, later practice among the jurists was to limit ṭawāf to circumambulation and to use
saʿy for marching between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa. The reports Mālik cites in the
Muwaṭṭaʾ reflect the older use of ṭawāf for both rites.
292 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

the Messenger of God (pbuh)?” He said, “Some of us chanted, and no one

disapproved of it, while others magnified God (said ‘God is great,’ Allāhu
akbar), and no one disapproved of it.”
955. According to Mālik, Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad reported from his father
that ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib would chant during the Pilgrimage (ḥajj) until the sun
set on the Day of ʿArafa, at which point he would stop. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik
said, ‘That is the rule that the people of knowledge among us have always
followed (dhālika al-amr alladhī lam yazal ʿalayhi ahl al-ʿilm ʿindanā).’”
956. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported from his
father, from ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that she would cease
chanting when she arrived at ʿArafāt in the afternoon.
957. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
cease chanting during the Pilgrimage once he reached the Sanctuary
(ḥaram). After he had circumambulated God’s House (ṭawāf) and marched
between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa (saʿy), he would resume chanting.
He would continue chanting until the morning when he set out from Minā
to ʿArafāt. He would cease chanting when he set out that morning. When he
performed the Visitation (ʿumra), he would cease chanting once he entered
the Sanctuary.
958. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb would say, “ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
not chant while circumambulating God’s House.”
959. According to Mālik, ʿAlqama b. Abī ʿAlqama reported from his mother,
from ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, that she would alight in ʿArafāt at
Namira, but then she started going to another place called al-Arāk. ʿAlqama’s
mother said, “ʿĀʾisha and her party would chant as long as they remained
encamped, but once she mounted her animal and set out to ʿArafāt, she
ceased chanting. ʿĀʾisha would perform the Visitation in Mecca in the month
of Dhū al-Ḥijja after the Pilgrimage was over. Then she stopped doing that.
She would instead set out before the crescent moon of Muḥarram383 for
al-Juḥfa, where she would camp until she saw the crescent moon. When she
saw the crescent moon, she would enter the consecrated state (iḥrām) with
the intention of performing the Visitation.”
960. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz
set out on the morning of ʿArafa from Minā, when he unexpectedly heard the
people magnifying God in a loud voice. He therefore dispatched the guard,
who told them in a loud voice, “People! You should instead be chanting!”

383 Muḥarram is the first month of the Islamic lunar calendar, and it follows Dhū al-Ḥijja, the
twelfth month of the Islamic calendar.
Book 20 293

Chapter 14. The Time When Meccans and Non-Meccans in Mecca

Enter the Consecrated State (Iḥrām)
961. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported from his
father that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “Meccans! Why is it that while the
pilgrims arrive here disheveled, you still have oil on your hair? You should
enter the consecrated state when you first see the crescent moon of Dhū
al-Ḥijja.”
962. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that ʿAbd Allāh b.
al-Zubayr lived in Mecca for nine years. He would enter the consecrated state
with the intention of performing the Pilgrimage (ḥajj) at the beginning of
Dhū al-Ḥijja. ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr was with him at that time and did the same.
963. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘If Meccans and any non-Meccans living in
Mecca intend to perform the Pilgrimage, they should enter the consecrated
state inside Mecca itself. They are not required to leave the Sanctuary
(ḥaram) and enter the consecrated state outside its borders.’”
964. Mālik said, “If someone in Mecca enters the consecrated state with the
intention of performing the Pilgrimage, he should defer circumambulation
(ṭawāf) of God’s House and marching between the hillocks of Ṣafā and
Marwa (saʿy) until he returns from Minā. That is what ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
would do.”
965. Mālik was asked how a non-Meccan, whether from Medina or
elsewhere, should perform the circumambulation if he enters the
consecrated state with the intention of performing the Pilgrimage in Mecca
at the beginning of Dhū al-Ḥijja. Mālik said, “He should defer the obligatory
circumambulation, which is the one that is performed immediately before
marching between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa. He should, however,
circumambulate as he wishes, performing two cycles (rakʿa) of prayer
(ṣalāt) for every seven laps he completes. That is what the companions of
the Messenger of God (pbuh) did when they entered the consecrated state
with the intention of performing the Pilgrimage from Mecca. They delayed
circumambulation around God’s House and marching between the hillocks
of Ṣafā and Marwa until they had returned from Minā. That is also what
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar did. He entered the consecrated state with the intention
of performing the Pilgrimage from Mecca at the beginning of Dhū al-Ḥijja,
and he delayed circumambulation of God’s House and marching between
the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa until he returned from Minā.”
966. Mālik was asked whether a Meccan who wishes to enter the consecrated
state with the intention of performing the Visitation (ʿumra) may do so
294 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

inside Mecca itself. He said, “No, he should rather leave the Sanctuary and
enter the consecrated state beyond its borders.”

Chapter 15. Garlanding Sacrosanct Animals (Hady) Does Not

Necessitate Entering the Consecrated State (Iḥrām)
967. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Ḥazm reported from ʿAmra
bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān that she told ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Ḥazm that Ziyād
b. Abī Sufyān wrote to ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), saying, “ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿAbbās said, ‘Whatever is prohibited for a pilgrim in the consecrated
state is also prohibited for anyone who consecrates an animal and sends it
to be slaughtered at God’s House until the animal is actually slaughtered.’ I
have indeed consecrated an animal and sent it for slaughter to God’s House,
so give me your instructions about this, or instruct the person in charge of
the sacrosanct animals.’” ʿĀʾisha said, “No, Ibn ʿAbbās is mistaken. I wove
the garlands of the sacrosanct animals of the Messenger of God (pbuh)
with my own hands, and then the Messenger of God (pbuh) garlanded the
animals with his own hands. He then sent them with my father. Nothing that
God had made licit for the Messenger of God (pbuh) prior to garlanding the
animals subsequently became prohibited for him.”384
968. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “I asked ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān whether anything becomes prohibited for someone who sends
a sacrosanct animal to God’s House but stays in his hometown. She told me
that she had heard ʿĀʾisha say, “Only those who enter the consecrated state
and chant (talbiya) are subject to any prohibitions.”
969. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm
b. al-Ḥārith al-Taymī, from Rabīʿa b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Hudayr, that he saw a
man385 covered in the fashion of a pilgrim in Iraq, so he asked the people
there about him. They said, “He ordered that his animal be garlanded and
sent to God’s House, and for that reason he removed his clothes and donned
the appearance of a pilgrim.” Rabīʿa said, “I then met ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr

384 In other words, according to ʿĀʾisha, the Prophet (pbuh) did not consider the dispatch of
animals for sacrifice at God’s House during the Pilgrimage to require entering the conse-
crated state that is obligatory for pilgrims. Accordingly, after sending the animals the Prophet
(pbuh) continued to engage in all the activities that would ordinarily be permissible for
someone not in the consecrated state, including having intercourse with his wives, using per-
fume, and grooming, such as clipping the hair and nails. The practice of the Prophet (pbuh)
in this case contradicted the opinion of Ibn ʿAbbās on which Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān had relied in
his decision to impose on himself the restrictions of the consecrated state once he had sent
a sacrosanct animal to be sacrificed at God’s House, even though he was not performing the
Pilgrimage himself.
385 According to the notes in the RME, other reports indicate that the man in question was ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿAbbās.
Book 20 295

and mentioned it to him. He said, ‘Islam does not sanction this act, by the
Lord of the Kabah!’”
970. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about a man who set out for God’s House
with his own sacrosanct animal. The man marked it and garlanded it at Dhū
al-Ḥulayfa but did not enter the consecrated state until he arrived al-Juḥfa.
Mālik said, ‘I dislike that, and the person who did that erred. One should
neither garland nor mark one’s sacrosanct animal until one enters the
consecrated state. The exception to this rule is if the person does not desire
to perform the Pilgrimage (ḥajj) but wishes only to send the animal to God’s
House while staying at home with his family.’”
971. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether someone who is not in the
consecrated state can set out with a sacrificial animal. He said, ‘Yes, there
is nothing objectionable in that.’ Mālik was also asked about the dispute
regarding whether someone who garlands a sacrosanct animal but does
not intend to perform either the Pilgrimage or the Visitation (ʿumra) is
subject to the prohibitions of the consecrated state. He said, ‘The rule
in our view, which we follow in respect of that question (al-amr ʿindanā
alladhī naʾkhudhu bihi fī dhālika), is the opinion of ʿĀʾisha, the Mother
of the Believers. She said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) dispatched
his sacrosanct animals to God’s House and then stayed behind, and
nothing that God had previously permitted for him subsequently became
prohibited for him.”’”

Chapter 16. What a Menstruating Woman Does during the Pilgrimage

(Ḥajj)
972. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“A menstruating woman may enter the consecrated state (iḥrām) with the
intention of performing either the Pilgrimage or the Visitation (ʿumra) if she
so wishes, but she may not circumambulate God’s House (ṭawāf) or march
between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa (saʿy). She should nevertheless
attend all the rites of the Pilgrimage with the pilgrims, but she must neither
circumambulate God’s House nor march between the hillocks of Ṣafā and
Marwa, nor can she approach the Sacred Mosque (al-masjid al-ḥarām) until
she ceases menstruation and bathes.”
296 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 17. The Visitation (ʿUmra) during the Months of the

Pilgrimage (Ḥajj)386
973. According to Mālik, it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
performed the Visitation three times: in the year of al-Ḥudaybiya,387 in the
year of the Fulfilled Visitation,388 and in the year of Jiʿirrāna.389
974. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) performed the Visitation only three times: once
in Shawwāl and twice in Dhū al-Qaʿda.
975. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥarmala al-Aslamī reported
that a man asked Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, “May I perform the Visitation before
performing the Pilgrimage?” Saʿīd said, “Yes, the Messenger of God (pbuh)
performed the Visitation before the Pilgrimage.”
976. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab that
ʿUmar b. Abī Salama sought the permission of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb to perform
the Visitation in the month of Shawwāl. ʿUmar gave him permission, so he
performed it. He then returned to his family without having performed the
Pilgrimage.

Chapter 18. The Cessation of Chanting (Talbiya) during the Visitation

(ʿUmra)
977. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that he
would cease chanting during the Visitation when he entered the Sanctuary
(ḥaram).
978. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Whoever enters the consecrated state (iḥrām)
at al-Tanʿīm390 with the intention of performing the Visitation should cease
chanting when he sees God’s House.’”
979. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked when a person from Medina or from
another town other than Mecca who begins performance of the Visitation
from one of the designated stations (mawāqīt) should cease chanting. He
said, ‘A person who enters the consecrated state at one of the designated

386 The months of the Pilgrimage are Shawwāl, Dhū al-Qaʿda, and Dhū al-Ḥijja, the tenth, elev-
enth, and twelfth months of the Islamic calendar, respectively.
387 This was year 6 of the Hijra (627 CE).
388 This Visitation took place in year 7 of the Hijra (628 CE) and reflected the agreement that the
Prophet (pbuh) had reached with the Meccans the previous year at al-Ḥudaybiya.
389 Named after a place between Mecca and Ṭāʾif where the Prophet (pbuh) divided the spoils
seized by the Muslims in the Battle of Ḥunayn in year 8 of the Hijra (629 CE).
390 Of the designated stations at which pilgrims must enter the consecrated state, al-Tanʿīm is
the closest to the Sacred Mosque. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 2:406.
Book 20 297

stations should cease chanting when he arrives at the Sanctuary.’ He said, ‘It
has reached me that this was the practice of ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar.’”

Chapter 19. What Has Come Down regarding the Decision to Perform
the Pilgrimage (Ḥajj) in the Same Year after Performing the Visitation
(ʿUmra) during the Pilgrimage Season (Tamattuʿ)391
980. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh
b. al-Ḥārith b. Nawfal b. ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib told him that in the year in which
Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān performed the Pilgrimage, he heard Saʿd b. Abī
Waqqāṣ and al-Ḍaḥḥāk b. Qays discussing the issue of someone deciding
to perform the Pilgrimage after already performing the Visitation during
the Pilgrimage season. Al-Ḍaḥḥāk b. Qays said, “Only someone ignorant of
God’s ordinances would do so.” Saʿd said, “What you’re saying is nonsense,
my nephew!” Al-Ḍaḥḥāk said, “But ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb forbade it.” Saʿd said,
“The Messenger of God (pbuh), however, did it, and we did it with him.”
981. Yaḥyā told me from Mālik, from Ṣadaqa b. Yasār, that ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿUmar said, “By God, I would rather perform the Visitation before the
Pilgrimage and offer a sacrificial animal (hady) than perform the Visitation
in Dhū al-Ḥijja after completing the Pilgrimage.”392
982. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported that ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar would say, “If someone performs the Visitation during the Pilgrimage
season—that is, during Shawwāl, Dhū al-Qaʿda, or Dhū al-Ḥijja—before
the Pilgrimage, then stays in Mecca until the Pilgrimage begins, and goes
on to perform the Pilgrimage, he is performing tamattuʿ. Accordingly, he
must offer any sacrificial animal that is conveniently available to him. If he
cannot find one, he must fast three days during the Pilgrimage and seven
days when he returns home.” Mālik said, “That is the case only if he does not
depart from Mecca until the Pilgrimage and then performs the Pilgrimage.”
983. Mālik said that a Meccan who leaves Mecca to live elsewhere, then
returns to perform the Visitation during the Pilgrimage season, and remains
there until it is time to set off on the Pilgrimage is performing tamattuʿ. He
must offer a sacrificial animal, or fast if he cannot find one. He is not to be
treated as a Meccan.393

391 Tamattuʿ refers to the practice of entering the consecrated state (iḥrām) during the Pilgrim-
age season with the intention of performing the rites of the Visitation and subsequently reen-
tering the consecrated state to perform the Pilgrimage.
392 A person who performs tamattuʿ must offer an animal as a sacrifice.
393 The rules of tamattuʿ apply only to non-Meccans.
298 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

984. Mālik was asked whether a non-Meccan who enters Mecca to

perform the Visitation during the Pilgrimage season with the intention of
settling there and then sets out to perform the Pilgrimage is deemed to be
performing tamattuʿ. He said, “Yes, he is, and he is not deemed a Meccan,
even if he intends to settle there. That is because when he entered Mecca,
he was not yet a Meccan. In these circumstances, offering a sacrificial
animal and fasting is obligatory for anyone who is not Meccan. Although
this man intends to settle in Mecca, he might yet change his mind and leave.
Therefore, he is not yet a Meccan.”
985. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he heard Saʿīd b.
al-Musayyab say, “Whoever performs the Visitation during Shawwāl, Dhū
al-Qaʿda, or Dhū al-Ḥijja and then stays in Mecca until the Pilgrimage begins
is performing tamattuʿ, if he goes on to perfom the Pilgrimage. He therefore
must offer any sacrificial animal that is conveniently available to him. If he
cannot find one, he must fast three days during the Pilgrimage and seven
days when he returns home.”

Chapter 20. Circumstances in Which the Rules of Tamattuʿ Do

Not Apply
986. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Someone who performs the Visitation (ʿumra)
in the months of Shawwāl, Dhū al-Qaʿda, or Dhū al-Ḥijja, then leaves Mecca
and returns to his people, but then performs the Pilgrimage (ḥajj) in that
very year is not obliged to offer a sacrificial animal (hady). Only someone
who performs the Visitation during the Pilgrimage season, then stays in
Mecca until the time of the Pilgrimage, and then performs the Pilgrimage
must offer a sacrificial animal.’”
987. Mālik said, “Anyone who hails from outside of Mecca but moves to
Mecca and makes it his permanent home and subsequently performs the
Visitation during the Pilgrimage season and then begins his Pilgrimage
from Mecca is not performing tamattuʿ. Therefore, he is not obliged to offer
a sacrificial animal or to fast. He is treated in the same way as the people of
Mecca are because he resides there.”
988. Mālik was asked about a Meccan who leaves Mecca to participate in the
defense of a frontier town, or who sets off on a journey and then returns to
Mecca with the intention of staying there. He enters Mecca to perform the
Visitation during the Pilgrimage season and then sets out to perform the
Pilgrimage from there. He begins his Visitation at the designated station
(mīqāt) of the Prophet (pbuh) or at another place before it. He may or may
not have family in Mecca. Is a person in such circumstances deemed to be
Book 20 299

perfoming tamattuʿ? Mālik said, “He is not obliged to offer a sacrificial animal
or to fast in the manner of someone performing tamattuʿ. That is because
God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says in His Book, ‘That obligation is due from
those whose families are not settled in the precinct of the Sacred Mosque.’”394

Chapter 21. Miscellaneous Matters regarding the Visitation (ʿUmra)

989. According to Mālik, Sumayy, the freedman (mawlā) of Abū Bakr b.
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, reported from Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Sammān, from Abū Hurayra,
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Performance of the Visitation
atones for sins committed since the last Visitation, and the only reward for
a righteously performed Pilgrimage (ḥajj) is Paradise.”
990. According to Mālik, Sumayy, the freedman of Abū Bakr, reported
that he heard Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān say, “A woman went to the
Messenger of God (pbuh) and said, ‘I had completed my preparations for
the Pilgrimage when something happened that prevented me from setting
out.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to her, ‘Perform the Visitation
during Ramaḍān, because performing the Visitation during that month is
like performing the Pilgrimage.’”
991. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that ʿUmar
b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “Perform the Pilgrimage and the Visitation at separate
times. Performing the Visitation outside the Pilgrimage season makes both
your Pilgrimage and your Visitation more complete.”
992. According to Mālik, it reached him that when ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān set
out to perform the Visitation, he would sometimes not dismount from his
animal until he had returned.
993. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The Visitation is a long-established ordinance
(sunna), and we know of no Muslim who has ever deemed it dispensable.’”
994. Mālik said, “I do not think that anyone should perform the Visitation
more than once a year.”
995. Mālik said, regarding a man who has sexual intercourse with his wife
while performing the Visitation, “He must offer a sacrificial animal (hady)
and perform a second Visitation, which he should begin after he finishes the
one he invalidated by having intercourse. He should enter the consecrated
state (iḥrām) in the same place where he entered it for the prior Visitation
that he invalidated, unless he entered the consecrated state at a designated
station (mīqāt) more distant than the designated station at which he

394 Al-Baqara, 2:196.

300 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

would ordinarily enter the consecrated state. He is not obliged to enter the
consecrated state in a place further away than his designated station.”
996. Mālik said, “If someone enters Mecca with the intention of performing
the Visitation and proceeds to circumambulate (ṭawāf) God’s House and
march between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa (saʿy) while either being
in a state of ritual preclusion (junub) or having neglected to first perform
ablutions (wuḍūʾ) and then, having completed the rites of the Visitation, has
sexual intercourse with his wife and only then remembers that he failed
to bathe or perform ablutions prior to performing the Visitation’s rites, he
should bathe or perform ablutions and then circumambulate God’s House
and march between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa one more time, perform
another Visitation, and offer a sacrificial animal. The woman whose
husband had sexual intercourse with her while she was in the consecrated
state (muḥrima) must do the same.”
997. Mālik said, “Whoever wishes to leave the Sanctuary (ḥaram) in Mecca
to perform a Visitation may enter the consecrated state at al-Tanʿīm—that
suffices him, God willing, and he need not go any further. Virtue, however,
lies in entering the consecrated state at the station that the Messenger of
God (pbuh) designated, and it lies further away than al-Tanʿīm.”

Chapter 22. Contracting Marriage While in the Consecrated State

(Iḥrām)
998. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported from
Sulaymān b. Yasār that the Messenger of God (pbuh) sent his freedman
(mawlā) Abū Rāfiʿ and another Medinese man to conclude his marriage
contract with Maymūna bt. al-Ḥārith. The Messenger of God (pbuh) was in
Medina at that time before he departed and entered the consecrated state
(iḥrām).
999. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from Nubayh b. Wahb of the tribe
of Banū ʿAbd al-Dār that ʿUmar b. ʿUbayd Allāh sent a message to Abān b.
ʿUthmān, who was in charge of the Pilgrimage caravan at that time, while
both of them were in the consecrated state, saying, “I want to contract the
marriage of Ṭalḥa b. ʿUmar to Shayba b. Jubayr’s daughter, and I want you to
attend.” Abān rebuked him for that, saying, “I heard ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān say,
‘The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “A man in the consecrated state should
not himself marry, contract marriage for another, or become engaged.”’”
1000. According to Mālik, Dāwūd b. al-Ḥuṣayn reported that Abū Ghaṭafān
b. Ṭarīf al-Murrī told him that his father, Ṭarīf, married a woman while he was
in the consecrated state, and ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb rescinded the marriage.
Book 20 301

1001. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“A person who is in the consecrated state should not get married himself,
become engaged to marry, or arrange the marriage of another.”
1002. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, Sālim
b. ʿAbd Allāh, and Sulaymān b. Yasār were asked whether a person in the
consecrated state could marry. They said, “Such a person should neither get
married himself nor arrange the marriage of another.”
1003. Mālik said that a man in the consecrated state could, if he so wishes,
revoke the divorce of his wife, provided that she is still in her waiting period
(ʿidda) from her marriage to him.395

Chapter 23. Cupping While in the Consecrated State (Iḥrām)

1004. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Sulaymān b. Yasār
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) once had the top of his head cupped
while he was in the consecrated state (iḥrām) at Laḥyay Jamal, a place on
the way to Mecca.
1005. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
say, “A person in the consecrated state should not be cupped unless it is
necessary to do so, and he has no other alternative.”
1006. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘A person in the consecrated state should not
be cupped, unless it is necessary to do so.’”

Chapter 24. The Wild Animals (Ṣayd) That a Person in the Consecrated
State (Muḥrim) Is Permitted to Eat396
1007. According to Mālik, Abū al-Naḍr, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿUmar b.
ʿUbayd Allāh al-Tamīmī, reported from Nāfiʿ, the freedman of Abū Qatāda
al-Anṣārī, from Abū Qatāda, that he, along with others, set out with the
Messenger of God (pbuh) toward Mecca. Abū Qatāda and a group of his
companions fell behind the rest of the party. His companions were in the
consecrated state, but he was not. Then, all of a sudden, he encountered a
wild ass, so he quickly mounted his horse. He asked his companions to give
him his whip, but they ignored him. He then asked them to pass him his
spear, and they again ignored him. So he grabbed it himself and charged at
the ass, killing it. Some of the companions of the Messenger of God (pbuh)

395 ʿIdda is the period of time a woman must wait before remarrying after her divorce from her
husband or following his death. In an ordinary case of divorce, the husband may revoke his
divorce and renew the marriage with his wife during this period. The waiting period is usu-
ally three menstrual cycles.
396 The Quran prohibits persons in the consecrated state from killing wild animals. Al-Māʾida, 5:95.
302 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

ate from it, while others refused. When they finally caught up with the
Messenger of God (pbuh), they asked him about eating that meat, and he
said, “That is simply food that God has given you.”
1008. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
al-Zubayr b. al-ʿAwwām would include strips (ṣafῑf) of dried antelope meat
in his provisions while he was in the consecrated state. Mālik said, “Ṣafῑf are
dried strips of meat.”
1009. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār told
him, from Abū Qatāda, the same report about the wild ass that Abū al-Naḍr
reported, except that in Zayd b. Aslam’s report the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “Is any of its meat left?”
1010. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b.
al-Ḥārith al-Taymī told me, from ʿĪsā b. Ṭalḥa b. ʿUbayd Allāh, from ʿUmayr
b. Salama al-Ḍamrī, from al-Bahzī, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) set out
for Mecca while in the consecrated state. When they reached al-Rawḥāʾ,397
a wounded wild ass unexpectedly appeared, and the Messenger of God
(pbuh) was informed. He said, ‘Leave it be. The hunter who wounded it
is certain to show up soon.’ Then al-Bahzī, who was the one who shot it,
came to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and said, ‘Messenger of God, do what
you wish with this ass.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) then commanded
Abū Bakr to divide its flesh among the company. Then they marched on
until they arrived at a well between al-Ruwaytha398 and al-ʿArj, where they
happened on an antelope lying in the shade with an arrow stuck in its side.
He said that the Messenger of God (pbuh) ordered a man to guard it to make
sure that no one interfered with it until all of them had passed.”
1011. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he heard Saʿīd b.
al-Musayyab relate from Abū Hurayra that when he reached al-Rabadha
while he was on his way back to Medina from Baḥrayn, he encountered
a caravan of Iraqis who were in the consecrated state. They asked him
whether they could eat the meat of some wild animals that some of the
people of al-Rabadha had. He told them that they could. Abū Hurayra said,
“Later, I had second thoughts about what I told them, so when I arrived
in Medina, I mentioned what had happened to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, and
he said, ‘What was your advice to them?’ ‘I said to them, “Eat it.”’ ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb said, ‘Had you told them anything else, you would have been in
real trouble,’” meaning that ʿUmar would have rebuked him.

397 A place outside of Medina.

398 A place between Mecca and Medina. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 2:416.
Book 20 303

1012. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh
that he heard Abū Hurayra tell ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that a group of people
in the consecrated state crossed paths with him in al-Rabadha, and
they asked him for his opinion about the permissibility of partaking of
the wild animal meat that was being eaten by a group of people who
were not in the consecrated state.399 He told them that in his opinion
it was permissible for them to do so. He said, “Then I went to ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb in Medina and asked him about that, and he said, ‘What advice
did you give them?’” Abū Hurayra said, “I said, ‘I advised them that it
was permissible to eat.’ ʿUmar said, ‘Had you advised them otherwise, I
would have punished you severely.’”
1013. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār that
Kaʿb al-Aḥbār once came from the Levant to Medina in the company of a
group of mounted men. All of them were in the consecrated state. After
they had completed part of their journey, they chanced on the meat of some
wild animals. Kaʿb advised them that in his opinion it was permissible for
them to eat it. ʿAṭāʾ said, “When they arrived and saw ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb,
they told him what had happened, and he said, ‘Who advised you to do so?’
They said, ‘Kaʿb.’ He said, ‘Indeed, I had appointed him as your commander
until your return.’ Then, when they were on their way to Mecca, a swarm
of locusts crossed their path, so Kaʿb advised them to capture and eat
them. When they returned to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, they told him what had
happened, and he said, “Kaʿb, what led you to advise them that they could
do so?” Kaʿb said, “Locusts are a kind of seafood.” ʿUmar said, “How do you
know that?” Kaʿb said, “Commander of the Faithful, by Him whose hand
holds my soul, they are nothing but the sneeze of a whale, which happens
twice a year.”400
1014. Mālik was asked whether a person in the consecrated state is
permitted to purchase wild animal meat that he may find on the way to
Mecca. He said, “I disapprove and forbid the sale of the meat of wild animals
that were hunted solely for the purpose of selling their meat to pilgrims.
There is nothing objectionable, however, in a pilgrim purchasing the meat

399 In other words, the group of people who had not entered the consecrated state had hunted
and killed the animals.
400 Later Mālikī commentators on the Muwaṭṭaʾ such as Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr and Bājī find this ha­dith
problematic, noting that all jurists, to their knowledge, deem locusts land animals, and that
even Kaʿb, as evidenced by a subsequent report in the Muwaṭṭaʾ, understood that it was pro-
hibited to kill locusts while in the consecrated state. See hadith no. 1250 below. Ibn ʿAbd
al-Barr and Bājī explain ʿUmar’s reticence to condemn Kaʿb’s action in this case—he nei-
ther affirmed Kaʿb’s claim about locusts nor denied it—as deference to the possibility that it
was based on knowledge that Kaʿb—who was originally Jewish—might have obtained from
pre-Islamic scriptural sources. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 4:131; Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 2:245.
304 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

of a wild animal from someone he encounters on the way, provided that the
meat was not hunted for the purpose of selling it to pilgrims.”
1015. Mālik said that someone who had in his possession a captive wild
animal, whether obtained by hunting or by purchase, did not need to free
it when he entered the consecrated state, and that there would be nothing
objectionable in his leaving it in the care of his family while he performed
the Pilgrimage (ḥajj).
1016. Mālik said that a person in the consecrated state is permitted to catch
fish in seas, rivers, ponds, and similar bodies of water.

Chapter 25. The Wild Animals (Ṣayd) That a Person in the

Consecrated State (Muḥrim) Is Not Permitted to Eat
1017. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd, from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās, from al-Ṣaʿb b. Jaththāma
al-Laythī, that he gave a wild ass to the Messenger of God (pbuh) while he was
at al-Abwāʾ (or at Waddān),401 but the Messenger of God (pbuh) returned it
to him. He said, “When the Messenger of God saw the disappointment in my
face, he said, ‘We refused it only because we are in the consecrated state.’”
1018. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr reported that ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿĀmir b. Rabīʿa said, “I saw ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān at al-ʿArj. It was a hot summer
day and he was in the consecrated state. He had covered his face with a red
woolen cloth. Later, someone brought him meat from a wild animal, so he
told his companions, “Eat!” They said, “Aren’t you going to eat?” He said, “I am
not in the same position as you. It was hunted and killed only for my sake.”
1019. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, said to him, “Nephew, the restrictions of
the consecrated state last only ten days. If there is any doubt in your mind,
shun it.” Mālik said, “She meant eating the meat of a wild animal.”
1020. Mālik said, regarding a man in the consecrated state for whose sake
a wild animal had been captured and cooked and who ate its meat knowing
that it had been hunted for his sake, that the man was obliged to offer an
equivalent animal as a sacrifice in compensation for that wild animal.402
1021. Mālik was asked whether it would be preferable for someone in the
consecrated state who is facing the possibility of starvation to hunt and
kill a wild animal or to eat carrion. He said, “He should rather eat carrion,

401 Al-Abwāʾ is a mountain and Waddān is a valley, and both lie in the vicinity of al-Juḥfa, one of
the designated stations (mīqāt) at which pilgrims must enter the consecrated state.
402 Al-Māʾida, 5:95.
Book 20 305

because God, Blessed and Sublime is He, has not given a dispensation to
anyone in the consecrated state to capture and eat a wild animal under any
circumstances, but He did give a dispensation to eat carrion in circumstances
of possible starvation.”
1022. Mālik said, “If someone in the consecrated state kills or slaughters
a wild animal, no one may eat it, whether the person is in the consecrated
state or not, because it was not lawfully slaughtered. Whether the killing
was accidental or intentional, the animal is not permissible to eat.” Mālik
said, “I heard this rule from numerous persons.”
1023. Mālik said that if someone kills and eats a wild animal, he is subject
to only a single act of expiation, as is the case with someone who kills a wild
animal but does not eat it.

Chapter 26. The Rule regarding Wild Animals (Ṣayd) within the
Precincts of the Sanctuary (Ḥaram)403
1024. Mālik said, “It is not permissible to eat any wild animal captured
within the precincts of the Sanctuary, nor is it permissible to eat a wild
animal if it was captured and killed beyond its precincts, if a hound had
been set after it within the Sanctuary’s precincts. Anyone who does so must
offer compensation for that animal. As for someone who sets his hound on
a wild animal outside the Sanctuary’s precints, and it pursues and captures
the animal within the Sanctuary’s precincts, he may not eat the animal,
but he is not obliged to offer an animal in compensation, unless he set his
hound on it in the vicinity of the Sanctuary’s precincts. If he did, then he
must offer compensation.”

Chapter 27. Determination of the Compensation Due for Unlawfully

Killed Wild Animals (Ṣayd)
1025. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says, “O you
who believe! Do not kill wild animals while you are in the consecrated state.
Whoever does so intentionally must offer in compensation a domesticated
animal similar to the one he killed, as determined by two of your just men,
as an offering brought to the Kabah; or he shall offer, as expiation, food to
the indigent, or the equivalent of that in fasts, so that he may taste of the
gravity of his deed.”404 Someone who captures a wild animal when he is not

403 There is no dispute that the rules laid out here apply to the Meccan Sanctuary. However,
jurists disagree whether these rules also apply to the Sanctuary of Medina. The Mālikīs hold
that they do, whereas the Ḥanafīs argue that they do not. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 2:252.
404 Al-Māʾida, 5:95.
306 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

in the consecrated state and then later kills it when he is in that state is in
the same position as someone who purchases and kills a wild animal while
in the consecrated state. Because God has forbidden killing it, whoever does
so must offer compensation for it. The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is
that whoever kills a wild animal while in the consecrated state must offer
compensation determined by arbitrators.’”
1026. Mālik said, “The best view that I have heard regarding a person who
kills a wild animal while in the consecrated state and is under an obligation
to offer compensation for that animal as determined by two arbitrators is
that the value of the wild animal that he has killed is determined in terms of
its equivalent in a staple food.405 He must feed each poor person a 500-gram
measure (mudd) of such food. Alternatively, he may fast a number of days
equal to the number of poor people he would have had to feed.406 If their
number is ten, he fasts ten days, and if it is twenty, he fasts twenty days. He
must fast whatever number it is, even if it exceeds sixty.”
1027. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘I have heard that a person who is not in the
consecrated state and kills a wild animal within the Sanctuary’s precincts
must offer the same compensation that would be imposed on a person who
killed a wild animal while he was in the consecrated state.’”

Chapter 28. The Animals That a Person in the Consecrated State

(Muḥrim) May Kill
1028. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “There are five animals that a person in the
consecrated state may kill without sinning: ravens, kites, scorpions, rats,
and vicious dogs.”407
1029. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported from ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “A person in the consecrated
state is permitted to kill five kinds of animals without sinning: scorpions,
rats, vicious dogs, ravens, and kites.”

405 In other words, the value of the slain wild animal is calculated in measures of a staple food,
such as wheat or barley.
406 This means that the food equivalent of the slain wild animal, as determined by the arbitrators,
is then divided by 500 to establish how many poor people must be fed. For example, if the
pilgrim kills a wild animal and the arbitrators determine that its equivalent in barley is 5,000
grams, the pilgrim is obliged to feed ten poor persons (5,000/500 = 10), or fast ten days.
407 It was understood that the Prophet (pbuh) had singled out the raven and the kite because of
their propensity to abscond with the pilgrims’ food. The category of the vicious dog was con-
sidered by the jurists to include any kind of predatory animal that could threaten a human
being, such as a lion, a panther, or the like.
Book 20 307

1030. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “There are five kinds of vicious animals,
and these may be killed within the precincts of the Sanctuary (ḥaram): rats,
scorpions, ravens, kites, and vicious dogs.”
1031. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
decreed that snakes within the Sanctuary’s precincts were to be killed.
1032. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding the intended meaning of the
‘vicious dog’ that may be killed within the Sanctuary’s precincts, ‘Whatever
bites people, attacks them, and terrorizes them, whether a lion, a cougar,
a lynx, or a wolf, is included within “vicious dog.” However, a person in
the consecrated state may not kill predators that do not ordinarily attack
people, such as hyenas, foxes, cats, and similar predators. If he kills one of
these, he must offer compensation for it.’”
1033. Mālik said, “The only kinds of harmful birds that those in the
consecrated state may kill are those that the Prophet (pbuh) specifically
mentioned: ravens and kites. If someone in the consecrated state kills any
other kind of bird, he must offer compensation for it.”

Chapter 29. What a Person in the Consecrated State (Muḥrim) Is

Permitted to Do
1034. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Muḥammad b.
Ibrāhīm b. al-Ḥārith al-Taymī, from Rabīʿa b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Hudayr, that he
saw ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, while he was in the consecrated state, removing
ticks from a camel of his and casting them into the mud at al-Suqyā.408 Yaḥyā
said, “Mālik said, ‘I do not approve of that.’”
1035. According to Mālik, ʿAlqama b. Abī ʿAlqama reported that his mother
said, “I heard ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), being asked whether
a person in the consecrated state could relieve his itching by scratching his
body.409 She said, ‘Yes he can, even abrasively. Even if my hands were bound
and I could only scratch myself using my feet, I would certainly do so.’”
1036. According to Mālik, Ayyūb b. Mūsā reported that ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar, while he was in the consecrated state, once looked in the mirror at
something that was irritating his eye.
1037. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar discouraged
people in the consecrated state from removing mites and ticks from their

408 A village between Mecca and Medina.

409 The question is motivated by the concern that vigorous scratching of the body might kill the
insect that is the cause of the itching.
308 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

camels. Mālik said, “Of all the views that I have heard regarding this issue,
that view is the one I prefer most.”
1038. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Maryam reported
that he asked Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab about a fingernail of his that broke while
he was in the consecrated state. Saʿīd said to him, “Cut it off.”410
1039. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether a man in the consecrated state
who complains of an earache may pour drops of unperfumed moringa (bān)
oil into his ear. He said, ‘I see nothing objectionable in that, and even if he
were to swallow it, I would still not object.’”
1040. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable about someone in the
consecrated state lancing an abscess or a boil, or cutting a vein, if he needs
to do so.”

Chapter 30. Performance of the Pilgrimage (Ḥajj) on Behalf of

Someone Else
1041. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sulaymān b. Yasār that
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās said, “Al-Faḍl b. ʿAbbās was riding behind the Messenger
of God (pbuh) on the same animal when a woman of the tribe of Khathʿam
appeared, seeking his opinion on a religious matter. Al-Faḍl began to look
at her, and she returned his glance, so the Messenger of God (pbuh) turned
al-Faḍl’s face away from her to the other side. She said, ‘Messenger of God!
By the time that God made the Pilgrimage a firm obligation, my father had
become a very old man and was unable to sit securely on his camel. Should I
perform the Pilgrimage on his behalf?’ He said, ‘Yes!’ That took place during
the Farewell Pilgrimage (ḥajjat al-wadāʿ).”411

Chapter 31. What Has Come Down regarding Someone Whose

Pilgrimage (Ḥajj) or Visitation (ʿUmra) Is Interdicted by an Enemy
1042. Mālik said, “Whoever is prevented from completing his journey to
God’s House by an enemy is freed of the restrictions of the consecrated
state (iḥrām). He is to slaughter his sacrificial animal (hady) and shave his
head at the place where he was interdicted. He is under no obligation to
make up that Pilgrimage or Visitation.”

410 The question is motivated by the fact that one of the restrictions associated with the conse-
crated state (iḥrām) is the prohibition of many forms of personal grooming, such as clipping
the nails.
411 According to the editors of the RME, it was Ibn Shihāb, not Ibn ʿAbbās, who said, “That took
place during the Farewell Pilgrimage.”
Book 20 309

1043. According to Mālik, it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
and his companions exited the consecrated state at al-Ḥudaybiya. They then
slaughtered their sacrificial animals, shaved their heads, and were freed of
all the restrictions of the consecrated state without ever circumambulating
God’s House (ṭawāf) and without their sacrificial animals reaching the
Kabah. No reports indicate that the Messenger of God (pbuh) commanded
any of his companions or anyone else who was with him at that time to
make up any of these unperformed acts or to complete their performance.
1044. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that when ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
set out from412 Mecca to perform the Visitation during the Time of the
Strife (fitna),413 he said, “If I am prevented from reaching God’s House, we
will do what we did when we were with the Messenger of God (pbuh).”
He entered the consecrated state with the intention of performing the
Visitation because the Messenger of God (pbuh) had intended to perform
the Visitation in the year of al-Ḥudaybiya.414 But later, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
reflected on his decision and said to himself, “Aren’t the Pilgrimage and the
Visitation both subject to the same rules?” So he turned to his companions
and said, “They are subject to the same rules. I call you to witness that I
have obliged myself to perform the Pilgrimage along with the Visitation.”
He then set off, and when he reached God’s House, he circumambulated
once, concluding that this satisfied his obligations.415 He then offered his
sacrificial animal.
1045. Mālik said, “This is the rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) concerning
someone whom an enemy interdicts from God’s House, just as the Prophet
(pbuh) and his companions were interdicted. However, if anything other
than an enemy prevents a person from reaching God’s House, he is not
released from the consecrated state. In all other cases, he remains subject
to the restrictions of the consecrated state until he arrives at God’s House.”

412 The text of the RME uses the preposition min, “from,” here, but the notes to the text suggest
that this is an error, and the correct preposition is ilā, “to,” which would mean that he set out
for, not from, Mecca.
413 A reference to the civil war that took place between the rival caliphates of ʿAbd al-Malik b.
Marwān, who was based in Damascus, and ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr (d. 73/692), who was
based in Mecca. Ibn ʿUmar’s trip to Mecca that is referenced in this incident took place in year
72 of the Hijra (691 CE), the year that ʿAbd al-Malik’s governor, al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf al-Thaqafī
(d. 95/714), laid siege to ʿAbd Allāh b. Zubayr’s forces in the Hijaz. See Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr,
al-Istidhkār, 4:169–70; Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 2:439–40.
414 In the year of al-Ḥudaybiya (6/628), the Messenger of God (pbuh) and his Companions set
out for Mecca, but the Meccans prevented them from reaching their destination. The Muslims
concluded a truce with the Meccans that allowed them to return the next year to perform the
Pilgrimage rites.
415 In other words, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar concluded that he needed to circumambulate only once,
even though he was performing both the Visitation and the Pilgrimage. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 2:276.
310 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 32. What Has Come Down regarding Someone Who Has
Been Prevented from Reaching God’s House by Something Other
Than an Enemy
1046. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh that
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “Whomever illness prevents from reaching God’s
House may not exit the consecrated state (iḥrām) until he circumambulates
(ṭawāf) God’s House and marches between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa
(saʿy). If the circumstances of his illness are such that he can heal only if he
dons a garment or applies a medicinal perfume, he should do so and offer
compensation.”
1047. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that it reached him that
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), would say, “Only arrival at God’s
House releases a person in the consecrated state from its restrictions.”
1048. According to Mālik, Ayyūb b. Abī Tamīma al-Sakhtiyānī reported that
a man of extremely advanced age from Basra416 said, “I set out for Mecca,
and on the way there I broke my thigh. I sent a message to Mecca. At that
time, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, and other learned people
were there, but none of them permitted me to exit the consecrated state.
Consequently, I stayed put at that well for seven months until I healed. I
exited the consecrated state only by performing the Visitation (ʿumra).”
1049. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh that
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “Whomever illness prevents from arriving at God’s
House cannot exit the consecrated state until he circumambulates God’s
House and marches between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa.”
1050. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Sulaymān b. Yasār
that Maʿbad b. Ḥuzāba al-Makhzūmī was thrown off his mount on the way
to Mecca while he was in the consecrated state. He inquired after learned
people nearby, and he was able to find ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, ʿAbd Allāh b.
al-Zubayr, and Marwān b. al-Ḥakam. He told them what had happened to
him. Each of them directed him to take whatever medication he needed
and to offer compensation for doing so. Then, once he healed, he should
perform the Visitation and exit the consecrated state. He would then be
obliged to perform the Pilgrimage (ḥajj) the following year and to offer
whatever sacrificial animal (hady) was conveniently available to him.
Mālik said, “The rule among us is in accordance with that (ʿalā dhālika
al-amr ʿindanā) with respect to anyone who is impeded by something
other than an enemy.”

416 The Arabs founded the garrison town of Basra after their conquest of Iraq.
Book 20 311

1051. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb commanded Abū Ayyūb
al-Anṣārī and Habbār b. al-Aswad, who missed the Pilgrimage because
they arrived on the Day of the Slaughter of the Sacrosanct Animals (yawm
al-naḥr),417 to exit the consecrated state by performing the Visitation. He
told them that they were permitted to return home free of the consecrated
state’s restrictions, but that they were under an obligation to perform
the Pilgrimage in an upcoming year and to offer a sacrificial animal or, if
unable to find one, to fast three days during the Pilgrimage and seven upon
returning to their families.’”
1052. Mālik said, “Anyone who has been prevented from performing the
Pilgrimage after entering the consecrated state, whether on account of
illness or something else, or by a mistake in calculating the days of the
month, or because the crescent moon was hidden from him, falls into the
category of the impeded (muḥṣar) and must do what the impeded do.”
1053. Mālik was asked about a Meccan who enters the consecrated state
with the intention of performing the Pilgrimage but then breaks a bone, is
afflicted with diarrhea, or goes into labor. He said, “Any Meccan to whom
this happens is considered impeded and has the same obligations as
non-Meccans when they are prevented from performing the Pilgrimage.”
1054. Mālik said, regarding someone who comes to perform the Visitation
during the Pilgrimage season and then, after completing the Visitation’s
rites, enters the consecrated state in Mecca to perform the Pilgrimage but
then suffers a broken bone or another disabling affliction that prevents him
from attending ʿArafāt with the people, “I think that he should stay where he
is until he regains his health. Then he should depart the Sanctuary, reenter
Mecca from beyond its precincts, circumambulate God’s House, and march
between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa. Then he may exit the consecrated
state. He is then obliged to perform the Pilgrimage in an upcoming year and
to offer a sacrificial animal.”
1055. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding someone who enters the consecrated
state in Mecca with the intention of performing the Pilgrimage, then
circumambulates God’s House and marches between the hillocks of Ṣafā
and Marwa, and then falls ill and so is unable to attend ʿArafāt with the
people, ‘If he misses the Pilgrimage, he should, if he can, leave the Sanctuary
and then reenter it with the intention of performing the Visitation. He then
circumambulates God’s House and marches between the hillocks of Ṣafā and

417 In order to perform the Pilgrimage successfully, the pilgrim must be present at ʿArafāt for at
least a portion of the ninth day of Dhū al-Ḥijja. In this case, the two men arrived only on the
tenth day and were therefore unable to perform the Pilgrimage.
312 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Marwa again, because he did not intend the initial performance of these rites
to be for the Visitation. For this reason, he must repeat them. He is still obliged
to perform the Pilgrimage in an upcoming year and to offer a sacrificial
animal. If he is not a Meccan, and a disabling illness befalls him that prevents
him from performing the Pilgrimage but he has already circumambulated
God’s House and marched between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa, he should
exit the consecrated state by performing the Visitation. Therefore, he should
circumambulate God’s House and march between the hillocks of Ṣafā and
Marwa a second time, because his initial performance of these rites was
intended for the Pilgrimage. He remains obliged to perform the Pilgrimage in
an upcoming year and to offer a sacrificial animal.’”

Chapter 33. What Has Come Down regarding the Construction of

the Kabah
1056. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh
that ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr al-Ṣiddīq told ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar from ʿĀʾisha that the Prophet (pbuh) said, “Did you know that your
people, when they built the Kabah, were not faithful to the dimensions of
Abraham’s original structure?”418 She said, “I said in response, ‘Messenger
of God, shouldn’t you restore it to the way Abraham built it?’ The Messenger
of God (pbuh) said, ‘I would, if only your people had not emerged from their
idolatry just yesterday!’” ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “If indeed ʿĀʾisha heard
this from the Messenger of God (pbuh), I believe that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) refrained from touching the two corners adjacent to the Ḥijr419 only
because the physical structure of God’s House was not in conformity with
what Abraham had built.”
1057. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, said, “It makes no difference to me
whether I perform my prayer inside the Ḥijr or within God’s House.”
1058. According to Mālik, he heard Ibn Shihāb say, “I heard one of our
learned men say that the Ḥijr was demarcated with a wall only out of a
desire to force people to circumambulate beyond it and thus to guarantee
that their circumambulation (ṭawāf) would encompass the entirety of the
original perimeter of God’s House.”

418 He meant that it was smaller than the original structure, which was rectangular rather than
cubic.
419 The Ḥijr is the section of the Sanctuary immediately north of the Kabah that is marked with
a semicircular wall. The wall is reported to indicate the original foundations of the Kabah as
built by Abraham. In light of ʿĀʾisha’s report, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar interpreted the Prophet’s
decision to refrain from touching the two corners of the Kabah adjacent to the Ḥijr as reflect-
ing the fact that the existing corners were not the corners of the original structure.
Book 20 313

Chapter 34. Pacing Briskly with Short Steps (Raml) during

Circumambulation (Ṭawāf)
1059. According to Mālik, Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad reported from his father that
Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh said, “I saw the Messenger of God (pbuh) pace briskly
with short steps (raml) as he completed three laps around God’s House,
starting from the Black Stone.”420 Mālik said, “That is the practice that the
people of knowledge in our town have always followed (dhālika al-amr
alladhī lam yazal ʿalayhi ahl al-ʿilm bi-baladinā).”
1060. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
circumambulate God’s House three times, walking briskly with short steps
and beginning from the Black Stone. He would then circumambulate it four
times while walking.
1061. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that when his father
ʿUrwa circumambulated God’s House, he would move at a brisk pace for the
first three laps, reciting the following couplet in a low voice:
God, there is no god but You,
And You revive the dead after You made them die.421
1062. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that he
saw ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr enter the consecrated state (iḥrām) at al-Tanʿīm
with the intention of performing the Visitation (ʿumra). Hishām said, “Then
my father saw him march three laps at a quick pace around God’s House.”
1063. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that if ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar entered
the consecrated state in Mecca, he would neither circumambulate God’s
House nor march between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa (saʿy) until he
returned from Minā. Moreover, when he entered the consecrated state in
Mecca, he would not circumambulate God’s House with a quick pace.

Chapter 35. Saluting (Istilām) the Corners of the Kabah during

Circumambulation (Ṭawāf)
1064. According to Mālik, it reached him that when the Messenger of God
(pbuh) completed circumambulation of God’s House, he would perform

420 According to the editors of the RME, when the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions came to
Mecca to perform the Visitation in year 7 of the Hijra (628 CE) in accordance with the Treaty
of al-Ḥudaybiya, which had been concluded the previous year, the pagans of Mecca spread
rumors that the Prophet and his companions had become weak and sickly as a result of the
fevers that were endemic to Medina. The Prophet, therefore, ordered his companions to cir-
cumambulate God’s House three times at a brisk pace, using short steps, to show the pagans
that they were strong and in good health.
421 Allāhumma lā ilāha illā anta, wa-anta tuḥyī baʿda an amattā.
314 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

two cycles (rakʿa) of prayer (ṣalāt), and when he wanted to leave the Kabah
to march between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa (saʿy), he would salute the
corner of the Kabah that contained the Black Stone before leaving.
1065. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father said,
“The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf, ‘What is
your practice, Abū Muḥammad, with respect to saluting the corner of the
Kabah that contains the Black Stone?’ ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said, ‘Sometimes
I salute it, and sometimes I don’t.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
‘That’s exactly right.’”
1066. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father, ʿUrwa,
would salute all four corners of the Kabah when he circumambulated
God’s House, and that he would not fail to salute the Yemeni corner unless
physically prevented from doing so.

Chapter 36. Kissing the Black Stone When Saluting (Istilām) the
Corner Containing It
1067. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said to the Black Stone, while he was circumambulating
God’s House, “You are just a stone, and had I not seen the Messenger of God
(pbuh) kiss you, I would not do so.” Then he kissed it.
1068. Mālik said, “I have heard some people of knowledge express the
preference that a person who circumambulates God’s House touch his hand
to his mouth after removing it from the Yemeni corner.”

Chapter 37. The Two Cycles (Rakʿa) of Prayer (Ṣalāt) after

Circumambulation (Ṭawāf)
1069. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that he
would not perform two sets of seven laps around God’s House consecutively
without praying between them. He would perform two cycles of prayer after
every set of seven laps. Sometimes he would pray at Abraham’s Standing
Place,422 sometimes elsewhere.
1070. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether it was permissible for
someone to complete two or more sets of seven laps consecutively around
God’s House and then pray whatever number of cycles he owed in respect
of those sets of seven laps, if that would be easier for him. He said, ‘That is
improper. The long-established ordinance (al-sunna) is that after each set
of seven laps, one must perform two cycles of prayer.’”

422 Maqām Ibrāhīm, where Abraham is believed to have stood as he built the Kabah.
Book 20 315

1071. Mālik said, regarding someone who begins to circumambulate

God’s House and then loses track of how many laps he has completed and
ends up completing eight or nine, “He should stop once he knows that he
has exceeded the correct number and then perform two cycles of prayer,
ignoring any additional laps. Nor should he add to the nine laps that he
has performed to reach fourteen and then perform prayers for the two sets
of seven together, because the long-established ordinance with respect
to circumambulation is that every set of seven laps is followed by the
performance of two cycles of prayer.”
1072. Mālik said, “If a person performs the two cycles of prayer due upon
completion of circumambulation but entertains doubts as to whether he in
fact completed seven laps, he should go back and circumambulate further
until he is certain that he has completed them. He should then repeat the
performance of the two cycles of prayer, because the prayer performed
upon the completion of circumambulation is valid only after completion of
seven laps.”
1073. Mālik said, “As for someone whose ritual purity becomes nullified
while he is circumambulating God’s House or while he is marching between
the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa (saʿy), or between the two rites, and if he
has completed some or all of the seven laps of circumambulation but
has not yet performed the two cycles of prayer due upon completion of
circumambulation, he should perform ablutions (wuḍūʾ) and then perform
the circumambulation and the two cycles of prayer afresh.”
1074. Mālik said, “As for marching between the hillocks of Ṣafā and
Marwa, the nullification of a person’s ritual purity does not stop him from
completing that rite, but no one should begin marching unless he is in a
state of ritual purity after ablutions.”

Chapter 38. Performing Prayer (Ṣalāt) after Circumambulation

(Ṭawāf) Following the Morning Prayer (Ṣalāt al-Ṣubḥ) and Afternoon
Prayer (Ṣalāt al-ʿAṣr)
1075. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Ḥumayd b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd al-Qārī told him that he
circumambulated God’s House with ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb after the Morning
Prayer had been performed. When ʿUmar finished his circumambulation,
he looked up and saw that the sun had not yet risen, so he mounted his
camel and rode until he reached Dhū Ṭuwā,423 where he dismounted and
performed two cycles (rakʿa) of prayer.

423 A valley in Mecca.

316 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1076. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zubayr al-Makkī said, “I saw ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿAbbās circumambulate God’s House after the Afternoon Prayer had
concluded. He then went into his room, and I do not know what he did.”
1077. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zubayr al-Makkī said, “I noticed that upon
the conclusion of the Morning and Afternoon Prayers, God’s House would
empty, and no one would circumambulate it.”
1078. Mālik said, “If a person has completed some laps of his circumam-
bulation and then the Morning or Afternoon Prayer is called, he should
pray with the imam and then complete the rest of his seven laps, beginning
where he left off; however, he should not perform the prayer for circumam-
bulation until the sun rises or sets.” Mālik said, “There is nothing objection-
able in delaying performance of the two cycles of prayer until one performs
the Sunset Prayer (ṣalāt al-maghrib).”
1079. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable in completing a single
performance of circumambulation, consisting of seven laps, after the
Morning and Afternoon Prayers, but no one should perform more than one
set of seven. If a person performs the circumambulation after the Morning
Prayer, he defers performance of the two cycles of prayer until the sun rises,
as ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb did. If he does so after the Afternoon Prayer, he defers
them until the sun sets. If the sun has set, he can perform them immediately,
if he so wishes, or he can defer them until he performs the Evening Prayer.
There is nothing objectionable in that.”

Chapter 39. Bidding Farewell to God’s House424

1080. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “Let no pilgrim depart for home until he has
circumambulated God’s House, for the final rite of the Pilgrimage (ḥajj) is
circumambulation (ṭawāf).”
1081. Mālik said, regarding ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb’s statement “The final rite of
the Pilgrimage is circumambulation,” “We believe, and God knows best, that
it is because of the statement of God, Blessed and Sublime is He, ‘Whoever
honors the rites of God—that comes truly from the hearts’ piety,’425 and His
statement ‘Then their destination is the Ancient House.’426 Accordingly, all
rites should begin and conclude at the Ancient House (al-bayt al-ʿatīq).”427

424 This is a reference to the concluding ritual act of the Pilgrimage, which is to circumambulate
God’s House. This final act of circumambulation is known as the Farewell Circumambulation
(ṭawāf al-wadāʿ).
425 Al-Ḥajj, 22:32.
426 Al-Ḥajj, 22:33.
427 The “Ancient House” is another name for the Kabah.
Book 20 317

1082. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that a man once left Mecca
without bidding farewell to God’s House, reaching as far as Marr Ẓahrān.428
When ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb learned of this, he ordered the man to return in
order to do it.
1083. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father said,
“Whoever performs the Circumambulation of the March (ṭawāf al-ifāḍa)
has completed the Pilgrimage in the eyes of God. If, however, there is
nothing detaining him, it is fitting that circumambulation of God’s House
be the very last thing he does in Mecca. If, however, something detains him
or prevents him from circumambulating, God deems his Pilgrimage to be
complete without it.”
1084. Mālik said, “If a man doesn’t realize that the last thing he should do
before leaving Mecca is to circumambulate God’s House, and he departs
without doing so, he is not under any specific obligation to do anything,
provided that he performed the Circumambulation of the March. If he is
nearby, however, he ought to return, circumambulate, and then depart.”

Chapter 40. Miscellaneous Matters Related to Circumambulation

(Ṭawāf)
1085. According to Mālik, Abū al-Aswad Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b.
Nawfal reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr, from Zaynab bt. Abī Salama, that
Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said, “I once complained to
the Messenger of God (pbuh), saying, ‘I am ill.’ He told me, ‘Circumambulate
God’s House while riding behind the people.’” She said, “I therefore
circumambulated while the Messenger of God (pbuh) prayed next to God’s
House. He was reciting ‘By the mount, and by a Book transcribed.’”429
1086. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zubayr al-Makkī reported that Abū Māʿiz
al-Aslamī ʿAbd Allāh b. Sufyān told him that while he was sitting with ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUmar, a woman appeared, asking ʿAbd Allāh’s opinion on a matter
of religious law. She said, “I set out intending to circumambulate God’s
House, but just as I arrived at the door of the Sacred Mosque (al-masjid
al-ḥarām), I began to bleed, so I left until the bleeding stopped. Then I set
out again, but when I arrived at the door of the Sacred Mosque, the bleeding
resumed, so I again left until the bleeding stopped. Then I set out again, but
when I arrived at the door of the Sacred Mosque a third time, the bleeding
started up again.” ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “That is merely the work of the
Devil. Bathe and wrap a cloth tightly around your waist and between your
legs, and then circumambulate.”

428 A valley at a distance of eighteen mīls (about 19 km) from Mecca.

429 Al-Ṭūr, 52:1–2.
318 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1087. According to Mālik, it reached him that when Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ
was tardy in arriving in Mecca and feared that he would not make the
Pilgrimage (ḥajj), he would set out to ʿArafāt immediately, without first
circumambulating God’s House and marching between the hillocks of Ṣafā
and Marwa (saʿy). He would perform these rites later, when he returned
from Minā. Mālik said, “There is wide latitude for that, God willing.”
1088. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked, ‘Can a man who is performing an
obligatory circumambulation of God’s House stop and talk with another
man?’ He said, ‘I don’t think it’s a good idea for him to do that.’”
1089. Mālik said, “No one should circumambulate God’s House or march
between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa unless he is in a state of ritual purity.”

Chapter 41. Starting with Ṣafā When Performing the March between
the Hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa (Saʿy)
1090. According to Mālik, Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī reported from his father
that Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh said, “I heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) say as he
was leaving the Sacred Mosque (al-masjid al-ḥarām) for Ṣafā, ‘We begin with
that with which God began.’430 And so he began his march at Ṣafā.”
1091. According to Mālik, Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī reported from his
father, from Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh, that when the Messenger of God (pbuh)
stopped atop the hillock of Ṣafā, he would magnify God (say “God is great,”
Allāhu akbar) three times and then say, “There is no god except God, alone
without partner; to Him belongs the kingdom and all praise, and He has
power over all things.” Jābir said, “He would say this three times and then
supplicate. He would then do the same at the top of the hillock of Marwa.”
1092. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that he heard ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
supplicate on top of the hillock of Ṣafā, saying, “God! You indeed did say,
‘Call on Me, and I will respond to you,’431 and You do not break Your promise.
I therefore beseech You: just as You have guided me to Islam, do not take it
away from me, and take my soul as a Muslim.”

Chapter 42. Miscellaneous Matters Related to the March between the

Hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa (Saʿy)
1093. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father said,
“I said to ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers—and I was but a youth at the

430 A reference to al-Baqara, 2:158, “Indeed, the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa are among the
sacred rites of God.”
431 Al-Ghāfir, 40:60.
Book 20 319

time—‘Have you considered the statement of God, Blessed and Sublime is

He, “Indeed! The hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa are among the sacred rites of
God. No sin is there for the one seeking God’s House as a pilgrim or a visitor
to march between them”?432 Doesn’t that mean, therefore, that if someone
were not to march between them, he would incur no sin?’ ʿĀʾisha said, ‘No,
that’s completely wrong. Were it as you say, it would have been “There is
no sin for him in not marching between them.” This verse was revealed on
account of the Medinese. Before Islam they would make a pilgrimage for
the sake of Manāt.433 The shrine of Manāt was located near Qudayd,434 and
they would refuse to march between Ṣafā and Marwa. When Islam came,
they asked the Messenger of God (pbuh) about marching between Ṣafā and
Marwa, and so God, Blessed and Sublime is He, revealed the verse, “Indeed!
The hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa are among the sacred rites of God. No sin
is there for the one seeking God’s House as a pilgrim or a visitor to march
between them.”’”
1094. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that Sawda bt. ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUmar was with ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr, and she set out on foot to march
between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa as part of either the Pilgrimage
(ḥajj) or the Visitation (ʿumra). Because she was a heavyset woman, she
started to march after performing the Evening Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿishāʾ),
when the people had departed, and managed to complete marching only
at the time of the first call to the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ); that is,
she completed her march between the call to the Evening Prayer and the
first call to the Morning Prayer. Hishām said, “If ʿUrwa saw anyone going
between the two hillocks while mounted on a beast, he would admonish
them in the strongest language. Feeling ashamed, they would make excuses
by feigning illness. He would say to us in private about such people, ‘They
have failed to perform God’s rites properly and so lost their opportunity for
a full reward.’”
1095. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘If someone forgets to march between the
hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa during the performance of the Visitation and
does not remember until he is far away from Mecca, he must return and
march. Even if, in the meantime, he has had intercourse with a woman,
he must still return and march to complete the unfinished rites of that
Visitation. He is then obliged to perform another Visitation and to offer a
sacrificial animal (hady).’”

432 Al-Baqara, 2:158.

433 Manāt was one of the principal goddesses worshipped by the pre-Islamic Arabians.
434 A village between Mecca and Medina.
320 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1096. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about a man who meets another man
when marching between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa and stops to talk to
him. Mālik said, ‘I discourage him from doing so.’”
1097. Mālik said, “If someone forgets part of his circumambulation (ṭawāf)
or becomes uncertain about it, but does not remember the matter until
he is marching between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa, he should cease
marching and go and circumambulate God’s House until he is certain that
he has completed seven laps. Then he prays the two cycles (rakʿa) of the
prayer (ṣalāt) for circumambulation. He then begins his march between the
hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa anew.”
1098. According to Mālik, Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī reported from his
father, from Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh, that when the Messenger of God (pbuh)
descended from the top of Ṣafā and Marwa, he walked until his feet reached
the bottom of the valley, at which point his gait quickened until he emerged
from it.
1099. Mālik said, regarding a man who, out of ignorance, marches between
the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa before circumambulating God’s House, “He
must go back and circumambulate God’s House and then march between the
hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa. If he does not realize this until he has left Mecca
and is far away, he must return to Mecca, circumambulate God’s House, and
march between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa. If, in the meantime, he has
had intercourse with a woman, he must nonetheless return, circumambulate
God’s House, and march between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa to complete
the unfinished rites of that Visitation. He must, however, perform another
Visitation at a later date and offer a sacrificial animal.”

Chapter 43. Fasting on the Day of ʿArafa

1100. According to Mālik, Abū al-Naḍr, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿUmar b.
ʿUbayd Allāh, reported from ʿUmayr, the freedman of ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās,
from Umm al-Faḍl bt. al-Ḥārith, that some people were arguing in front of
her on the Day of ʿArafa about whether the Messenger of God (pbuh) was
fasting. Some of them said he was, and others said he was not. She said, “To
find out, I sent him a bowl of milk when he had halted his mount at ʿArafāt,
and he drank.”
1101. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from al-Qāsim b.
Muḥammad that ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, would fast on the Day
of ʿArafa. Al-Qāsim said, “When the imam435 would begin to leave at dusk on

435 That is, the leader of the Pilgrimage caravan.

Book 20 321

the Day of ʿArafa, I noticed that she would stay put until the people left. She
would then ask for something to drink and break her fast with.”

Chapter 44. What Has Come Down regarding Fasting during the Days
of Minā
1102. According to Mālik, Abū al-Naḍr, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿUmar b.
ʿUbayd Allāh, reported from Sulaymān b. Yasār that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) prohibited fasting on the Days of Minā.
1103. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) sent ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥudhāfa out during the Days of Minā to circulate
among the people and to tell them, “Certainly, these are days for eating and
drinking, and for the remembrance of God.”
1104. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā b. Ḥabbān reported from
al-Aʿraj, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited
fasting on two days: the Day of the Feast of Breaking the Ramaḍān Fast (ʿīd
al-fiṭr) and the Day of the Feast of the Sacrificial Animals (ʿīd al-aḍḥā).
1105. According to Mālik, Yazīd b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Hādī reported from Abū
Murra, the freedman of Umm Hānī, the wife of ʿAqīl b. Abī Ṭālib, that ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣī told him that he went to see his father, ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣī,
and found him eating. He said, “My father asked me to eat, so I said to him,
‘I am fasting.’ He said to me, ‘These are the days that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) prohibited us from fasting, and during which he ordered us to eat
and drink.’” Mālik said, “These are the Festival Days (ayyām al-tashrīq)436
that follow the Feast of the Sacrificial Animals.”

Chapter 45. What Qualifies as a Consecrated Animal (Hady)

1106. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b.
Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b. Ḥazm that the Messenger of God (pbuh) offered in
sacrifice a camel that had once belonged to Abū Jahl b. Hishām,437 either
during the Pilgrimage (ḥajj) or during the Visitation (ʿumra).
1107. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) saw a man driving forward a
camel, so he told him, “Ride it!” The man said, “But Messenger of God, it is

436 The days of tashrīq are the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth days of Dhū al-Ḥijja.
437 Abū Jahl b. Hishām was one of the fiercest opponents of the Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh)
in Mecca and one of the chief persecutors of early Muslims. His actual name was ʿAmr b.
Hishām b. al-Mughīra, and he was known as Abū al-Ḥakam. The name “Abū al-Ḥakam” con-
noted wisdom and sagacity, so the early Muslims renamed him “Abū Jahl,” meaning ignorant
and impetuous, on account of his ferocious opposition to Islam. He died in the Battle of Badr.
322 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

consecrated for sacrifice.” The Messenger of God then said to him, “Ride it,
confound you!” at least two or three times.
1108. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported that he noticed that
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would offer for sacrifice a pair of camels during the
Pilgrimage and only one camel during the Visitation. ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār
said, “During a Visitation that he was performing, he encamped in the
environs of Khālid b. Asīd’s home. I saw him slaughter a camel of his as it
stood there. I saw him pierce its throat with his spear tip until it emerged
from under its shoulder.”
1109. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz
once offered a camel for sacrifice during a Pilgrimage or a Visitation.
1110. According to Mālik, Abū Jaʿfar al-Qārī reported that ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿAyyāsh b. Abī Rabīʿa al-Makhzūmī once offered two camels for sacrifice,
one of which was a strong, speedy camel.
1111. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
say, “If a she-camel that has been consecrated for sacrifice gives birth, her
calf should be brought along so they may be sacrificed together, and if there
is no animal to bear it, it should be borne on its mother’s back until it is
slaughtered with her.”
1112. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father said,
“If you are compelled to use your consecrated animal, ride it, but without
unduly burdening it. If you are in need of its milk, drink only after its calf
has drunk, and when you slaughter it, slaughter its calf with it.”

Chapter 46. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to the Treatment of

Consecrated Animals (Hady) En Route to God’s House
1113. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that
when he consecrated an animal for sacrifice in Medina, he would garland
it and mark it at Dhū al-Ḥulayfa. He would first garland it and then mark it.
He would perform both acts in the same place, with the animal facing the
direction of Mecca. He would garland it with two sandals and mark it on its
left side. It would then be driven with him until it, along with everyone else,
halted at ʿArafāt. Then Ibn ʿUmar would drive it along when everyone left
ʿArafāt for Minā. When he arrived at Minā on the morning of the Day of the
Slaughter of the Sacrosanct Animals (yawm al-naḥr), he would slaughter
it before shaving or cutting his hair. He would slaughter the sacrosanct
animals himself, standing them up in a line and turning them toward Mecca.
He would then eat some of that meat and give some away.
Book 20 323

1114. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that when ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
stabbed the hump of his sacrosanct animal to mark it, he would say, “In the
name of God; God is great.”
1115. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“A sacrosanct animal is any animal that has been garlanded, marked, and
brought to ʿArafāt.”
1116. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
drape his consecrated animals in fine white Egyptian linens, single-toned
wool garments, and multihued garments. He would then send these
garments to the Kabah and have the Kabah draped with them.
1117. According to Mālik, he asked ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār, “What did ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿUmar do with the drapings of his animals, once the Kabah began to be
draped with this covering?” He said, “He would give them away in charity.”
1118. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say
regarding sacrificial animals and sacrosanct animals, “They should be at
least two years old.”438
1119. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
neither tear the drapes of his sacrosanct animals nor drape them until he
left Minā in the early morning for ʿArafāt.
1120. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father would
say to his sons, “My sons, none of you should ever offer as a sacrifice to God
an animal that you would be ashamed to offer to a noble man. God is surely
the noblest of the noble, and the worthiest to have the choicest selection
designated for Him.”

Chapter 47. The Practice (ʿAmal) regarding What to Do with

Consecrated Animals (Hady) That Are Injured or That Wander Off
and Are Lost
1121. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that the
steward of the consecrated animals of the Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
“Messenger of God, what should I do with a consecrated animal that gets
injured?” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to him, “You should slaughter
any such camel. Then cast its garlands into its blood and abandon its meat,
leaving it for the people to eat.”

438 “Sacrificial animals” are the animals that nonpilgrims offer in sacrifice on the Day of the
Feast of the Sacrificial Animals (ʿīd al-aḍḥā), whereas “sacrosanct animals” refers to the ani-
mals that pilgrims slaughter on the Day of the Slaughter of the Sacrosanct Animals (yawm
al-naḥr).
324 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1122. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab

said, “If someone voluntarily sends a camel to God’s House for sacrifice,
but it gets injured en route so he slaughters it and then abandons its meat,
leaving it for the people to eat, he is not under any further obligation. If,
however, he eats some of it or urges someone else to eat of it, he is obliged
to provide a substitute for it.”
1123. According to Mālik, Thawr b. Zayd al-Dīlī reported from ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿAbbās something similar to that.
1124. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb said, “If someone consecrates a
camel for sacrifice, whether as compensation for an animal he hunted,
in fulfillment of a vow (nadhr), or on account of deciding to perform the
Pilgrimage (ḥajj) after having set out to perform only the Visitation (ʿumra),
and some misfortune befalls it en route, he must provide a substitute camel.”
1125. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “If
someone has consecrated a camel for sacrifice in fulfillment of a vow, and
it wanders off and is lost or dies, he must provide a substitute animal. If,
however, he offered it voluntarily, he may provide a substitute if he wishes,
but he is not obliged to do so.”
1126. According to Mālik, he heard the people of knowledge say, “If the
person who offers a sacrosanct animal does so as compensation for an
animal that he hunted and killed while in the consecrated state, on account
of discontinuing his Pilgrimage due to illness, or as compensation for any
defect in the performance of his Pilgrimage, he may not eat from it.”

Chapter 48. The Consecrated Animal (Hady) Due from Someone

Who Has Intercourse with His Wife While in the Consecrated State
(Muḥrim)
1127. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. al Khaṭṭāb, ʿAlī b.
Abī Ṭālib, and Abū Hurayra were asked about a man who has intercourse
with his wife while in the consecrated state during the Pilgrimage (ḥajj).
They said, “Both of them shall continue on their way until they complete
their Pilgrimage. Each must then perform the Pilgrimage again in an
upcoming year and offer a sacrosanct animal as compensation for their
illicit intercourse.” Mālik said, “ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib said, ‘When they enter the
consecrated state in an upcoming year to perform the Pilgrimage, they are
to be separated until they complete it.’”
1128. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he heard Saʿīd
b. al-Musayyab say, “People! What do you say about a man who has
Book 20 325

intercourse with his wife while he is in the consecrated state?” Yaḥyā

said, “None of them had a response, so Saʿīd said, ‘It once happened that
a man had intercourse with his wife while in the consecrated state, so he
sent a message to Medina, inquiring about the consequences. Someone
there responded to the question, saying, “They should be separated until
the coming year.’ Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, however, disagreed, saying about
that case, ‘No; rather, they should continue on their way and complete the
Pilgrimage that they invalidated by having intercourse. When they are
done, they may return home. If they live to the next year, they must perform
another Pilgrimage and offer a sacrosanct animal as expiation. They should
enter the consecrated state at the same place where they entered it for the
previous Pilgrimage, which they invalidated. They should, however, remain
apart until they complete their Pilgrimage.’” Mālik said, “Both the man and
the woman must offer a sacrosanct animal.”
1129. Mālik said that a man who had intercourse with his wife during the
Pilgrimage, whether before or after standing at ʿArafāt but before casting
pebbles at Minā, is obliged to offer a sacrosanct animal and to perform
another Pilgrimage in an upcoming year. Mālik said, “But if intercourse with
his wife took place after he cast his pebbles at Minā, he need only perform
the Visitation (ʿumra) and offer a sacrosanct animal; he is not obliged to
perform another Pilgrimage in an upcoming year.”
1130. Mālik said, “Penetration itself, even if there is no ejaculation,
invalidates the Pilgrimage and the Visitation and therefore necessitates the
offering of a sacrosanct animal.”
1131. Mālik said, “Ejaculation renders such an offering compulsory, even
if it results from intimate contact short of intercourse. As for a man who
ejaculates as a result of some erotic thoughts, I do not think he is obliged to
do anything.”
1132. Mālik said, “If a man were to kiss his wife, and no ejaculation takes
place, he is obliged to offer a sacrosanct animal, but his Pilgrimage is
still valid.”
1133. Mālik said, “A woman who willingly has intercourse with her
husband while she is in the consecrated state, even if she does so several
times, whether during the Pilgrimage or during the Visitation, needs to
offer only one sacrosanct animal and to perform the Pilgrimage in an
upcoming year. If he had intercourse with her during the Visitation, she
must make up the Visitation that she invalidated by having intercourse
and offer a sacrosanct animal.”
326 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 49. The Sacrosanct Animal (Hady) Offered by a Person Who

Set Out for but Missed the Pilgrimage (Ḥajj)439
1134. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “Sulaymān b. Yasār told me that
Abū Ayyūb al-Anṣārī set out with the intention of performing the Pilgrimage.
When he reached al-Nāziya440 while en route to Mecca, he lost his camels.
He finally caught up with ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb in Mecca on the Day of the
Slaughter of the Sacrosanct Animals (yawm al-naḥr)441 and told him what
had happened. ʿUmar said, “Do what someone performing the Visitation
(ʿumra) would do, after which you will be released from the restrictions
of the consecrated state (iḥrām). And if you live to see the Pilgrimage in an
upcoming year, set out for the Pilgrimage and offer whatever sacrosanct
animal is conveniently available to you.”442
1135. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from Sulaymān b. Yasār that
Habbār b. al-Aswad arrived on the Day of the Slaughter of the Sacrosanct
Animals just as ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb was slaughtering his animals. He said,
“Commander of the Faithful, we mistook the date, and so we wrongly
believed that today was the Day of ʿArafa.”443 ʿUmar said, “You and those
who came with you—go to Mecca and circumambulate the Kabah (ṭawāf),
and slaughter a sacrosanct animal, if you have one, then shave or cut your
hair and return home. Then, next year, set out once again to perform the
Pilgrimage and offer a sacrosanct animal, but if you cannot obtain one, fast
three days during the Pilgrimage and seven upon returning home.”
1136. Mālik said, “Whoever combines performance of the Pilgrimage with
performance of the Visitation and then misses the Pilgrimage must perform
the Pilgrimage in an upcoming year, again combining the Pilgrimage with
the Visitation and offering two sacrosanct animals, one for the combined
Pilgrimage and Visitation of the current year and one for the Pilgrimage he
missed on the previous occasion.”

439 A pilgrim misses the Pilgrimage if he fails to arrive at ʿArafāt by the ninth day of Dhū
al-Ḥijja, whether because of getting lost, because of miscalculating the date, or for any
other reason that delayed his arrival.
440 A well between Mecca and Medina.
441 This is the tenth day of Dhū al-Ḥijja, when the pilgrims sacrifice their animals and are
released from the prohibitions of the consecrated state.
442 In this case, at least a yearling (shāt). Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 2:497.
443 The ninth day of Dhū al-Ḥijja.
Book 20 327

Chapter 50. Offering a Sacrosanct Animal (Hady) as Expiation

for Intercourse with One’s Wife before Performance of the
Circumambulation of the March (Ṭawāf al-Ifāḍa)444
1137. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zubayr al-Makkī reported from ʿAṭāʾ b.
Abī Rabāḥ, from ʿAbd Allāh b. Abbās, that he was asked about a man who
had intercourse with his wife while he was at Minā before he performed
the Circumambulation of the March. Ibn ʿUmar told the man to offer a
sacrosanct animal, either a cow or a camel, as sacrifice.
1138. According to Mālik, Thawr b. Zayd al-Dīlī reported that ʿIkrima,
the freedman (mawlā) of Ibn ʿAbbās, said, “I believe it is only Ibn ʿAbbās
who said, ‘Whoever has intercourse with his wife before performing the
Circumambulation of the March must undertake a Visitation (ʿumra) and
offer a sacrosanct animal in sacrifice as expiation.’”
1139. According to Mālik, he heard Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān express
a view similar to the one that ʿIkrima reported from Ibn ʿAbbās regarding
this case. Mālik said, “Of all the views that I have heard about this issue, that
view is the one I prefer most.”
1140. Mālik was asked about a man who forgot to perform the Circum-
ambulation of the March until he left Mecca to return home. He said, “It
is my opinion that if he has not yet had intercourse with women, he must
return and perform the Circumambulation of the March, but even if he has,
he should still return and perform the Circumambulation of the March, then
perform a Visitation and offer a sacrosanct animal in sacrifice. He should
not, however, purchase his sacrificial animal from Mecca and slaughter it
there. Rather, if he did not bring one with him from whence he set out to
perform the Visitation, he should purchase the sacrificial animal in Mecca,
take it beyond the precincts of the Sanctuary (ḥaram), and then bring it
back to Mecca. Only then may he slaughter it.”

444 The Circumambulation of the March (ṭawāf al-ifāḍa) is a fundamental pillar (rukn) of the
Pilgrimage and must be performed in order to complete the Pilgrimage. It is performed any
time after the Day of ʿArafa (the ninth of Dhū al-Ḥijja). It is so called because the pilgrims
march en masse from their campsites at Minā to Mecca, where they perform the rite of cir-
cumambulation, usually after slaughtering their animals and casting pebbles at Minā. After
completing the circumambulation, they return to Minā, where they spend the night.
328 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 51. The Meaning of “a Sacrosanct Animal (Hady)

Conveniently Available for Sacrifice”445
1141. According to Mālik, Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad reported from his father that
ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib would say, “The phrase ‘a sacrosanct animal conveniently
available for sacrifice’ means a yearling (shāt).”
1142. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās would
say, “The phrase ‘a sacrosanct animal conveniently available for sacrifice’
means a yearling.”
1143. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Of all the views that I have heard regarding
this issue, that view is the one I prefer most, because God, Blessed and
Sublime is He, says in His Book, “O you who believe! Do not kill wild animals
while you are in the consecrated state. Whoever does so intentionally must
offer in compensation a domesticated animal similar to the one he killed, as
determined by two of your just men, as an offering brought to the Kabah.”446
Among the domesticated animals that have been judged to be equivalent
to wild animals are yearlings, and God has referred to them as “sacrosanct
animals offered for sacrifice” (hady).447 This is something about which there
is no dissent among us (lā ikhtilāfa fīhi ʿindanā). Indeed, how could anyone
entertain a doubt about it? It is undoubtedly the case that if a pilgrim kills a
wild animal whose equivalent domesticated animal is smaller than a cow or
a camel, he is obliged to offer a yearling. It is also undoubtably the case that if
a pilgrim kills a wild animal whose equivalent domesticated animal is smaller
than a yearling, he is obliged to expiate through fasting or feeding the poor.’”
1144. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
say, “The phrase ‘a sacrosanct animal conveniently available for sacrifice’
means a camel or a cow.”
1145. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr reported that a freedwoman
(mawlāt) of ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān named Ruqayya informed him that
she went to Mecca with ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. She said, “ʿAmra and
I entered Mecca on the Day of Watering (yawm al-tarwiya).448 She then

445 This chapter title is taken from the Quranic phrase mā ’staysara min al-hady, which refers to
the obligation of a pilgrim who is unable to complete his Pilgrimage to offer an animal as a
sacrifice. Al-Baqara, 2:196.
446 Al-Māʾida, 5:95.
447 Mālik’s point is that since judges have deemed the sacrifice of a yearling appropriate com-
pensation for a wild animal killed by a pilgrim, and since the Quran refers to the animal that
judges declare equivalent to the slain animal as hady, the word hady must include yearlings
among its potential referents.
448 Yawm al-tarwiya, the eighth day of Dhū al-Ḥijja, was so named because on that day the pil-
grims would provision themselves with water from Mecca before heading out the next day to
ʿArafāt and the plains of Minā, where no water was available.
Book 20 329

circumambulated God’s House (ṭawāf) and marched between the hillocks

of Safā and Marwa (saʿy). She went to the rear of the Sacred Mosque and
asked me, ‘Do you have a pair of scissors?’ I said, ‘No.’ She said, ‘Find one
for me,’ so I looked until I found one and brought it to her. She then grabbed
her braids and cut some of her hair. Then, on the Day of the Slaughter of the
Sacrosanct Animals (yawm al-naḥr), she slaughtered a yearling.”449

Chapter 52. Miscellaneous Reports regarding Sacrosanct Animals

(Hady)
1146. According to Mālik, Ṣadaqa b. Yasār al-Makkī reported that a Yemeni
man with braided hair came to ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar and said, “Abū ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān, I have come with the intention of performing only the Visitation
(ʿumra).” ʿAbd Allāh said to him, “Had I been with you, or had you asked me,
I would have told you to combine the Visitation with the Pilgrimage (ḥajj).”
The man said, “Well, what’s done is done.” ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “Trim
some of the hair that is flying around your head and offer an animal as a
sacrifice.”450 Then an Iraqi woman said, “Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, what animal
should he offer?” ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “His sacrosanct animal.” She said
to him, “And what is his sacrosanct animal?” ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “Even
if I had nothing to slaughter other than a yearling (shāt), I would prefer to
do that rather than fast.”
1147. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“A woman in the consecrated state (iḥrām) may not comb her hair until she
exits that state by trimming her braids; and if she has consecrated an animal
for sacrifice, she should not trim her hair until she has first slaughtered
her animal.”
1148. According to Mālik, he heard a man of knowledge say, “A man and his
wife should not consecrate the same animal for sacrifice; rather, each must
offer his or her own animal.”
1149. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about a person who had been entrusted
with sacrosanct animals to be slaughtered during the Pilgrimage season
but who intended to perform only the Visitation. Should he slaughter the
animals immediately upon exiting the consecrated state once he completes

449 The significance of the report about ʿAmra is that her actions indicate that she had failed to
complete the intended Pilgrimage and was thus performing only a Visitation, which meant
that she was under an obligation to offer as a sacrifice “an easily available animal.” The fact
that she offered a yearling supports Mālik’s view that the phrase “an animal conveniently
available for sacrifice” means a yearling.
450 The most likely explanation for why ʿAbd Allāh told the man to offer a sacrificial animal is
that he resolved to perform the Pilgrimage after completing the Visitation. This is known as
tamattuʿ, and a pilgrim who performs it is required to offer an animal in sacrifice.
330 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

the rites of the Visitation, or should he postpone slaughtering them until

the Pilgrimage season, after he has completed his Visitation and exited the
consecrated state? Mālik said, ‘No, he should defer slaughtering them until
the Pilgrimage, but he should exit the consecrated state immediately upon
completing his Visitation.’”
1150. Mālik said, “Anyone who has been ordered to offer an animal as
compensation for having killed a wild animal or who must do so for violating
any other prohibition of the consecrated state may only offer the sacrifice in
Mecca, because God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says, ‘an offering brought
to the Kabah.’451 As for fasting or charity in lieu of offering an animal, that
is to be performed outside of Mecca, wherever the person wishes to do it.”
1151. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Yaʿqūb b. Khālid
al-Makhzūmī that Abū Asmāʾ, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿAbd Allāh b.
Jaʿfar, told him that he was with ʿAbd Allāh b. Jaʿfar, and they left together
from Medina. They met Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī, may God be pleased with him, at
al-Suqyā,452 and Ḥusayn was ill at the time. ʿAbd Allāh b. Jaʿfar stayed with
Ḥusayn until ʿAbd Allāh feared that he would miss the Pilgrimage. He
therefore departed from Ḥusayn’s side but sent to Medina for ʿAlī b. Abī
Ṭālib and Asmāʾ bt. ʿUmays, and they came to Ḥusayn. Ḥusayn pointed to
his head, so ʿAlī ordered that it be shaved. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib then slaughtered
a camel on Ḥusayn’s behalf there at al-Suqyā. Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “Ḥusayn
had set out with ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān on his trip to Mecca.”

Chapter 53. Stopping at ʿArafāt and Muzdalifa

1152. According to Mālik, it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “One may encamp anywhere at ʿArafāt, except for the middle of ʿUrana,
and one may encamp anywhere at Muzdalifa, except for the middle of
Muḥassir.”453
1153. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that ʿAbd Allāh
b. al-Zubayr would say, “Everyone should know that they may encamp
anywhere at ʿArafāt, except for the middle of ʿUrana, and that they may
encamp anywhere at Muzdalifa, except for the middle of Muḥassir.”

451 Al-Māʾida, 5:95.

452 Al-Suqyā is a place on the road from Medina to Mecca. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 2:378.
453 ʿUrana and Muḥassir are places in the vicinity of ʿArafāt and Muzdalifa, respectively. Stopping
at ʿArafāt on the ninth day of Dhū al-Ḥijja is the central requirement of the Pilgrimage. At sun-
set on the tenth day, the pilgrims depart from ʿArafāt for the plain of Muzdalifa, where they
spend the night and gather the pebbles that they will then cast symbolically at the pillars in
Minā on the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth days of Dhū al-Ḥijja.
Book 20 331

1154. Mālik said, “God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says, ‘Let there be no
sexual intercourse (rafath), wickedness (fusūq), or wrangling (jidāl) during
the Pilgrimage (ḥajj).’454 Rafath means sexual intercourse with women, and
God knows best. God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says, ‘Sexual intercourse
(rafath) with your wives is licit for you on the nights of the fast.’455 Fusūq
refers to sacrifices made to the altars of idols, and God knows best. God,
Blessed and Sublime is He, says, ‘Or wickedness (fisq), consecrated to
other than God.’456 And ‘jidāl during the Pilgrimage’ refers to the Quraysh’s
practice of camping at the Mashʿar al-Ḥarām at Quzaḥ in Muzdalifa, while
the Arabs and others would camp at ʿArafāt. They would argue with one
another, each group saying, ‘We are more upright,’ so God said, ‘For every
people We have established a rite which they follow: let them not then
dispute with you about that; but do call to Your Lord, for you are assuredly
following a clearly marked, straight path.’457 That is what we have come to
believe is the meaning of ‘wrangling during the Pilgrimage,’ and God knows
best. I heard that explanation from the people of knowledge.”

Chapter 54. Stopping at ʿArafāt without Ritual Purity or While

Mounted
1155. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether a man may stop at ʿArafāt or
Muzdalifa, cast pebbles at Minā, or march between the hillocks of Ṣafā and
Marwa (saʿy) while in a state of ritual impurity. He said, ‘A man in a state
of ritual impurity may perform all the rites that a menstruating woman
may perform during the Pilgrimage (ḥajj) without incurring any liability.458
Virtue, however, lies in performing all of these rites while in a state of ritual
purity, and a person should never intend to perform them while in a state
of ritual impurity.’”
1156. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether a rider who wishes to stop at
ʿArafāt must dismount, or whether he may remain on his animal. He said,
‘No, indeed he should remain mounted, unless some illness befalls him or
his mount, in which case there is none more indulgent in accepting excuses
than God.’”

454 Al-Baqara, 2:197.

455 Al-Baqara, 1:187. Mālik’s point is that the Quran uses the term rafath to mean sexual
intercourse.
456 Al-Anʿām, 6:145.
457 Al-Ḥajj, 22:67.
458 In other words, if he performs these rites while in a state of ritual impurity, his performance
of them is valid and he need not perform them again, nor offer a sacrifice as penance.
332 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 55. Stopping at ʿArafāt by Someone Who Misses the

Pilgrimage (Ḥajj)
1157. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
say, “Whoever fails to reach ʿArafāt prior to the breaking of dawn on the
night of Muzdalifa has missed the Pilgrimage, and whoever manages to
reach it before the breaking of dawn on the night of Muzdalifa has fulfilled
the Pilgrimage.”
1158. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father said,
“Whoever has yet to arrive at ʿArafāt when dawn breaks on the night of
Muzdalifa has failed to perform the Pilgrimage, and whoever reaches
ʿArafāt on the night of Muzdalifa before dawn breaks has performed
the Pilgrimage.”
1159. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said that a slave who is manumitted at ʿArafāt is
not relieved of the obligation to perform the Pilgrimage that is mandatory
for every Muslim. If he had not entered the consecrated state (iḥrām) while
he was a slave, however, he may enter the consecrated state immediately
upon his manumission, and if he manages to reach ʿArafāt that same night
before dawn breaks, he will have satisfied his obligation to perform the
obligatory Pilgrimage. If he fails to enter the consecrated state before dawn
breaks on the night of Muzdalifa, however, he is the equivalent of someone
who misses the Pilgrimage on account of failing to reach ʿArafāt before the
dawn breaks on the night of Muzdalifa. Accordingly, he remains obliged to
perform the Pilgrimage that is obligatory for all Muslims.”459

Chapter 56. Sending Women and Children Ahead from Muzdalifa

to Minā
1160. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from Sālim and ʿUbayd Allāh, the
sons of ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, that their father would send his wife and young
children ahead from Muzdalifa to Minā so that they could perform the
Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ) there and cast their pebbles before the great
mass of the people arrived from Muzdalifa.460

459 Every Muslim is obligated to perform the Pilgrimage once in his or her lifetime, provided he
or she has the means to do so. This obligation, however, can only be satisfied by a free person.
In this case, although the slave who is manumitted on the Day of ʿArafa has performed all
the rites of the Pilgrimage before his manumission, he was not a free man when he entered
the consecrated state (iḥrām). Therefore, in Mālik’s view, his performance of the Pilgrimage
does not meet the conditions of the Pilgrimage without the further steps of reentering the
consecrated state and reaching ʿArafāt in time.
460 The pilgrims spend the ninth day of Dhū al-Ḥijja at ʿArafāt and the night of the tenth day on
the plains of Muzdalifa. In the ordinary case, they pray the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ) at
Muzdalifa and only then set out to Minā. According to this report, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
Book 20 333

1161. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Abī Rabāḥ
that a freedwoman (mawlāt) of Asmāʾ bt. Abī Bakr informed him, “We
reached Minā with Asmāʾ bt. Abī Bakr when it was still dark. Worried, I said
to her, ‘We’ve arrived, and it’s still dark.’ Asmāʾ then said, ‘We did this very
thing with those who were more virtuous than you.’”461
1162. According to Mālik, it reached him that Ṭalḥa b. ʿUbayd Allāh would
send the women of his household and his young children ahead from
Muzdalifa to Minā.
1163. According to Mālik, he heard one of the people of knowledge
disapprove of casting pebbles at Minā before dawn breaks on the Day of the
Slaughter of the Sacrosanct Animals (yawm al-naḥr), but it was nevertheless
licit for whoever had done so to slaughter their sacrificial animals.
1164. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that Fāṭima bt.
al-Mundhir informed him that she saw Asmāʾ bt. Abī Bakr at Muzdalifa
ordering the person who led her and her companions in the Morning Prayer
to perform it precisely at the break of dawn, whereupon she would mount
her animal and proceed to Minā without stopping.

Chapter 57. Marching with the Body of the Pilgrims

1165. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father said, “I
was sitting with Usāma b. Zayd when someone asked him to describe the
pace of the Messenger of God (pbuh) when he marched with the body of
the pilgrims during the Farewell Pilgrimage (ḥajjat al-wadāʿ). Usāma said,
‘He would march at a brisk pace (al-ʿanaq), but when he found a gap, he
would speed up (naṣṣa).’” Mālik said, “Hishām said, ‘Al-naṣṣ is faster than
al-ʿanaq.’”
1166. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
spur his mount in the valley of Muḥassir a stone’s throw at a time.

Chapter 58. What Has Come Down regarding the Slaughter of

Consecrated Animals (Hady) during the Pilgrimage (Ḥajj)
1167. According to Mālik, it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
addressed the people at Minā, saying, “This is where the consecrated
animals are slaughtered. They may be slaughtered anywhere in Minā.” Mālik

send his wives and minor children from Muzdalifa to Minā in the middle of the night so that
they could avoid the crowds.
461 Asmāʾ’s freedwoman expressed surprise that they arrived at Minā in the darkness, because
pilgrims travel to Minā after spending the night at Muzdalifa, which implies that they gener-
ally arrive at Minā only with the first light of the morning.
334 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

said, “He also said during performance of the Visitation (ʿumra), ‘This is the
place of slaughter,’ meaning the hillock of Marwa. He also said, ‘Sacrificial
animals may be slaughtered anywhere in the wide valleys or narrow passes
of Mecca.’”
1168. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
informed me that she heard ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, say, ‘We
set out with the Messenger of God (pbuh) from Medina with five nights
remaining in the month of Dhū al-Qaʿda.462 We believed that we had
set out only to perform the Pilgrimage,463 but as we approached Mecca,
the Messenger of God (pbuh) ordered those of us who had not brought
sacrosanct animals with them to exit the consecrated state (iḥrām) after
circumambulating God’s House and marching between the hillocks of Ṣafā
and Marwa (saʿy).’ ʿĀʾisha said, ‘On the Day of the Slaughter of the Sacrosanct
Animals (yawm al-naḥr), some beef was brought to us, so I said, “What is
this?” They told me that the Messenger of God (pbuh) had slaughtered
it on behalf of his wives.’” Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “I mentioned this report to
al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad, and he said, ‘By God, ʿAmra reported this story to
you precisely as it occurred.’”
1169. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, from
Ḥafṣa, the Mother of the Believers, that she said to the Messenger of God
(pbuh), “Why is it that the people have exited the consecrated state but you
have not, even though you have completed the rites of your Visitation?” He
said, “I have matted my hair and garlanded my animals, so I shall not exit
the consecrated state until I slaughter them.”

Chapter 59. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to the Slaughter of the
Sacrosanct Animals (Hady)
1170. According to Mālik, Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad reported from his father,
from ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) slaughtered some of
his consecrated animals himself and had others slaughter the rest.
1171. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said,
“Whoever vows to slaughter a consecrated camel for the sake of God should
garland it with two sandals around its neck and mark its side with a shallow

462 The eleventh month of the Islamic calendar and the month immediately preceding Dhū
al-Ḥijja, the month in which the Pilgrimage takes place. Its name reflects the fact that in the
pre-Islamic period it was a truce month in which the Arabs would not engage in fighting.
463 That is, when they departed from Medina they were not aware that it was possible to per-
form the Visitation during the months designated for performance of the Pilgrimage. The
rest of the report explains that the Prophet (pbuh) ordered some of those who were with him
to perform only the rites of the Visitation, not those of the Pilgrimage.
Book 20 335

cut from his blade. Then he should slaughter it at God’s House, or at Minā
on the Day of the Slaughter of the Sacrosanct Animals (yawm al-naḥr); there
is no other appropriate place. Whoever vows to sacrifice an unconsecrated
camel or cow, however, may slaughter it wherever he wishes.”464
1172. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father would
slaughter his animals while they were standing.
1173. Mālik said, “It is not permissible for a person to shave his head
before he has slaughtered his sacrosanct animals. Further, no one should
slaughter his animals before dawn breaks on the Day of the Slaughter of
the Sacrosanct Animals; rather, everything should take place on that day—
slaughter, donning clothes, grooming the body, and shaving—and none of it
should occur before that day.”

Chapter 60. Shaving the Head

1174. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God said, “May God have mercy on those who shave their
heads.” They asked him, “What about those who merely trim their hair,
Messenger of God?” He said, “May God have mercy on those who shave
their heads.” They said, “But what about those who merely trim their hair,
Messenger of God?” He said, “And on those who merely trim their hair.”
1175. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported from his
father that he would enter Mecca at night to perform the Visitation (ʿumra),
whereupon he would circumambulate God’s House (ṭawāf) and march
between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa (saʿy) but would delay shaving
his head until the morning. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said, “He would not, however,
return to God’s House to circumabulate it again until he had first shaved his
head.” He said, “He would enter the Sacred Mosque (al-masjid al-ḥarām)
and perform the witr prayer there, but he would not approach God’s House.”
1176. Mālik said, “‘Grooming’ (tafath) consists of shaving the head, donning
clothes, and similar things.”
1177. Mālik was asked whether there was a dispensation permitting a man
who forgets to shave his head at Minā during the Pilgrimage (ḥajj) to shave
it in Mecca instead. He said, “There is broad latitude in this matter, but I
prefer that he shave his head at Minā.”

464 The two oaths are distinguished by the use in the first oath of the term badana, which in the
Arabs’ usage was limited to animals that had been consecrated to be taken to Mecca by pil-
grims and thus were called hady. The term jazūr was used to signify an unconsecrated animal
of the same type.
336 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1178. Mālik said, “The rule about which there is no dissent (al-amr alladhī
lā ikhtilāfa fīh) is that no one should shave his head or trim his hair until
he has slaughtered a consecrated animal (hady), if he has one; and that he
is not released from the restrictions of the consecrated state (iḥrām) until
he exits that state at Minā on the Day of the Slaughter of the Sacrosanct
Animals (yawm al-naḥr). That is because God, Blessed and Sublime is He,
says in His Book, ‘And do not shave your heads until the sacrosanct animals
reach their destination.’”465

Chapter 61. Trimming the Hair

1179. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that when ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
finished the Ramaḍān fast and desired to perform the Pilgrimage (ḥajj), he
would not cut his hair nor trim his beard until he completed the Pilgrimage.
Mālik said, “That is not obligatory.”
1180. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that when ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
shaved his head at the conclusion of the Pilgrimage or the Visitation (ʿumra),
he would trim his beard and moustache.
1181. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported that a man
came to al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad and said, “I performed the Circumambulation
of the March (ṭawāf al-ifāḍa) with my wife and then led her off the main path
to a trail in the mountains. I approached her, intending to have intercourse
with her, but she said, ‘I have not yet cut my hair.’ I therefore tore some of her
hair with my teeth and then had intercourse with her.” Rabīʿa said, “Al-Qāsim
b. Muḥammad laughed and said, ‘Tell her to cut her hair with scissors.’”
1182. Mālik said, “In a case like this, I prefer that an animal be slaughtered.
That is because ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās said, ‘Whoever overlooks any of his
rites should slaughter an animal.’”
1183. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that he
once met a man from his own people called al-Mujabbar who performed
the Circumambulation of the March but did not first shave his head or trim
his hair, not realizing that he was obliged to do so. ʿAbd Allāh, therefore,
ordered him to return to Minā, shave his head or trim his hair, and then
return to God’s House and perform the Circumambulation of the March.
1184. According to Mālik, it reached him that when Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh
wanted to enter into the consecrated state (iḥrām), he would ask for
scissors and trim his moustache and beard before setting off and entering
the consecrated state.

465 Al-Baqara, 2:196.

Book 20 337

Chapter 62. Matting the Hair

1185. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “Whoever braids his hair should shave his head
and not make it look as though it has been matted with gum.”
1186. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “Whoever braids, ties, or mats his hair with
gum must shave his head.”

Chapter 63. Performance of the Prayer (Ṣalāt) Inside God’s House,

Shortening Performance of the Prayer, and Hastening the Sermon
at ʿArafāt
1187. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) entered the Kabah with Usāma b. Zayd, Bilāl b.
Rabāḥ, and ʿUthman b. Ṭalḥa al-Ḥajabī. He closed the door behind him and
stayed there for a while. ʿAbd Allāh said, “I then asked Bilāl when he came
out what the Messenger of God (pbuh) had done while inside the Kabah. He
said, ‘He stood with one column to his left, two to his right, and three behind
him, and then he prayed. At that time, God’s House contained six columns.’”
1188. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh said,
“Abd al-Malik b. Marwān wrote to al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf,466 commanding him
to defer to ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar on any matters concerning the Pilgrimage
(ḥajj).” Sālim said, “On the Day of ʿArafa, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar went to al-Ḥajjāj
b. Yūsuf when the sun reached its zenith, and I was with him. ʿAbd Allāh
cried out to al-Ḥajjāj from outside his tent, saying, ‘Where is this fellow?’
Al-Ḥajjāj came out, wrapped in a blanket dyed with safflower, and said,
‘What troubles you, Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān?’ He said, ‘Hurry up and leave, if
you desire to abide by the long-established ordinance (al-sunna).’ Al-Ḥajjāj
said, ‘Right now?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ Al-Ḥajjāj then said, ‘Give me a moment
so that I may wash up, and then I will set off.’ ʿAbd Allāh dismounted and
waited until al-Ḥajjāj emerged. Al-Ḥajjāj walked between me and my father,
and I said to him, ‘If you intend to abide by the long-established ordinance
today, abbreviate the sermon and perform the prayer (ṣalāt) promptly.’
Al-Ḥajjāj then turned to look at ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar in order to hear his
opinion. When ʿAbd Allāh noticed that, he said, ‘Sālim is correct.’”

466 Al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf al-Thaqafī (d. 95/715) was the governor of Iraq during the caliphate of
ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān.
338 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 64. Performance of the Prayer (Ṣalāt) at Minā on the Day of

Watering (Yawm al-Tarwiya) and Performance of the Friday Prayer
(Ṣalāt al-Jumuʿa) at Minā and ʿArafāt
1189. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
perform the Noon (ṣalāt al-ẓuhr), Afternoon (ṣalāt al-ʿaṣr), Sunset (ṣalāt
al-maghrib), Evening (ṣalāt al-ʿishāʾ), and Morning (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ) Prayers
at Minā. He would then set off for ʿArafāt when the sun rose.
1190. Mālik said, “The rule about which there is no dissent among us
(al-amr alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi ʿindanā) is that the imam does not recite
the Quran loudly during performance of the Noon Prayer at ʿArafāt, that
he gives a sermon to the people on the Day of ʿArafa, and that the specific
prayer that is performed at ʿArafāt is the Noon Prayer. The Noon Prayer
is always performed on the Day of ʿArafa, even if it falls on a Friday. It is
limited to two cycles (rakʿa) of prayer because of traveling.”
1191. Mālik said that the leader of the pilgrim caravan should not perform
the Friday Prayer if Friday happens to fall on the Day of ʿArafa, on the Day
of the Slaughter of the Sacrosanct Animals (yawm al-naḥr), or on any of the
three Festival Days (ayyām al-tashrīq).

Chapter 65. Performance of the Prayer (Ṣalāt) at Muzdalifa

1192. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh,
from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) performed the
Sunset Prayer (ṣalāt al-maghrib) and the Evening Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿishāʾ)
together at Muzdalifa.
1193. According to Mālik, Mūsā b. ʿUqba reported from Kurayb, the
freedman (mawlā) of Ibn ʿAbbās, that he heard Usāma b. Zayd say, “The
Prophet (pbuh) departed from ʿArafāt with the pilgrims, and when he
reached the valley before Muzdalifa, he dismounted, urinated, and then
performed ablutions (wuḍūʾ), using a minimal amount of water. I said to
him, ‘It is time for prayer, Messenger of God!’ He said, ‘Prayer lies ahead of
you.’ He then mounted his camel and rode. When he arrived at Muzdalifa,
he dismounted and performed ablutions, using a copious amount of water.
Then the immediate call to prayer (iqāma) was made, and he performed
the Sunset Prayer. After that, every person settled his camel down where he
would camp. Then the immediate call to prayer was made for the Evening
Prayer. The Prophet (pbuh) performed it without having offered any
supplementary prayer between it and the Sunset Prayer.”
Book 20 339

1194. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from ʿAdī b. Thābit

al-Anṣārī that ʿAbd Allāh b. Yazīd al-Khaṭmī informed him that Abū Ayyūb
al-Anṣārī reported to him that during the Farewell Pilgrimage (ḥajjat
al-wadāʿ) he performed the Sunset and Evening Prayers together at
Muzdalifa with the Messenger of God (pbuh).
1195. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
perform the Sunset and Evening Prayers together at Muzdalifa.

Chapter 66. Performance of the Prayer (Ṣalāt) at Minā

1196. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding the people of Mecca, ‘When they
perform the Pilgrimage (ḥajj), they are to shorten their prayers at Minā,
praying two cycles (rakʿa) instead of four, until they return to Mecca.’”
1197. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) shortened the prayer to two cycles while at
Minā. Abū Bakr and ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb did the same, as did ʿUthmān b.
ʿAffān during the first half of his term as caliph, but thereafter he performed
it in full.
1198. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that when ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb came to Mecca, he led the people in prayer
but performed only two cycles of prayer. When he finished, he said, “People
of Mecca, complete the remaining two cycles of your prayer, for we are
travelers!” Then ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb performed two cycles of prayer at
Minā, but we have heard nothing suggesting that he said anything to them
about performing an additional two cycles.
1199. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from his father that ʿUmar
b. al-Khaṭṭāb led the people in the performance of two cycles of prayer at
Minā.467 When he finished, he said, “People of Mecca, complete the remaining
two cycles of your prayer, for we are travelers!” ʿUmar then performed two
cycles of prayer at Minā, but we have heard nothing suggesting that he said
anything to them about performing an additional two cycles.
1200. Mālik was asked whether Meccans should perform two or four cycles
of prayer at ʿArafāt. He was also asked whether the leader of the pilgrims’
caravan, if he is a Meccan, should perform two or four cycles of prayer
for the Noon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ẓuhr) and Afternoon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿaṣr)
at ʿArafāt. He was also asked how Meccans should perform their prayer
during their stay at Minā. Mālik said, “Meccans, during their stay at Minā

467 This is an error in the manuscript. It should read “Mecca,” as do other transmissions of the
Muwaṭṭaʾ.
340 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

and ʿArafāt, should pray only two cycles for each prayer until they return
to Mecca. The leader of the pilgrims’ caravan, if he is a Meccan, should also
pray only two cycles of prayer at ʿArafāt and during the days spent at Minā.
If there happens to be someone who resides in Minā, he should perform
the full four cycles of prayer. If someone resides in ʿArafāt, he also should
perform the full four cycles.”468

Chapter 67. The Prayer (Ṣalāt) of a Resident of Mecca or Minā

1201. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Whoever arrives in Mecca at the beginning
of the month of Dhū al-Ḥijja and then begins performance of the Pilgrimage
(ḥajj) should perform the full four cycles (rakʿa) of his prayers until he
leaves Mecca for Minā, whereupon he should perform only two cycles. That
is because he resolved to stay in Mecca for more than four nights.’”469

Chapter 68. Magnifying God (Saying “God Is Great,” Allāhu Akbar)

during the Three Festival Days (Ayyām al-Tashrīq)470
1202. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that it reached him that
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb had set out on the morning of the Day of the Slaughter
of the Sacrosanct Animals (yawm al-naḥr) just after the sun had risen. He
magnified God, so the people did likewise. Then he went out a second time
that same day, later in the morning, and again magnified God, so the people
did likewise. He went out a third time in the afternoon and magnified God,
so the people did likewise. Their chants of “God is great” were continuous
and in unison, so their sound reached all the way from Minā to God’s House
in Mecca, and the Meccans knew that ʿUmar had set out to cast pebbles
at ʿAqaba.
1203. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that God is to be
magnified during the three Festival Days after the conclusion of each of the
daily prayers. This practice begins with the Noon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ẓuhr) on
the Day of the Slaughter of the Sacrosanct Animals, and it concludes with
the performance of the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ) on the last of the
three Festival Days. The people, together with the imam, magnify God at the
conclusion of each of these daily prayers.”
1204. Mālik said, “Magnifying God during the three Festival Days is
obligatory for both men and women, whether in a group or individually, and

468 It would be unusual for anyone to be a resident of either Minā or ʿArafāt insofar as neither
was a place of permanent residence; both were populated only during the Pilgrimage season.
469 In other words, someone who arrives in Mecca on the first of Dhū al-Ḥijja will necessarily
spend more than four nights in Mecca before setting out for Minā.
470 These are the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth days of Dhū al-Ḥijja.
Book 20 341

whether they are present at Minā or far away in distant lands. The people of
Mecca follow the lead of the pilgrims’ imam and the people at Minā in this
respect, because they follow them when they return to Mecca and exit the
consecrated state, so they have the same relationship with them as they had
before the pilgrims entered the consecrated state. As for those who are not
performing the Pilgrimage (ḥajj), they follow the pilgrims only with respect
to magnifying God during the three Festival Days. The ‘numbered days’471
are the three Festival Days.”

Chapter 69. The Prayer (Ṣalāt) of the Pilgrim Pausing at Muʿarras472

and at Muḥaṣṣab473
1205. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) made his camel kneel down on the plain at
Dhū al-Ḥulayfa, and he prayed there. Nāfiʿ said, “ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar did
the same.”
1206. Mālik said, “No one should pass through Muʿarras on his way back
to Mecca from Minā without praying there. If he passes through it outside
the scheduled prayer times, he should stay there until it is time for the
performance of a prayer and then pray there in a manner that seems
appropriate to him. It reached me that the Messenger of God (pbuh) stopped
there to rest on his journey and that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar also stopped there.”
1207. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
perform the Noon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ẓuhr), the Afternoon Prayer (ṣalāt
al-ʿaṣr), the Sunset Prayer (ṣalāt al-maghrib), and the Evening Prayer
(ṣalāt al-ʿishāʾ) at Muḥaṣṣab and then would enter Mecca at night and
circumambulate God’s House.

Chapter 70. The Prohibition against Spending the Night in Mecca

during the Nights of Minā
1208. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ said, “They said that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
would dispatch men to usher people who were encamped beyond the limits
of ʿAqaba back into Minā.”474

471 This is Mālik’s explanation of the Quranic phrase ayyām maʿdūdāt in the verse that reads, “And
remember God for a number of days” (Wa’dhkurū ’llāha fī ayyāmin maʿdūdāt). Al-Baqara, 2:203.
472 A place on the plain of Dhū al-Ḥulayfa on the way to Mecca from Minā where the Prophet
(pbuh) stopped to pray.
473 A plain between Mecca and Minā.
474 In the absence of a valid excuse, pilgrims are required to spend the nights of the eleventh,
twelfth, and thirteenth days of Dhū al-Ḥijja at Minā, and ʿAqaba constitutes the outer bound-
ary of Minā in the direction of Mecca. Accordingly, any pilgrim who spends the night beyond
Minā’s borders has violated one of the rules of the Pilgrimage.
342 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1209. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ said, “They said that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
said, ‘Let no pilgrim spend any of the nights of Minā beyond the borders
of ʿAqaba.’”
1210. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father said,
regarding the question of spending the night in Mecca during the nights of
Minā, “No pilgrim should spend the night anywhere except Minā.”

Chapter 71. Casting Pebbles at ʿAqaba475

1211. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb would
stop at the first two of the three pillars where the pilgrims cast pebbles for
such a long time that anyone standing there would grow weary.
1212. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would stop
at the first two of the three pillars where the pilgrims cast pebbles for a long
time, magnifying God (saying “God is great,” Allāhu akbar), glorifying Him
(saying “Glory be to God,” Subḥāna ’llāh), praising Him (saying “All praise
belongs to God,” Al-ḥamdu lillāh), and supplicating Him, but he would not
stop at the last station at ʿAqaba.
1213. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
exclaim “God is great” every time he cast a pebble.
1214. According to Mālik, he heard one of the people of knowledge say, “The
pebbles that are cast at the pillars should be the size of slingshot pebbles.”
Mālik said, “My preference, however, is for pebbles slightly larger than that.”
1215. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“Whoever is still at Minā when the sun sets on either of the first two of the
three Festival Days (ayyām al-tashrīq) must not leave Minā before casting
pebbles at the pillars the following day.”
1216. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported from his
father that after the people cast their pebbles at the pillars on the third
day, they would leave on foot, heading every which way. The first to depart
mounted was Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān.
1217. According to Mālik, he asked ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim where his
father would stand when he cast pebbles at the last pillar. He said, “Wherever
it was easy for him to do so.”

475 The three stone pillars at ʿAqaba represent the places at which the Devil attempted to dis-
suade Abraham from meeting certain tests that God had set for him (al-Baqara, 2:124). The
pilgrims cast pebbles at these stones in a symbolic act of rejecting the Devil.
Book 20 343

1218. Mālik was asked whether pebbles could be cast on behalf of a child
or someone who was sick. He said, “Yes, and the sick person should take
care to know when the pebbles are thrown on his behalf so that he can
magnify God where he is in his camp and slaughter an animal. If he recovers
during the three Festival Days, he should go and cast pebbles himself and
then offer a sacrosanct animal (hady) as a sacrifice.”
1219. Mālik said, “I do not think that someone who has not performed
ablutions (wuḍūʾ) prior to casting his pebbles or marching between the
hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa (saʿy) needs to repeat the performance of either
ritual, but he should not intentionally omit his ablutions.”
1220. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“Pebbles are cast at the pillars during the three Festival Days only after the
sun has reached its zenith.”

Chapter 72. The Dispensation concerning Casting Pebbles

1221. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Ḥazm reported from his
father that Abū al-Baddāḥ ʿĀṣim b. ʿAdī informed him from his father, ʿAdī,
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) allowed camel herders to spend the night
outside of Minā and to cast their pebbles on the Day of the Slaughter of the
Sacrosanct Animals (yawm al-naḥr), and then to cast pebbles on the next
two days and on the day the pilgrims depart Minā.
1222. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he heard ʿAṭāʾ b. Abī
Rabāḥ mention that camel herders had been allowed to cast their pebbles
at night, but he said this had been during the early days of Islam.
1223. Mālik said, “In our view—and God knows best—the explanation
for the report in which the Messenger of God (pbuh) gave a dispensation
to camel herders to permit them to delay casting their stones is that they
cast their pebbles on the Day of the Slaughter of the Sacrosanct Animals
and then again two days later, that being the first day when pilgrims may
depart Minā. First they cast pebbles for the previous day, and then they
cast pebbles for that day. This is because a person makes up an action
only after it has become compulsory for him. Further, if it is obligatory for
him to do something but the time for its performance has ended, he must
make it up later. Accordingly, if the camel herders decide to leave Minā in
these circumstances, they may do so insofar as they have fulfilled their
obligations. If they decide to spend the night, however, they must cast their
pebbles with everyone else on the last day of departure, and only then may
they leave.”
344 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1224. According to Mālik, Abū Bakr b. Nāfiʿ reported from his father that a
niece of Ṣafiyya bt. Abī ʿUbayd bled at Muzdalifa after giving birth, so she and
Ṣafiyya were late, arriving at Minā after sunset on the Day of the Slaughter
of the Sacrosanct Animals. When they arrived, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar told both
of them to go and cast their pebbles. He did not believe they were subject to
any additional obligation.
1225. Mālik was asked about someone who forgot to cast pebbles at one of
the pillars on one of the days of Minā, not remembering until night fell. He
said, “He should go cast his pebbles at any time, whether day or night, as
soon as he remembers that he has not done so, just as someone who forgets
to perform a prayer and then remembers performs it immediately, whether
day or night. If, however, he remembers after departing from Minā when
he is in Mecca, or after he has left Mecca, he must offer a sacrosanct animal
(hady) as a sacrifice.”

Chapter 73. The Pilgrims’ March (Ifāḍa) to God’s House from Minā
1226. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ and ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported from ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUmar that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb delivered a sermon to the people
at ʿArafāt in which he instructed them about the rules of the Pilgrimage
(ḥajj). Among the things that he told them was, “When you arrive at Minā,
whoever casts his pebbles is freed of the restrictions that had applied to
him as a pilgrim, except with respect to sexual intercourse with women
and the prohibition against the use of perfume. Let no one, therefore, have
sexual intercourse or touch perfume until he has first circumambulated
God’s House (ṭawāf).”
1227. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ and ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported from
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “Whoever has finished
casting his pebbles, shaved his head or trimmed his hair, and slaughtered
a sacrosanct animal (hady), if he had one, is released from the restrictions
that bound him, except with respect to sexual intercourse with women
and perfume. He is not released from these restrictions until he has first
circumambulated God’s House.”

Chapter 74. How a Menstruating Woman Enters Mecca

1228. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported from his
father that ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, said, “We set out with the
Messenger of God (pbuh) in the year of the Farewell Pilgrimage (ḥajjat
al-wadāʿ). We entered the consecrated state (iḥrām) to perform the
Visitation (ʿumra). Then the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Whoever
Book 20 345

brought with him sacrosanct animals (hady) should intend to perform both
the Pilgrimage (ḥajj) and the Visitation. He should therefore continue to
observe the restrictions of the consecrated state until he completes both
sets of rituals.’ When I arrived in Mecca, I was menstruating and so was
unable to circumambulate God’s House (ṭawāf) or to march between the
hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa (saʿy). I complained about that to the Messenger
of God (pbuh), so he said, ‘Undo your braids and comb your hair, and then
enter the consecrated state for the Pilgrimage and leave aside the Visitation
for now.’ So I did, and when we completed the Pilgrimage, the Messenger of
God (pbuh) sent me with my brother, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakr al-Ṣiddīq,
to al-Tanʿīm, where I again entered the consecrated state and then performed
the Visitation. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘This substitutes for the
Visitation that you were unable to perform when you first arrived.’ As for
those who had entered the consecrated state to perform only the Visitation,
they circumambulated God’s House and marched between the hillocks of
Ṣafā and Marwa, and then they were released from the consecrated state. If
they subsequently set out on the Pilgrimage, they circumambulated God’s
House a second time when they returned from Minā. As for those who had
entered the consecrated state to perform only the Pilgrimage or to perform
the Pilgrimage and the Visitation together, they circumambulated God’s
House only once, after returning from Minā.”
1229. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr,
from ʿĀʾisha, a report similar to the preceding one.
1230. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported from his
father that ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, said, “I was menstruating
when I entered Mecca, so I was unable to circumambulate God’s House
or to march between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa. I complained to the
Messenger of God (pbuh), so he said, ‘Do everything the pilgrims do except
for circumambulating God’s House and marching between Ṣafā and Marwa
until your period ends and you bathe.’”
1231. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a woman who enters the conse-
crated state for the Visitation and enters Mecca hoping to perform the Pil-
grimage, but who is menstruating and thus unable to circumambulate God’s
House, ‘If she fears that she will miss the Pilgrimage (if she waits for her
period to end), she should enter into the consecrated state for the Pilgrim-
age and offer a sacrosanct animal (hady) as a sacrifice, in which case she is
just like someone who has combined performance of the Pilgrimage and
the Visitation (qirān). In this case, circumambulating God’s House once ful-
fills her obligations. If the menstruating woman has, by the time her period
begins, already circumambulated God’s House and offered the two cycles
346 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

(rakʿa) of prayer that are due thereafter, she then marches between the
hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa, stands at ʿArafāt and Muzdalifa, and casts the
pebbles at ʿAqaba even as she continues to menstruate. She must refrain,
however, from performing the Circumambulation of the March (ṭawāf
al-ifāḍa) until she has bathed at the conclusion of her period.”

Chapter 75. A Menstruating Woman’s Performance of the

Circumambulation of the March (Ṭawāf al-Ifāḍa)
1232. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported from his
father, from ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, that Ṣafiyya bt. Ḥuyayy
began to menstruate. ʿĀʾisha said, “I mentioned this to the Messsenger of
God (pbuh), who asked, ‘Will we need to wait for her?’ He was told, however,
that she had already performed the Circumambulation of the March (ṭawāf
al-ifāḍa), so he said, ‘In that case, we need not wait.’”
1233. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Ḥazm reported from
his father, from ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of
the Believers, that she said to the Messenger of God (pbuh), “Messenger
of God! Safiyya bt. Ḥuyayy’s period has started.” The Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, “Will we need to wait for her? Hasn’t she already performed
the Circumambulation of the March with you women?” The women said,
“Indeed she has.” He said, “Then you may depart for home.”
1234. According to Mālik, Abū al-Rijāl Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
reported from ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān that when ʿĀʾisha, the Mother
of the Believers, went on the Pilgrimage with women who, she feared,
might menstruate, she would dispatch them quickly from Minā to perform
the Circumambulation of the March on the Day of the Slaughter of the
Sacrosanct Animals (yawm al-naḥr). Therefore, if they subsequently began
to menstruate, she would not need to wait for them to complete their
periods before she could head home. They could all return home together,
even if these women were menstruating, provided that they had already
performed the Circumambulation of the March.
1235. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father, from
ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
asked about Ṣafiyya bt. Ḥuyayy and was told that her period had started.
The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Perhaps we need to wait for her?” They
said, “Messenger of God, she has already performed the Circumambulation
of the March.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) therefore said, “In that case,
we need not wait.”
1236. Mālik said that Hishām said that ʿUrwa said that ʿĀʾisha said, “We
mention these precedents to the people, but they nevertheless continue
Book 20 347

to send their women ahead of them, even though it does not benefit the
women themselves. If what they say were correct,476 there would be more
than six thousand menstruating women who had already performed the
Circumambulation of March at Minā, waiting for their periods to end.”
1237. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr reported from his father
that Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān informed him that Umm Sulaym bt.
Milḥān had asked the Messenger of God (pbuh) what to do when her period
started (or she gave birth)477 after she had performed the Circumambulation
of the March on the Day of the Slaughter of the Sacrosanct Animals. The
Messenger of God (pbuh) gave her permission to leave, so she left.
1238. Mālik said, “A woman who menstruates at Minā must remain there
until she performs the Circumambulation of the March, and there are no
exceptions to this. If, however, she begins to menstruate after performing
the Circumambulation of the March, she may return to her home. We have
reports of a dispensation that the Messenger of God (pbuh) granted in this
respect to menstruating women.”
1239. Mālik said, “If a woman menstruates while at Minā before she has
performed the Circumambulation of the March, her bleeding detains her
there for no more than the maximum length of time that menstrual blood
ordinarily flows.”478

Chapter 76. The Compensation Due for Killing Birds and Wild
Animals
1240. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zubayr al-Makkī reported that ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb decreed that a ram is to be offered in sacrifice as compensation
for the killing of a hyena, a female goat for the killing of a gazelle, a she-goat
that is less than a year old but has been weaned from her mother for the
killing of a rabbit, and a four-month-old kid for a jerboa.479
1241. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Malik b. Qurayr reported from
Muḥammad b. Sīrīn that a man came to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb and said, “A

476 ʿĀʾisha is here rebutting the claim that the Farewell Circumambulation (ṭawāf al-wadāʿ) is
obligatory. Since the Prophet (pbuh) permitted Ṣafiyya to return home after having completed
the Circumambulation of the March (ṭawaf al-ifāḍa), by implication the Farewell Circumambu-
lation is not obligatory. Moreover, ʿĀʾisha explains that if it were the case that the Farewell Cir-
cumabulation were indeed obligatory, there would be large numbers of women at Minā waiting
for their periods to end so that they could perform the Farewell Circumambulation.
477 The narrator is uncertain which of the two took place.
478 Mālik’s rule here is that if a woman begins to menstruate at Minā, she may not perform the
obligatory Circumambulation of the March until either her bleeding ceases or the maximum
length of an ordinary menstrual period is reached.
479 These rules apply to individuals who kill wild animals while in the consecrated state
(muḥrim) or within the precincts of the Meccan Sanctuary (ḥaram).
348 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

friend of mine and I raced our horses along a narrow mountain trail, and
we killed a gazelle. We were both in the consecrated state (iḥrām). What
do you think we need to do?” ʿUmar turned to a man who was sitting next
to him and said, “Come, let the two of us reach a judgment together.” They
ruled against the man and decreed that he must sacrifice a female goat as
compensation. The man turned away, saying, “This is the Commander of the
Faithful? He needs the help of another man to rule about a gazelle?” ʿUmar
overheard what the man said, so he called him back and asked him, “Are
you familiar with the chapter of the Quran called ‘The Table’ (al-Māʾida)?”
He said, “No.” ʿUmar said, “Do you know this man who judged alongside
me?” The man said, “No.” ʿUmar then said, “If you had told me that you were
familiar with al-Māʾida, I would have slapped you hard. God, Blessed and
Sublime is He, says in His Book, ‘determined by two of your just men, as an
offering brought to the Kabah.’480 This man alongside me is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
b. ʿAwf.”
1242. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father would
say, “A cow must be sacrificed for killing a female wild antelope, and a
yearling (shāt) for a female gazelle.”
1243. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
would say, “A yearling is due for killing a Meccan dove.”
1244. Mālik said, regarding a Meccan who enters the consecrated state
to perform either the Pilgrimage (ḥajj) or the Visitation (ʿumra) and who,
while he is gone, locks the Meccan dove chicks that he is raising in his room,
causing them to die, “He must, in my opinion, offer one yearling as a sacrifice
for each dove chick that died as a result of his actions.”
1245. Mālik said, “I have always heard (lam azal asmaʿ) that a person in
the consecrated state (muḥrim) who kills an ostrich must offer a camel as a
sacrifice in compensation.”
1246. Mālik said, “In my opinion, one-tenth of the price of a camel must be
given for destroying an ostrich egg, just as the compensation for the fetus of
a free woman is a minor slave, either a boy or a girl. The fair market value of
a minor slave is fifty dinars, and that is one-tenth of the compensation due
for the mother’s life.”
1247. Mālik said, “Any bird belonging to the eagle, falcon, or vulture family
counts as a wild animal (ṣayd), the killing of which requires a sacrifice,
just as a sacrifice is required for any other wild animal that a person in the
consecrated state kills.”

480 Al-Māʾida, 5:195.

Book 20 349

1248. Mālik said, “And for anything for whose killing a sacrifice is required,
the sacrifice due for killing the young is the same as that due for killing
the old. This resembles the case of the compensation due for the accidental
killing of a free person; whether he be young or old, the same compensation
is due.”

Chapter 77. What Is Due from Someone Who Kills Locusts While in
the Consecrated State (Muḥrim)
1249. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that a man came to ʿUmar
b. al-Khaṭṭāb and said, “Commander of the Faithful, I killed some locusts
with my whip while I was in the consecrated state.” ʿUmar said to him, “Give
some food to the needy as penance.”
1250. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that a man came to ʿUmar
b. al-Khaṭṭāb and asked him about a locust he killed while he was in the
consecrated state. ʿUmar therefore said to Kaʿb,481 “Come, let us judge.” Kaʿb
said, “One dirham.” Umar said to Kaʿb, “Spoken like a rich man! Indeed, a
single date is better than a locust!”

Chapter 78. What Is Due for Shaving One’s Head before Slaughtering
One’s Consecrated Animal (Hady)
1251. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Karīm b. Mālik al-Jazarī reported from
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Laylā, from Kaʿb b. ʿUjra, that he was with the
Messenger of God (pbuh) in the consecrated state (muḥrim) when he
suffered an infestation of lice in his hair. The Messenger of God (pbuh)
ordered him to shave his head and said to him, “Fast three days, or feed
six poor people two handfuls of food each, or offer a yearling (shāt) as a
sacrifice. Whichever of these you do suffices for your action.”
1252. According to Mālik, Ḥumayd b. Qays reported from Mujāhid b.
al-Ḥajjāj, from Ibn Abī Laylā, from Kaʿb b. ʿUjra, that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, “It appears that you have an infestation of lice in your hair.”
Kaʿb said, “I said, ‘Yes, Messenger of God.’” The Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “Shave your head and fast three days, or feed six poor people, or offer
a yearling as a sacrifice.”
1253. According to Mālik, ʿAṭāʾ b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Khurasānī said, “An old
man at the Buram Market in Kufa482 told me that Kaʿb b. ʿUjra said, ‘The
Messenger of God (pbuh) came to me as I was stoking the fire underneath

481 Kaʿb b. Mātiʿ, known as Kaʿb al-Aḥbār. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 2:577.
482 The Muslims established the town of Kufa after their conquest of Iraq during the caliphate of
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb.
350 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

my companions’ cooking pot. My head and beard were filled with lice. He
caught hold of my forehead and said, “Shave your hair and fast three days,
or feed six poor people!” The Messenger of God (pbuh) knew that I had no
animal to offer as a sacrifice.’”
1254. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding the penance due for shaving one’s
hair because of a lice infestation, that the rule (al-amr) is that no penance is
due until the pilgrim does something requiring penance. Penance becomes
obligatory only after he performs an act that obliges it. He may fulfill that
duty once it arises wherever he wishes, whether by sacrificing an animal,
fasting, or giving food to the poor, whether in Mecca or anywhere else.”
1255. Mālik said, “A person in the consecrated state is not permitted to
pluck out any of his hair, nor to shave or trim it, until he exits the consecrated
state, unless his hair becomes infested with lice. In this case, he must shave
his hair and offer penance as ordered by God, Blessed and Sublime is He.
Nor is it appropriate that he cut his nails, kill lice, or remove them from his
head, skin, or clothes and cast them aside. If someone in the consecrated
state does any of these things, he must offer a handful of food as penance.”
1256. Mālik said, “Any person in the consecrated state who plucks hair
from his nose or armpit, or rubs his body with a mixture that removes his
body hair, or shaves the hair around a head wound when needed, or shaves
his neck in order to use cupping glasses—whoever does any of these things,
whether out of forgetfulness or ignorance, must offer penance. A person
who is to be cupped while in the consecrated state should not shave the
areas where the cupping glasses are to be placed on his body.”
1257. Mālik said, “Whoever shaves his head out of ignorance before casting
pebbles at ʿAqaba must offer penance.” 

Chapter 79. What Is Due from Someone Who Omits, in Whole or in

Part, a Ritual of the Pilgrimage (Ḥajj) or the Visitation (ʿUmra)
1258. According to Mālik, Ayyūb b. Abī Tamīma reported from Saʿīd b.
Jubayr that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās said, “Whoever forgets (or fails) to perform
a ritual of the Pilgrimage or the Visitation should slaughter an animal.”
Ayyūb said, “I do not know whether he said ‘fails’ or ‘forgets.’”
1259. Mālik said, “If what is involved here is a sacrosanct animal (hady), it
can only be sacrificed in Mecca. If it involves penance for failure to perform
any of the rituals, the sacrifice may take place wherever the person wishes.”
Book 20 351

Chapter 80. Miscellaneous Matters Related to What Is Due for

Breaching the Rules of the Pilgrimage (Ḥajj) or the Visitation (ʿUmra)
1260. Mālik said, regarding someone who intentionally wears clothes
inappropriate for the consecrated state (iḥrām), trims his hair, or uses
perfume despite the absence of a compelling necessity, merely because
offering what is due for breaching these rules is easier for him than
complying with the rules, “No one should ever do this. These dispensations
are valid only in circumstances of necessity. Anyone who does these things
intentionally, however, must nevertheless render what is due for violating
the rules.”
1261. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether a person who breaks a rule
of the Pilgrimage or of the Visitation is obliged to offer a specific act of
penance, be it fasting, feeding the poor, or slaughtering an animal, or
whether he is free to choose among these three options. He was also
asked what kind of animal would be satisfactory, the quantity of food that
must be given, and how many days must be fasted. He was also asked
whether the penance can be deferred, or whether it must be performed
immediately. Mālik said, ‘Everything in God’s Book relating to acts of
penance is stated in terms of alternatives. Accordingly, anyone under such
an obligation is free to choose among them; whichever option he prefers,
he does. As for slaughtering an animal, a yearling (shāt) is sufficient. As for
fasting, it is three days. And as for feeding the poor, it consists of feeding
six poor individuals two 500-gram measures (mudd) of food each, using
the original measure of the Prophet (pbuh).’”
1262. Mālik said, “I heard one of the people of knowledge say, ‘If a man
in the consecrated state (muḥrim) shoots an arrow and hits and kills a
wild animal (ṣayd) unintentionally, he must perform penance. Similarly,
if someone who is not in the consecrated state shoots an arrow in the
Sanctuary (ḥaram) and hits and kills a wild animal unintentionally, he must
also perform penance, because intentional acts (ʿamd) and unintentional
acts (khaṭaʾ) are treated in the same way in this respect.’”483
1263. Mālik said, regarding a group of people who together kill a wild
animal while they are in the consecrated state or while they are within the

483 Both cases involve the killing of a wild animal that is protected from harm, but the reason for
its protection is different in each case. In the first case, the person is categorically prohibited
from harming wild animals by virtue of being in the consecrated state. In the second case,
the person is not in the consecrated state, but the wild animal is sacrosanct because of its
physical presence within the boundaries of the Sanctuary, which grants the animal protec-
tion from harm. Accordingly, even someone who is not in the consecrated state must perform
penance if he accidentally kills such an animal.
352 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

precincts of the Sanctuary, “I think that each one of them is required to offer
penance. If there is a judgment that they must offer a sacrosanct animal
(hady), each of them should offer a sacrosanct animal. If there is a judgment
that they should fast, each of them should fast. Their case is similar to that
of a group of people who, without intending to do so, kill someone. In that
case the required penance is that each one of them manumits a slave, or
each one of them fasts for two consecutive months.”
1264. Mālik said, “Whoever shoots or kills a wild animal after casting pebbles
at ʿAqaba or shaving his head but before performing the Circumambulation
of the March (ṭawaf al-ifāḍa) is obliged to offer penance, because God,
Blessed and Sublime is He, says, ‘When you exit the consecrated state, you
may hunt.’484 A person who has not yet performed the Circumambulation of
the March is still prohibited from having intercourse with women and using
perfume, so he has not yet exited the consecrated state.”
1265. Mālik said, “A person in the consecrated state who cuts down trees
within the precincts of the Sanctuary is not required to perform penance.
No report of a judgment against someone for doing so has come to our
attention, but his deed is most wicked nonetheless.”
1266. Mālik said, regarding someone who, out of ignorance or forgetfulness,
fails to fast three days during the Pilgrimage or falls ill while fasting and
thus fasts them only once reaches his native land, that he should offer a
sacrosanct animal as penance, if he finds one, and if he does not, he should
fast three days when he reaches his people and seven days after that.

Chapter 81. Miscellaneous Matters Related to the Pilgrimage (Ḥajj)

1267. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿĪsā b. Ṭalḥa that ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣī said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) stopped to let
the people at Minā to ask him questions. A man came to him and said,
‘Messenger of God, I shaved my head but then realized that I had not yet
slaughtered my sacrosanct animals (hady).’ The Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, ‘Slaughter them, and do not worry.’ Then another man came to him
and said, ‘Messenger of God, I slaughtered my animals and then realized
that I had not yet cast my pebbles at ʿAqaba.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, ‘Go cast your pebbles, and do not worry.’ Every time the Messenger of
God (pbuh) was asked a question that day about a mistake in the timing of
the performance of a ritual of the Pilgrimage, whether before or after its
appointed time, he always told the questioner, ‘Do it, and do not worry.’”

484 Al-Māʾida, 5:2.

Book 20 353

1268. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that every
time the Messenger of God (pbuh) returned from a military expedition,
the Pilgrimage, or the Visitation (ʿumra), he would magnify God (say “God
is great,” Allāhu akbar) three times at the top of every hill. He would then
say, “There is no god except God, alone without partner. To Him belongs
the kingdom and all praise, and He has power over all things. We return to
Him, repent to Him, serve Him, and prostrate to Him; and to Him we give
praise. God faithfully fulfilled His Promise, granted victory to His servant,
and through His power alone defeated the Confederates.”485
1269. According to Mālik, Ibrāhīm b. ʿUqba reported from Kurayb, the
freedman (mawlā) of Ibn ʿAbbās, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) once
passed a woman who was sitting in plain sight in the litter of her camel.
Someone said to her, “This is the Messenger of God.” She then held up the
forearms of a child who was with her and asked, “May this child perform
the Pilgrimage, Messenger of God?” He answered, “Yes, and you will be
rewarded for it.”
1270. According to Mālik, Ibrāhīm b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī ʿAbla reported
from Ṭalḥa b. ʿUbayd Allāh b. Karīz that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
“There is no day on which Satan is more degraded, more of an exile, more
contemptible, and more enraged than the Day of ʿArafa. This is because of
what he sees that day: the continuous descent of God’s mercy and God’s
forgiveness of even the gravest of sins. The Battle of Badr, however, was
even worse for him.” Someone asked, “What did he see that day?” He said,
“Verily, he saw the Archangel Gabriel himself, arranging the ranks of the
angelic host.”
1271. According to Mālik, Ziyād b. Abī Ziyād, the freedman of ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿAyyāsh b. Abī Rabīʿa al-Makhzūmī, reported from Ṭalḥa b. ʿUbayd Allāh
b. Karīz that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “The best supplication is
the supplication made on the Day of ʿArafa, and the best words that I and
the prophets before me have said are, ‘There is no god except God, alone
without partner.’”
1272. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Anas b. Mālik that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) entered Mecca in the year of the conquest

485 “The Confederates” refers to the pagan alliance that the Quraysh assembled in year 5 of
the Hijra (627 CE). The Muslims were able to defeat them by digging defensive trenches
around Medina. For this reason, this campaign became known as the Battle of the Trench.
The pagans, although greatly outnumbering the Muslims, were not prepared to undertake a
lengthy siege, and as a result they eventually withdrew in defeat after their attempt at a siege
failed to break the Muslims’ defenses.
354 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

(ʿām al-fatḥ) with a helmet on his head.486 When he took it off, a man came
to him and said, “Ibn Khaṭal is clinging to the curtains of the Kabah.” The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Put him to death.”487 Mālik said, “Ibn Shihāb
said, ‘On that day, the Messenger of God (pbuh) was not in the consecrated
state (muḥrim), and God knows best.’”488
1273. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar was
traveling from Mecca, and when he arrived at Qudayd,489 he received a
message from Medina. He returned to Mecca, entering it without entering
the consecrated state.
1274. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb provided a report similar to the
previous one.
1275. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b. Ḥalḥala al-Dīlī reported
from Muḥammad b. ʿImrān al-Anṣārī that his father said, “ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar came upon me as I was resting under a tall tree on the road to Mecca,
and he said, ‘Why did you stop under this tall tree?’ I replied, ‘I wanted to
rest under its shade.’ He said, ‘Nothing else?’ I said, ‘No, that was the only
reason I stopped.’ Then ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, ‘The Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, “If you happen to be between the Akhshabayn490 near Minā,”
pointing to the east with his hand, “there is a valley there called al-Surar,
wherein is a tall tree, under which the umbilical cords of seventy prophets
were cut.”’”
1276. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Ḥazm reported from
Ibn Abī Mulayka that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb passed by a woman suffering
from leprosy who was circumambulating God’s House. He said to her,
“Handmaiden of God, do not cause the people harm! Why don’t you stay at
home?” Hearing this, she went home. Later, a man happened upon her and
said, “The one who confined you to your home is dead, so you can come out

486 The “year of the conquest” (ʿām al-fatḥ) refers to the year in which the Prophet (pbuh) suc-
cessfully returned to Mecca from Medina and received the surrender of the Quraysh. This
event took place in the eighth year of the Hijra (630 CE).
487 Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr reports in the Istidhkār the explanation provided by the early historian Ibn
Isḥāq for the Prophet’s (pbuh) order to kill Ibn Khaṭal. The latter had embraced Islam, and
the Prophet (pbuh) had appointed him a tax collector and dispatched him to collect taxes
with a Medinese man and the latter’s Muslim freedman. Ibn Khaṭal quarreled with the freed-
man, killing him, and then apostatized and fled to Mecca, where he lampooned the Prophet
(pbuh) in satirical verse. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 4:404.
488 According to Muslim scholars, the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) was not in the consecrated
state on that day was a special dispensation granted by God. In another report, the Prophet
(pbuh) is quoted as saying, “God permitted Mecca to me for an hour in the day,” that is, the
day he returned to Mecca in triumph.
489 A place on the road from Mecca to Medina.
490 Two mountains located near the plain of Minā.
Book 20 355

now.” She replied, “I am not one who would obey him while he is alive, only
to disobey him when he is dead.”
1277. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās would
say, “The Multazam lies between the corner of the Black Stone (rukn)491 and
Abraham’s Standing Place (maqām).”492
1278. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd heard Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā b.
Ḥabbān relate that a man passed Abū Dharr493 at al-Rabadha, and Abū
Dharr asked him, “Where do you wish to go?” The man said, “I intend to
perform the Pilgrimage.” Abū Dharr said, “Is there anything else drawing
you on your journey?” He said, “No.” Abū Dharr said, “Well, then, continue
on your way, seeking only God’s pleasure.” The man said, “I left and kept
going until I reached Mecca and stayed there for a long time. Then I saw the
people crowding around a man, so I pushed them aside to see him, and it
was the same old man I had met at al-Rabadha, namely, Abū Dharr. When
he saw me, he recognized me and said, ‘This is what I meant when I first
spoke to you.’”
1279. According to Mālik, he asked Ibn Shihāb about making the Pilgrimage
conditional.494 Ibn Shihāb said, “Would anyone do that?” And he disapproved
of it.
1280. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether it was permitted to gather
fodder for one’s mount in the precincts of the Sanctuary. He said, ‘No.’”

Chapter 82. The Pilgrimage (Ḥajj) for a Woman Unaccompanied by a

Close Male Relative
1281. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, concerning a woman who has never
performed the Pilgrimage, that if she does not have a close male relative to
accompany her, or if she has one but he cannot accompany her, she is not to
abandon what God has imposed on her regarding the Pilgrimage. Instead,
she should go with a group of women.”

491 That is, the corner of the Kabah where the Black Stone is located.
492 The place where Abraham (pbuh) is said to have stood as he built the Kabah.
493 A Companion of the Prophet of God (pbuh) known for his piety and asceticism.
494 This would entail a person’s placing a condition on his intention to perform the Pilgrimage
such that if the condition came to pass, he could terminate his Pilgrimage before completing
it without consequences.
356 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 83. The Fast of a Pilgrim Who Adds (Mutamattiʿ) the

Pilgrimage (Ḥajj) after Completing the Visitation (ʿUmra)495
1282. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr
that ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, would say, “Anyone who combines
performance of the Visitation with performance of the Pilgrimage must fast
if he cannot obtain a sacrosanct animal (hady) for sacrifice between first
entering the consecrated state (iḥrām) to perform the Pilgrimage and the
Day of ʿArafa. If he has not fasted prior to the Day of ʿArafa, he should fast
the days of Minā.”
1283. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh,
from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, that his opinion on this matter was the same as
ʿĀʾisha’s.

The Book of Pilgrimage (Ḥajj) Has Been Completed,

with Much Praise to God, and May God Grace
Muḥammad and His Family and Grant
Them Perfect Tranquility.

495 In other words, the pilgrim performs tamattuʿ.

 Book 21
The Book of Campaigning for the
Sake of God (Jihād)
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate
Your Assistance We Seek, O God!

Chapter 1. Exhorting the People to Campaign for the Sake of God (Jihād)
1284. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from
Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Someone who is
campaigning for the sake of God (mujāhid) is like someone who is constant
in fasting and prayer and never wearies of them, until he returns home.”
1285. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “For whoever sets out to
campaign for the sake of God, provided that his only motive for leaving his
home is the campaign and a firm conviction in the truth of His words, God
has undertaken to grant either Heaven or a safe return to his home with
whatever reward or booty he has obtained.”
1286. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Sammān,
from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “For some men,
horses are a source of divine reward. For other men, they are a source of
protection in this life. For a third group of men, they shall be a burdensome
sin in the next life. Those men who shall receive a divine reward for their
horses—they are those who acquire them for the sake of God, letting them
graze at length on meadows and grasslands. Whatever the horses eat while
tethered there count as good deeds for their owners. Should the horses
escape their tethers and cross a hillock or two, their tracks and droppings
also count as good deeds for their owners. If they cross a river and drink,
although their owners did not intend for them to drink at that place, those
actions also count as good deeds, and so their owners are rewarded for
them. As for those who acquire horses as a means of personal wealth and
independence but do not forget God’s claims to the horses—these horses

357
358 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

protect their owners in this life. As for those who acquire horses out of
pride, to show off, and out of hostility to the Muslims—the horses are a
burdensome sin to their owners.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) was asked
about donkeys, so he said, “No specific revelation about them was given to
me, except this comprehensive and unique verse: ‘Then shall anyone who
has done an atom’s weight of good see it! And anyone who has done an
atom’s weight of evil shall see it.’”496
1287. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Maʿmar al-Anṣārī
reported that ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Shall
I tell you who has the best standing? Someone who takes hold of the reins
of his horse to campaign in the way of God. Shall I tell you who has the
best standing after him? Someone who keeps to himself with a small herd,
regularly performs his prayers (ṣalāt), pays the alms-tax (zakāt), and
worships God without associating anything with Him.’”
1288. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “ʿUbāda b. al-Walīd b. ʿUbāda
b. al-Ṣāmit informed me, from his father, that his grandfather said, ‘We
pledged our loyalty to the Messenger of God (pbuh), agreeing that we would
hear and obey, in ease and in hardship, and in what was agreeable as well
as in what was disagreeable to us, that we would not resist the commands
of those in authority, and that we would speak (or act)497 for the truth in all
circumstances, without fearing rebuke, for the sake of God.’”
1289. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam said, “Abū ʿUbayda b. al-Jarrāḥ
wrote a letter to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, telling him about the Byzantine hosts
that were massing, and his fear of them. ʿUmar wrote back to him, saying,
‘Now then, whatever hardship befalls a faithful servant of God, God shall
grant him relief thereafter, and it is inconceivable that one circumstance of
hardship can overcome two circumstances of ease.498 God says in His Book,
“O you who believe! Persevere, be constant and firm in the face of your foes,
and be mindful of God, that perhaps you may prosper.”’”499

Chapter 2. The Prohibition against Taking the Quran into

Enemy Territory
1290. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “The
Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited taking the Quran into enemy territory.”
Mālik said, “This is only out of fear that the enemy might seize it.”

496 Al-Zalzala, 99:7–8.

497 The narrator is uncertain whether the original word in the report was “speak” or “act.”
498 An apparent allusion to al-Sharḥ, 94:5–6, which states, “For with hardship, there is ease; with
hardship, there is ease.”
499 Āl ʿImrān, 3:200.
Book 21 359

Chapter 3. The Prohibition against Killing Women and Children

during Military Expeditions
1291. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that a son of Kaʿb b. Mālik
(Mālik said, “I believe that Ibn Shihāb said it was ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Kaʿb”)
said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) instructed those who were sent out to
kill Ibn Abī al-Ḥuqayq500 not to kill women and children. One of them said,
‘Ibn Abī al-Ḥuqayq’s wife exposed us through her screaming, so I raised
my sword against her, but then I recalled the Messenger’s prohibition, so
I refrained from striking her. Otherwise, we would have finished her off.’”
1292. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that during one of his military
expeditions, the Messenger of God (pbuh) saw the corpse of a slain woman.
The sight angered him, and he prohibited the killing of women and children.
1293. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq
dispatched some armies to the Levant. He then set out on foot with Yazīd b.
Abī Sufyān, who was the commanding officer of one of the four armies, to
accompany them. People claimed that Yazīd said to Abū Bakr, “Either ride
together with me, or I will dismount.” Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq replied, “Neither will
you dismount, nor will I ride with you. I deem these steps of mine to be my
contribution to the campaign for God’s sake.” He added, “You will encounter
people who claim to have devoted themselves completely to God’s service.501
Leave them be, in accordance with their claims. You will encounter a people
who have shaved the hair from the middle of their heads—so lop off their
heads with your swords. I charge you to refrain from ten things: do not kill
a woman or a child, or an aged, decrepit man; do not cut down fruit-bearing
trees; do not destroy any built-up place; do not slaughter a yearling (shāt)
or a camel, except for food; do not burn or drown date palms;502 do not
misappropriate booty from the battlefield; and do not be cowardly.”
1294. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz wrote
to one of his provincial governors, telling him, “It has reached us that when
the Messenger of God (pbuh) dispatched a raiding party, he would tell them,
‘Set out in the name of God, knowing that you are campaigning for the sake
of God. You are fighting those who deny Him. Do not misappropriate booty

500 Ibn Abī al-Ḥuqayq was a Jewish poet and warrior who played a significant role in marshaling
support for the pagan alliance that laid siege to Medina in AH 5 (627 CE). After the Mus-
lims defeated this alliance, Ibn Abī al-Ḥuqayq fled to the oasis town of Khaybar. The Prophet
(pbuh) later sent a group of Medinese in his pursuit, and they successfully laid an ambush for
him and killed him.
501 Abū Bakr is referring to monks who cloister themselves in cells in the desert.
502 Other narrations of the Muwaṭṭaʾ have “bees” in the place of “date palms,” the only difference
between the two in Arabic being a dot over one of the three letters: (bees) versus
(date palms).
360 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

from the battlefield, do not be treacherous, do not mutilate the bodies of

your fallen enemies, and do not kill a child.’ Convey this message to your
armies and raiding parties, if God wills, and may peace be upon you.”

Chapter 4. What Has Come Down regarding Fidelity to a Grant of Safe

Passage (Amān)
1295. According to Mālik, a man of Kufa reported that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
wrote to the commander of an army that he had dispatched to Persia, “I have
come to understand that some of your men pursue the enemy, tracking him
down to his refuge, high up in the mountains. Then one of the Muslims will
cry out to him in Persian, ‘Mattaras!’ meaning ‘Fear not!’ in that language.
But when the Persian surrenders, the Muslim kills him. By Him whose hand
holds my soul, when I find the soldiers who do this, I will behead them.”
Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘This report is not one that is commonly
accepted, and in any case, practice (ʿamal) is not in accordance with it.’”
1296. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether a gesture of the hand indicating
a grant of safe passage (amān) had the same effect as a verbal grant of safe
passage. He said, ‘Yes, and I think it proper that the soldiers understand that
they may not kill anyone to whom they have promised safety, even if by a
mere gesture. A peaceful gesture, to my mind, is the equivalent of express
speech. Moreover, it reached me that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās said, “Any people
who breaks its covenants shall find itself under its enemy’s domination.”’”

Chapter 5. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to Someone Who

Contributes Matériel in Support of a Campaign for the Sake of God
1297. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that
whenever he contributed matériel in support of a campaign for the sake of
God, he would say to the recipient, “Once you reach Wādī al-Qurā, you may
do with it what you wish.”503
1298. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
would say, “If a man is given matériel to use during a military expedition and
he manages to reach the battlefield with it, it becomes his personal property.”
1299. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about a man who had made a binding
undertaking to participate in a military expedition. He readied himself by
acquiring all the gear he needed. Then, when he resolved to set out, both of
his parents (or one of them) told him not to go. Mālik said, ‘I do not think he

503 An oasis not far from Medina on the way to the Levant where the army would muster for the
march north.
Book 21 361

should disobey them; rather, he should defer his plan to a subsequent year. As
for his gear, I think he should store it until he sets out in the subsequent year. If
he is concerned that his gear might become useless with the passage of time,
he should sell it and keep the proceeds so that he can buy appropriate gear at
the time of the upcoming campaign. If he is sufficiently wealthy, however, he
will be able to obtain the appropriate gear whenever he sets out. Accordingly,
he may do whatever he wishes with his current gear.’”

Chapter 6. Miscellaneous Reports on Excess Shares of Booty (Nafl)

Distributed after the Conclusion of a Campaign
1300. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) dispatched a raiding party that included ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUmar in the direction of Najd.504 They successfully made off with a
large number of camels, and their shares came to twelve (or eleven) camels
each.505 Each soldier in the raid was then given an extra camel in addition to
his allotted share of the booty taken in the raid.506
1301. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he heard Saʿīd
b. al-Musayyab say, “When the time came to divide booty seized on the
battlefield, the soldiers deemed a camel the equivalent of ten yearlings
(shāt).”
1302. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, regarding a wage laborer who
accompanies a campaign, ‘If he attends the battle and is with the soldiers
during the fight, and if he is a free man, he receives a share of any booty
captured. If not, then he has no claim.’” Yaḥyā also said, “I heard Mālik say,
‘Only someone who is present at the time of fighting, in my opinion, is
entitled to a share of the booty.’”

Chapter 7. What Is Exempt from the One-Fifth Rule Governing Booty

1303. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik speak of people from enemy territory who
are found on the coastlines of Muslim territory. They deny they are soldiers
and claim instead to be merchants who have been cast ashore by the sea.
However, the Muslims are unable to determine whether their claim is true.

504 The large, barren plateau located to the east of the Hijaz in the center of the Arabian
Peninsula.
505 The narrator is uncertain whether the share of each participant in the raid was twelve or
eleven camels.
506 The rule governing the distribution of booty seized on the battlefield is that four-fifths is to be
divided among the soldiers who participate in the campaign, and one-fifth goes to the state.
Al-Anfāl, 8:41. The additional camel given to each soldier that is mentioned in this report
refers to the excess shares of booty that were allotted to the soldiers out of the one-fifth share
belonging to the state.
362 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

They do know, however, that these people’s boats have been shipwrecked
or that they have been overcome by thirst, and that they disembarked onto
Muslim territory without prior permission. Mālik said, ‘In my opinion, what
to do with them is a decision that belongs to the ruler (imām); he decides
how to treat them in accordance with his considered judgment. I do not
think that they and their property should be deemed booty.’”507

Chapter 8. What Muslims on Campaign May Lawfully Consume of the

Enemy’s Property before Payment of the One-Fifth Due to the State
1304. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘There is no harm, in my opinion, in
the Muslims’ eating whatever food they find in enemy territory while on a
campaign there, before the booty is distributed.’”
1305. Mālik said, “I believe that camels, cattle, and sheep (ghanam) are the
equivalent of ‘food’ in this case. Muslims can eat these whenever they enter
enemy territory on a campaign, just as they eat the food they find there. If
the rule were that food and animals could only be eaten after the army had
divided the booty among themselves at the end of the campaign, it would
cause great harm to armies. I have no objection to Muslims who are on the
campaign eating any of these things, as long as what they consume does not
exceed what is customary or what necessity requires. No Muslim, however,
should store any of these items with the intention of bringing them back to
his family.”
1306. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about a soldier who, while in enemy
territory, seizes some food, eats from it, and takes provisions from it. He
then finds at the end of the campaign that some is left over. May he keep
the leftovers for himself and eat them later with his family, or sell them
before he returns to his native land and benefit from the proceeds of the
sale? Mālik said, ‘If he sold them while he was campaigning, I believe he
should deliver the sale price he received to the army, because it is part of the
Muslims’ booty. If he arrives home with them, however, I have no objection
if he eats them or otherwise makes use of them, if their amount is trivial.’”

Chapter 9. Restitution of Property Originally Belonging to Muslims

That the Enemy Seized before the Booty Is Divided
1307. According to Mālik, it reached him that a slave of ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
had run away, and one of his horses had escaped, and the enemy captured

507 In other words, the Muslims who captured them are not entitled to four-fifths of the prison-
ers’ property; rather, the prisoners and their possessions come under the full control of the
state, and the ruler is to determine their fate.
Book 21 363

each of them. The Muslims later seized both in battle and returned them to
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar before the booty was divided.
1308. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say that if the Muslims discover, before
the distribution of the booty, that some of the booty they have taken from
the enemy consists of property that originally belonged to Muslims,508 such
property is to be returned to its original owners. However, no claims of
restitution are admissible with respect to such property after it has been
divided among the soldiers.”
1309. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about the owner of a young male
slave whom the enemy had captured and made off with. The Muslims then
recaptured him from the enemy. Mālik said, ‘His owner has the best claim to
him. He need not pay a purchase price for the slave, his fair value, or the cost
of his upkeep, provided that the booty has not yet been divided. If the booty
has been divided, however, and the slave has already been given to another,
the original master may redeem his former slave if he wishes from the new
master, but only after he pays the new master a mutually agreeable price.’”
1310. Regarding a scenario in which a slave woman who has given birth to
the child of her Muslim master (umm walad) is subsequently captured by
the enemy, but then the Muslims recapture her from the enemy and include
her in the booty that is divided among the soldiers, but after the booty has
been divided her original master recognizes her, Mālik said, “She should
not, in my opinion, be enslaved, and the ruler must ransom her. If the ruler
fails to do so, her former master must ransom her; he may not abandon
her to her new master. I do not think that the person who received her as
booty is permitted to enslave her or deem her licit for intercourse. Her
status renders her the equivalent of a free woman. Her original master is
obliged to ransom her in this case, just as he is obliged to ransom her had
she injured another person.509 This case is the equivalent of that one. He is
not free to permit the mother of his child to be enslaved, nor is he permitted
to allow her to become the subject of unlawful intercourse.”
1311. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about the case of a man who sets out
for enemy territory either to ransom prisoners captured by the enemy or
to engage in commerce in enemy territory. While there, the man purchases

508 This includes property belonging to non-Muslims who are under the protection of the Islamic
state (dhimmīs).
509 According to Mālik, when a slave injures another person, the slave’s master must either
compensate the injured party with money or property or forfeit the slave to the injured
party. However, if the slave is the mother of his child, he is not allowed to forfeit her to the
injured party.
364 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

from the enemy a slave or a free person that the enemy has captured,510 or
he receives one or the other as a gift. Mālik said, ‘As for the free captive, the
price that the man pays for him constitutes a debt that the captive owes to
the man who ransomed him from the enemy, but the free captive may not
be enslaved. If the enemy freely gave the captive to the man, the captive
owes him nothing, unless the man gave the captors a gift in return. In that
case, that reciprocal gift constitutes a debt that the captive is obliged to
pay, and it is treated as the equivalent to what the man would have paid to
free him, as in the previous case. As for the slave, his former master is free
to take him back from the man who purchased him from the enemy by
paying the sale price to him. If the former master wishes to abandon the
slave to the man who purchased him from the enemy, however, he may do
so. If, on the other hand, the enemy freely gave the slave to the man, then
his former master has a superior claim to the slave and may reclaim him
without paying anything to the man who retrieved him from the enemy,
unless the man gave something to the slave’s captors as a gift in return.
In this case, the original master pays the man holding the slave whatever
he paid to the slave’s captors as a reciprocal gift, if he wants the slave
returned to him.’”511

Chapter 10. What Has Come Down regarding the Plunder of Deceased
Enemy Soldiers as an Extra Share of Booty
1312. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from ʿAmr b. Kathīr b.
Aflaḥ, from Abū Muḥammad, the freedman (mawlā) of Abū Qatāda, that
Abū Qatāda b. Ribʿī said, “We set out with the Messenger of God (pbuh) in
the year of the Battle of Ḥunayn.512 When the two armies met, the Muslim
forces were initially in disarray. I saw a pagan getting the better of one of the
Muslims. I turned around and came at him from behind, striking the pagan
with my sword on his shoulder blade. He turned and lunged at me, grabbing
me so tightly that I could smell death oozing from him. When death finally
overtook him, I pulled free of his grasp. Then I saw ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb and
said, ‘What’s wrong with us today?’ He said, ‘The matter is in God’s hands.’

510 Mālik is distinguishing here between the case of a person who was free under Islamic law
at the time the enemy captured him and who therefore can never be enslaved under Islamic
law and a person who was a slave in Islamic territory at the time the enemy captured him
and who retains his status as a slave until he is manumitted.
511 Mālik here appears to be referring to the custom of reciprocal gift giving as a substitute for
paying an explicit ransom for captives. Mālik treats the reciprocal gift as though it were, in
fact, an explicit ransom payment.
512 A major battle fought between the Muslims and the tribes of Hawāzin and Thaqīf shortly
after the Prophet (pbuh) conquered Mecca. The battle took place in the Hijaz, and despite the
great numbers of the Muslims they were almost defeated, but the battle eventually turned to
their favor and ended in a decisive Muslim victory.
Book 21 365

At last we found our resolve after the initial setback. The Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, ‘Whoever slew an enemy soldier and can prove it is entitled
to strip him of his effects.’ When I heard this, I stood up and said, ‘Who
will vouch for me?’ and then sat down. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
‘Whoever slew an enemy soldier and can prove it is entitled to strip him
of his effects.’ I stood up again and said, ‘Who will vouch for me?’ and then
sat down. Then the Messenger of God (pbuh) said it a third time, so I stood
up a third time. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘What is your claim,
Abū Qatāda?’ So I told him what had happened. Someone present said, ‘He’s
telling the truth, Messenger of God. I already have the dead man’s effects,
so give him something of equivalent value that will satisfy him!’ Then Abū
Bakr said, ‘No, by God! The Messenger (pbuh) did not intend that one of
God’s lions should fight for God and His Messenger, and then you take the
spoils of his struggle.’ So the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘He has spoken
the truth. Give Abū Qatāda the dead man’s effects.’ He gave them to me, and
I sold the plate armor, and with that money I bought date palms in Banū
Salima, and this was the first property I acquired as a Muslim.”513
1313. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad
said, “I heard a man ask ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās about the meaning of the word
anfāl. Ibn ʿAbbās said, ‘Horses and the personal effects of a slain warrior are
included in the term anfāl.’514 Then the man asked his question again, so Ibn
ʿAbbās repeated his previous answer. Then the man said, ‘The anfāl that God
mentioned in His Book, what is it?’ The man kept asking Ibn ʿAbbās until the
latter grew weary of his questions and said, ‘Do you know who this man
reminds me of? He is like Ṣabīgh whom ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb punished.’”515
1314. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether someone who slays an enemy
in battle is allowed to keep the personal effects of the slain warrior without

513 The ordinary rule that applies to the division of battlefield spoils (ghanīma) is that the spoils
are gathered into one pool, out of which one-fifth is given to the state and the remaining
four-fifths are divided equally among the soldiers who participated in the campaign. Mālik
understood the individual right of a Muslim soldier to take the effects of an enemy warrior
whom he personally killed as constituting an excess share of booty (nafl), which comes out of
the one-fifth share of the state. This entitlement is thus contingent on the ruler’s permission
and not a freestanding right of the soldiers, as Mālik makes clear in hadith no. 1314. This
view contrasts with that of the Shāfiʿīs, who hold that soldiers always have a superior claim
to the personal possessions of enemy soldiers whom they kill on the battlefield.
514 Insofar as Ibn ʿAbbās believed that the personal effects of a slain enemy warrior are con-
sidered anfāl, that is, excess shares of booty, his definition supports Mālik’s view, stated
expressly in the following hadith (no. 1314), that the right to take possession of the personal
effects of a slain enemy warrior is contingent on the ruler’s prior permission.
515 Ṣabīgh was reported to have repeatedly asked ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb about the meanings of
obscure passages of the Quran that were not relevant to the proper understanding or prac-
tice of Islam. When ʿUmar became convinced that Ṣabīgh was not sincere in his questions, he
had him punished and exiled for a period of time.
366 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

the prior permission of the ruler (imām). He said, ‘No one is allowed to do
so without the prior permission of the ruler, and the ruler may give such
permission only after the exercise of good-faith judgment (ijtihād). The
only report that has reached me in which the Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
“Whoever slew an enemy soldier is entitled to strip him of his effects,” was
from the Battle of Ḥunayn.’”

Chapter 11. What Has Come Down regarding the Grant of Excess
Shares of Booty (Nafal) Out of the State’s One-Fifth Share
1315. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
said, “People were given extra shares of booty out of the one-fifth share.”
Mālik said, “That is the best view I have heard on this issue.”
1316. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether excess shares of booty could
be awarded out of spoils taken in the first battle of a campaign. He said,
‘That is determined by the good-faith judgment (ijtihād) of the ruler
(imām).516 We Medinese do not have a definitive rule on this question
beyond following the good-faith judgment of the responsible public official
(sulṭān). No evidence has reached me to indicate that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) always granted excess shares of booty to soldiers in his campaigns,
although I am aware that he did give excess shares of booty in some of his
campaigns, such as at the Battle of Ḥunayn. This is permitted, however, only
in accordance with the good-faith judgment of the ruler, whether after the
first battle of the campaign or after any subsequent battle.’”

Chapter 12. The Cavalry’s Share of the Booty

1317. Mālik said, “It reached me that ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz would say,
‘The cavalryman receives two shares of booty for every one given to the
infantryman.’” Mālik added, “That is what I have always heard to be the rule
(wa lam azal asmaʿ dhālika).”
1318. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether a man who brought several
horses to the campaign was entitled to a share for each horse. He said, ‘I
have not heard anything about that case. I do not believe, however, that he is
entitled to receive a share for any horse other than the one he rode in battle.’”
1319. Mālik said, “I believe that draft horses and half-Arabian horses are
also deemed to count as horses. God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says in His
Book, ‘And (He has created) horses, mules, and donkeys for you to ride.’517

516 The reference to the ruler would also include the ruler’s authorized delegate, such as the
relevant battlefield commander or a governor.
517 Al-Naḥl, 16:8.
Book 21 367

God also said, ‘Against them, marshal your strength as best you can and
make ready the steeds of war, striking awe into God’s enemies and yours.’518
It is my view that draft horses and half-Arabians are indeed horses and are
therefore entitled to shares of booty from a campaign, if the commanding
officer incorporates them in the campaign. Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab once said,
when he was asked whether the alms-tax (ṣadaqa) was levied on draft
horses, ‘Is the alms-tax levied on horses?’”

Chapter 13. What Has Come Down regarding the Misappropriation of

Booty (Ghulūl)
1320. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Rabbih b. Saʿīd reported from ʿAmr b. Shuʿayb
that when the Messenger of God (pbuh) departed from Ḥunayn toward
al-Jiʿirrāna,519 the soldiers were so adamant in demanding their shares of
the spoils after the Battle of Ḥunayn that his she-camel was backed into a
tree, with the Prophet (pbuh) still mounted on its back. His cloak became
entangled in the tree’s branches, and it was torn off his back. The Messenger
of God (pbuh) said, “Give me back my cloak! Do you really doubt whether I
will divide among you the spoils that God has bestowed on you this day? By
Him whose hand holds my soul, if God had bestowed on you livestock equal
to the number of acacia trees on the plain of Tihāma,520 I would have divided
them among all of you, and then you certainly would not think me either a
miser, a coward, or a liar.” When the Messenger of God (pbuh) dismounted,
he stood among the soldiers and said, “Hand over even a thread and needle
that you might have taken from the enemy, for misappropriation of booty
(ghulūl) results in disgrace, fire, and shame on the Day of Resurrection.” The
Messenger of God (pbuh) then picked up a ball of camel hair (or something
else) from the ground and said, “By Him whose hand holds my soul, only
one-fifth of the spoils that God has bestowed on you goes to me, and even
that,” and he pointed to the camel hair, “I shall divide among you.”
1321. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Muḥammad b.
Yaḥyā b. Ḥabbān that Zayd b. Khālid al-Juhanī said, “A man died at the Battle
of Ḥunayn,521 and they told the Messenger of God (pbuh) so that he might
perform the man’s funeral prayer.” Zayd stated that the Messenger of God

518 Al-Anfāl, 8:60.

519 A small village northeast of Mecca.
520 The acacia is a thorny bush found in abundance in Tihāma, the thin coastal plain of the Ara-
bian peninsula that runs parallel to the Red Sea.
521 This narration of the Muwaṭṭaʾ identifies the man as having died at the Battle of Ḥunayn,
which is an error. The correct version of the story says that he died at Khaybar, an oasis in
the Hijaz controlled by a Jewish tribe, which is more consistent with the facts reported in this
story. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 3:200.
368 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

(pbuh) said, “You pray over your companion!” The color drained from their
faces at those words. Zayd stated, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Your
companion misappropriated booty while campaigning for the sake of God.’
We then opened the dead man’s pack and found there some beads that had
belonged to some Jews, not even amounting to two silver coins.”
1322. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from ʿAbd Allāh b.
al-Mughīra b. Abī Burda al-Kinānī that it reached him that the Messenger
of God (pbuh) went to each of the tribes to supplicate God on their behalf,
except for one tribe. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Mughīra said, “That tribe’s men
discovered that one of them had hidden in his saddle bag a necklace that he
had misappropriated from the spoils. The Messenger of God (pbuh) went to
see them, and he magnified God (said ‘God is great,’ Allāhu akbar) over the
people in the same way as is done over the deceased.”522
1323. According to Mālik, Thawr b. Zayd al-Dīlī reported from Abū
al-Ghayth Sālim, the freedman (mawlā) of Ibn Muṭīʿ, that Abū Hurayra said,
“We set out with the Messenger of God (pbuh) in the year of the Battle of
Ḥunayn. The only booty we seized consisted of cloth and equipment, no
gold or silver. Rifāʿa b. Zayd gifted the Messenger of God (pbuh) a young
black slave named Midʿam. The Messenger of God (pbuh) resolved to
march toward Wādī al-Qurā. When we arrived at Wādī al-Qurā, Midʿam was
unsaddling the mount of the Messenger of God (pbuh) when a stray arrow
struck and killed him. The people said, ‘He has the good fortune of Paradise.’
The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘No, by Him whose hand holds my soul,
the cloak that he misappropriated at the Battle of Ḥunayn, before the spoils
were divided, is ablaze on his body.’ When the people heard this, a man
brought a sandal-lace or two to the Messenger of God (pbuh), who said, ‘A
sandal-lace or two of fire.’”
1324. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that it reached him that
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās said, “Whenever it becomes normal among a people
to misappropriate booty, their hearts are gripped with fear and they lose
their courage. So, too, whenever fornication becomes widespread among
a people, death follows close in its wake. Whenever a people fail to give
full measure in trade, their livelihoods are destroyed. Whenever a people
judge falsely, murder spreads among them. Whenever a people do not

522 According to Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, the narrator of this hadith, ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Mughīra b. Abī
Burda al-Kinānī, is an obscure figure, and as a result this report is not of sufficient strength
to establish a rule. As for the Prophet’s (pbuh) magnification of God over the people, Ibn ʿAbd
al-Barr is at a loss to explain the meaning of the act, but he concludes that since the report
is weak, there is no need to expend great effort to comprehend its precise meaning beyond
affirming that misappropriation of the spoils of war is a great sin. See RME, 1:481 n. 8.
Book 21 369

faithfully fulfill their covenants with their enemies, their enemies come to
dominate them.”

Chapter 14. Martyrs for the Sake of God

1325. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “By Him whose hand holds
my soul, would that I could fight for the sake of God, be killed, and then be
revived, so that I could be killed, revived, and killed again.” After reporting
this, Abū Hurayra would repeat three times, “I swear by God this is true.”
1326. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “God looks with pleasure
at two men, one of whom kills the other but each of whom nonetheless
enters Paradise. The first fights for the sake of God and is killed; and then,
by God’s grace, the killer repents, fights for the sake of God, and dies as
a martyr.”
1327. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “By Him whose hand holds
my soul, anyone wounded while campaigning for the sake of God—and God
knows best who such people are—will appear on the Day of Resurrection
with blood gushing from his wound: its color is that of blood, but its scent
is that of musk.”
1328. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
would say, “God, let me not die at the hand of a man who has performed
even a single prostration that he could use as evidence against me on the
Day of Resurrection!”
1329. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Saʿīd b. Abī Saʿīd
al-Maqburī, from ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Qatāda, that his father said, “A man
came to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and said, ‘Messenger of God, if I am
slain while campaigning for God’s sake, showing patience and hoping for a
reward from God, advancing toward and not fleeing from the enemy, will
God pardon my sins?’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Yes.’ As the man
turned away, the Messenger of God (pbuh) called him back (or ordered that
the man be called back) and said to him, ‘Could you repeat your question?’
The man repeated his question, and the Prophet (pbuh) said to him, ‘Yes;
everything except for your debts. That is what Gabriel told me.’”
1330. According to Mālik, Abū al-Naḍr, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿUmar b.
ʿUbayd Allāh, reported that it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said about the martyrs of the Battle of Uḥud, “I certainly do testify on their
370 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

behalf.” Then Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq said, “Aren’t we, Messenger of God, their
brethren? We embraced Islam just as they did, and we struggled for God’s
sake just as they did.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Certainly you did,
but I have no idea what you will do after I die.” Abū Bakr wept inconsolably
and then said, “What—shall we still be alive even after you are dead?”
1331. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh)
was sitting nearby as a grave was being dug in Medina. A man looked into
the grave and said, ‘An awful bed indeed for the believer.’ The Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, ‘Baneful is that which you say.’ The man said, ‘But that is not
what I meant, Messenger of God! I only meant that dying as a martyr is more
virtuous.’ Then the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘There is nothing equivalent
to martyrdom, but there is no place on earth I would rather have contain my
grave than this patch of ground here.’ He repeated this three times.”

Chapter 15. What Constitutes Martyrdom

1332. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
would say, “God, I ask that You grant me martyrdom and that I die in Your
Messenger’s city!”523
1333. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that ʿUmār b. al-Khaṭṭāb
said, “The believer’s nobility lies in his mindfulness of God; his piety consists
of the stock of his good deeds; and his manliness lies in his moral character.
Courage and cowardice are instincts that God places in whomsoever He
wills. Thus, the coward flees even from his own father and mother, whereas
the courageous even risk their lives for trivial things. Death in battle is but
one kind of death, and the martyr is someone who has given his life for the
sake of God in expectation of His reward.”

Chapter 16. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to Preparing Martyrs

for Burial
1334. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb was washed, shrouded, and prayed over even though
he was a martyr; may God have mercy on him.
1335. According to Mālik, it reached him that the people of knowledge
would say, “Martyrs are not to be washed, nor is a funeral prayer to be
performed over them. Rather, they are to be buried in the clothes in which
they were slain.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘That rule is for someone who dies
on the battlefield and whose corpse is recovered only after his death. As for

523 ʿUmar is referring here to Medina.

Book 21 371

someone who is carried away from the battlefield wounded but alive and
who survives for some period of time before succumbing to his wounds, he
is to be washed and the funeral prayer is to be performed over him, just as
was done in the case of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb.’”

Chapter 17. What Is Reprehensible to Give in Support of a Campaign

for the Sake of God
1336. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
would requisition 40,000 camels each year, assigning one man per camel
to the Levant and two men per camel to Iraq. An Iraqi came to him and
said, “Provide Suḥaym and me with a mount.” ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said to
him, “I admonish you to tell the truth! By God, tell me, is Suḥaym just a
waterskin?”524 The man said, “Yes.” 

Chapter 18. Exhorting the People to Campaign for the Sake of God
(Jihād)
1337. According to Mālik, Isḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa reported that Anas
b. Mālik said, “When the Messenger of God (pbuh) went to Qubāʾ, he would
visit Umm Ḥarām bt. Milḥān, and she would feed him. At that time, she was
married to ʿUbāda b. al-Ṣāmit. One day, the Messenger of God (pbuh) paid
her a visit, and she fed him. She sat down to delouse his hair, and he fell
asleep. Then he awoke, smiling. She said, ‘Why are you smiling, Messenger
of God?’ He said, ‘Some of my community appeared to me in my dream,
campaigning for God’s sake, sailing the open seas, kings on thrones’” (or
“like kings on thrones”; Isḥāq was unsure). Anas said, “She said, ‘Messenger
of God, supplicate God that He make me one of them.’ He supplicated God as
she requested, put his head down, and went back to sleep. Then he woke up,
smiling. She said, ‘Why are you smiling, Messenger of God?’ He said, ‘Some
of my community appeared to me in my dream, campaigning for God’s sake,
kings on thrones (or “like kings on thrones”),’ as he said the first time. She
said, ‘Messenger of God, supplicate God that He make me one of them.’ He
said, ‘You will be among the very first.’” Isḥāq said, “She participated in
a naval campaign organized by Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān, and as she came
ashore, she was thrown from her horse and died.”
1338. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Abū Sāliḥ al-Sammān,
from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Were I indifferent
to the hardship facing my community, I would have always accompanied

524 “Suḥaym,” in addition to being a proper name, is also used generically to refer to a waterskin.
The man was trying to deceive ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb into giving him a camel solely for his own
use.
372 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

every raiding party that set out for God’s sake. But I cannot find a sufficient
number of animals for them to ride, nor do they have a sufficient number
of their own animals on which they could ride. Therefore, they would be
distressed if I set out to campaign and they stayed behind. Alas, would that
I could fight for God’s sake, be killed, and then be revived, then be killed
again, then be revived, and then be killed again!”
1339. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “At the Battle of Uḥud, the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Who will get me news of Saʿd b. al-Rabīʿ
al-Anṣārī?’ A man replied, ‘I will, Messenger of God.’ The man set off,
wandering among the dead, and then Saʿd b. al-Rabīʿ said to him, ‘What
is your business?’ The man said, ‘The Messenger of God (pbuh) sent
me to look for you so I could find out what happened to you.’ Saʿd said,
‘Return to him and give him my salutations. Then tell him that I have been
stabbed twelve times and am mortally wounded. And tell the men that if
the Messenger of God is killed today, they have no excuse before God if
even one of them survives.’”
1340. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that the Messenger of
God (pbuh) was exhorting the people to struggle against the enemy, and
he mentioned Paradise while a Medinese man was nearby, eating dates.
Hearing this, the man said, “I would indeed be covetous of this world were
I to remain seated here until I finish these.” Then, he tossed them aside,
grabbed his sword, and fought until he was killed.
1341. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Muʿādh b. Jabal
said, “Campaigns are of two kinds. The first kind is a campaign in which
valuable property is spent on equipment, the soldiers are in agreement, the
commanding officers are obeyed, and disorder is avoided. This is a campaign
that is good from beginning to end. The second kind is a campaign in which
nothing of value is spent in preparation, the soldiers are quarrelsome,
insubordination in the ranks is rife, and disorder prevails. This is the kind
of campaign in which a man who fights returns bereft of reward.”

Chapter 19. What Has Come Down regarding Horses and Horse
Racing, and Spending in Support of a Campaign for the Sake of God
1342. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Blessings shall lie in the forelocks of horses
until the Day of Resurrection.”
1343. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) would hold a horse race for those horses that
were lean and muscled from their years of racing. The race would begin at
Book 21 373

al-Ḥafyāʾ and end at Thaniyyat al-Wadāʿ.525 He would hold another race for
horses that were in the early stages of their training. That race would begin
from Thaniyyat al-Wadāʿ and end at the Mosque of Banū Zurayq.526 ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUmar sometimes raced with them.
1344. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he heard Saʿīd b.
al-Musayyab say, “There is no harm in providing a purse for the winner of
a horse race if a third person provides it, on the condition that the winner
takes the purse but the loser owes nothing.”527
1345. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) was seen using his cloak to wipe the face of his horse. He was asked
why he did that, and he replied, “God reproached me tonight on account of
my horses.”528
1346. According to Mālik, Ḥumayd al-Ṭawīl reported from Anas b. Mālik
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) set out for Khaybar529 and arrived there
at night. It was his practice that if he reached his enemy in the darkness of
night, he would not launch an attack until daybreak. In the morning, the
Jews went out to their fields with their spades and large baskets, and when
they saw him, they said, “It is Muḥammad! By God, it is Muḥammad and his
army!” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “God is great! May Khaybar fall!
Indeed, when we come to a people’s territory, it is a baneful morning for
those who have been warned.”
1347. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Ḥumayd b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “Whoever spends anything of his property for God’s sake shall be
addressed in Paradise with the words, ‘O servant of God, this indeed is
excellent!’ Whoever performed prayer shall be called from the Gate of
Prayer; whoever fought for God’s sake shall be called from the Gate of Jihād;
whoever gave charity shall be called from the Gate of Charity; and whoever
fasted shall be called from the Gate of al-Rayyān.”530 Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq said,

525 Thaniyyat al-Wadāʿ is the place where those leaving Medina would be bid farewell, and
al-Ḥafyāʾ is a location outside of Medina between five and seven mīls from Thaniyyat
al-Wadāʿ. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 3:71.
526 The Banū Zurayq was a Medinese clan, and the mosque in their settlement was approxi-
mately one mīl from Thaniyyat al-Wadāʿ. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 3:71.
527 Gambling is strictly prohibited in Islam.
528 In other words, God had told the Prophet (pbuh) to be more gentle with his horses.
529 Khaybar, an oasis town located approximately four days’ march north of Medina, was a site
of intense date cultivation by a Hijazi Jewish community. The Prophet (pbuh) campaigned
against them after making peace with the Meccans at al-Ḥudaybiya. Khaybar surrendered
after a brief siege.
530 Rayyān is the opposite of ʿaṭshān, which means “thirsty,” or what a fasting person must
endure patiently. Accordingly, the “Gate of al-Rayyān” may be understood literally as the
“Gate of the Quenched” because those admitted to Paradise will never suffer thirst again.
374 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

“Messenger of God, anyone who is called from one of these gates surely
does not need to be called from the others, but is it possible that someone
might be called from all of them?” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Yes,
and I hope that you are one of them.”

Chapter 20. The Proprietary Rights of Protected People (Ahl al-

Dhimma) Who Later Embrace Islam to Their Land
1348. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about a ruler (imām) who agreed to
accept payment of the poll-tax (jizya) from a people in exchange for peace.
They then faithfully paid the levy. The questioner said, ‘Do you think that
those of them who embrace Islam become proprietors of their land, or
should the land and such individuals’ other property belong to the Muslims?’
Mālik said, ‘It depends. If one of those who have entered into a peace treaty
with the Muslims531 embraces Islam, he has a greater entitlement to his
land and property than do the other Muslims. But if one of those who were
conquered532 and whose lands were taken by force later embraces Islam,
his land and property belong to the other Muslims. This is because those
who were conquered were dispossessed of their lands by force of arms,
and so their property devolved upon the Muslims. By contrast, those who
concluded a peace treaty with the Muslims and were not conquered by
force of arms remained in possession of their persons and their property at
the time they made peace with the Muslims. Their peace treaty confirmed
their property rights. Consequently, they have no duties beyond those set
out in their peace treaty.’”

Chapter 21. The Burial of Multiple Bodies in a Single Grave out of

Necessity and Abū Bakr’s Discharge of the Promises of the Prophet
(pbuh) after His Death
1349. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
b. Abī Ṣaʿṣaʿa reported that it reached him that a flood partially uncovered
the grave of ʿAmr b. al-Jamūḥ and ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr, two Medinese (anṣār)
from the tribe of Banū Salima, exposing their bodies.533 They had been buried
together in one grave next to the flood plain. Both had been martyred at the
Battle of Uḥud. Their grave was excavated and their bodies exhumed so that
they could be reinterred somewhere other than the flood plain. When their

531 In Arabic, such people are literally called “people of the treaty” (ahl al-ṣulḥ), meaning that
their rights have been secured by their entering into a treaty with the Muslim conquerors.
532 In Arabic, such people are called “people of conquest” (ahl al-ʿanwa), meaning that the Mus-
lim conquerors subdued them by force.
533 According to Zurqānī, the Banū Salima was a branch of the Khazraj, one of the two major
Arab tribes in Medina prior to Islam. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 3:79.
Book 21 375

bodies were exhumed, it was discovered that they had not yet decomposed,
and it was as though they had just died yesterday. One of them, who had
been wounded, had placed his hand over his wound and had been buried
in that posture. His hand was lifted from the wound and then released, and
it returned to its original position. Forty-six years had elapsed between the
Battle of Uḥud and the day when their bodies were exhumed.
1350. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘There is no harm in burying two or three
men together in the same grave out of necessity, with the oldest being
placed nearest to Mecca.’”
1351. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said, “Abū Bakr
received some property from Baḥrayn, so he said, ‘Anyone who received
an undertaking or a promise from the Messenger of God (pbuh) should
come see me.’ Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh went to him, and Abū Bakr gave him three
complete handfuls.”534

The Book of Campaigning for the Sake of God (Jihād)

Is Complete, through God’s Most Excellent
Assistance, with Praise to Him.

534 A handful means both hands. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 3:81.

 Book 22
The Book of Sacrificial Animals (Ḍaḥāyā)535

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

Chapter 1. Animals That May Not Be Sacrificed

1352. According to Mālik, ʿAmr b. al-Ḥārith reported from ʿUbayd b. Fayrūz,
from al-Barāʾ b. ʿĀzib, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) was asked which
animals should not be offered in sacrifice. He waved his hand and said, “Four
types.” (Al-Barāʾ was waving his hand, saying, “My hand is shorter than that
of the Messenger of God, pbuh.”) “Animals that are manifestly lame, blind in
one eye, ill, or emaciated and lacking any fat.”
1353. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would not
consecrate camels for the Pilgrimage (ḥajj) or offer sheep or goats in sacrifice
on the Feast of the Sacrificial Animals (ʿīd al-aḍḥā) unless the animals in both
cases were at least two years old and free of physical defects. Yaḥyā said,
“Mālik said, ‘Of all the views I have heard, this view is the one I prefer most.’”

Chapter 2. The Prohibition against Slaughtering the Sacrificial Animal

(Ḍaḥiyya) before the Imam Departs from the Communal Prayer Ground
1354. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Bushayr b. Yasār that
Abū Burda b. Niyār slaughtered his sacrificial animal before the Messenger
of God (pbuh) slaughtered his animal on the day of the Feast of the Sacrificial
Animals (ʿīd al-aḍḥā). Abū Burda later asserted that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) ordered him to slaughter a second animal, to which Abū Burda said,
“I can find only a one-year-old kid,536 Messenger of God!” The Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, “If all you can find is a kid, then by all means slaughter it.”

535 Ḍaḥāyā is the plural of ḍaḥiyya. It refers to animals sacrificed on ʿīd al-aḍḥā, the Feast of
the Sacrificial Animals, by those Muslims who are not performing the Pilgrimage (ḥajj). The
Feast of the Sacrificial Animals coincides with the day on which the pilgrims at Minā slaugh-
ter their sacrosanct animals (hady). Mālik refers to that day in the context of Pilgrimage as
yawm al-naḥr, the Day of the Slaughter of the Sacrosanct Animals.
536 That is, a baby goat.

377
378 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1355. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from ʿAbbād b. Tamīm

that ʿUwaymir b. Ashqar slaughtered his sacrificial animal before he set
out to attend the prayer for the Feast of the Sacrificial Animals. When he
mentioned that to the Messenger of God (pbuh), the Prophet ordered him
to slaughter a second animal.

Chapter 3. What Is Desirable in Sacrificial Animals (Ḍaḥāyā)

1356. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar once offered
an animal in sacrifice in Medina. Nāfiʿ said, “He ordered me to purchase for
him a mighty horned ram, one that I would slaughter on his behalf on the
Feast of the Sacrificial Animals (ʿīd al-aḍḥā) at the communal prayer ground.
I did as he asked, and then the meat was taken to ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, who
shaved his head for the occasion. He was ill and did not attend the Feast
Prayer with the people that day. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say, ‘Shaving the
head is not obligatory for someone who offers an animal in sacrifice on the
Feast of the Sacrificial Animals,’ but that is what he himself did.”

Chapter 4. Preserving the Meat of Sacrificial Animals (Aḍāḥī)537

1357. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zubayr al-Makkī reported from Jābir b.
ʿAbd Allāh that the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited the consumption
of the meat of sacrificial animals (ḍaḥāyā) after three days had passed from
their slaughter. Later, he then said, “Eat, take provisions from, and store the
meat of the sacrificial animals.”
1358. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr reported that ʿAbd Allāh
b. Wāqid said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) forbade us to eat the meat of
sacrificial animals after three days had passed from their slaughter.” ʿAbd Allāh
b. Abī Bakr said, “I mentioned this to ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, who said, ‘ʿAbd
Allāh b. Wāqid is correct. I heard ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), say, “A
group of needy bedouin came to Medina at the time of the Feast of the Sacrificial
Animals (ʿīd al-aḍḥā) during the lifetime of the Messenger of God (pbuh). The
Messenger of God (pbuh) declared, ‘Store enough meat to last you for only
three days, and give the rest away in charity.’ Some time later, some people went
to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and mentioned to him that it had been their
ordinary practice to benefit from their sacrificial animals fully, by melting and
collecting their fat and making waterskins, among other things. The Messenger
of God (pbuh) said, ‘And what of it?’ or something to that effect.538 They said,
‘But you prohibited us from consuming the meat of the sacrificial animals after

537 Aḍāḥī is the plural of uḍḥiyya, like ḍaḥāyā is the plural of ḍaḥiyya; both refer to animals sac-
rificed on the Feast of the Sacrifical Animals (ʿīd al-aḍḥā).
538 The narrator is unsure of the Prophet’s (pbuh) precise words.
Book 22 379

three days had passed from their slaughter.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
‘That was only on account of that group of needy people (dāffa) who came
to you on that occasion. So eat from the sacrifical animals, give some away in
charity, and preserve what is left of their meat for yourselves.’”’”539 By dāffa, he
meant the group of needy people who came to Medina.
1359. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported from Abū
Saʿīd al-Khudrī that when he returned from a journey, his family offered
him some meat. He said to them, “Did you take care to make sure that this
meat is not that of sacrificial animals?” They said, “Well, it is.” Abū Saʿīd said,
“But didn’t the Messenger of God prohibit us from eating it?” They said,
“The Messenger of God (pbuh) made a new rule regarding this matter after
you departed.” Abū Saʿīd left and inquired about the prohibition, and he was
told that the Messenger of God (pbuh) indeed had said, “I had prohibited
you from consuming the meat of sacrificial animals after three days had
passed from their slaughter, but now you may eat from it, give charity from
it, and preserve what remains of it. Further, I had prohibited you from
storing dried fruit in basins of water, but now you may do so, remembering
that everything that inebriates is prohibited. Likewise, I had previously
prohibited you from visiting graves, but now you may visit them, provided
you do not say ‘hujran,’” that is, do not say something foul.

Chapter 5. Shared Ownership of Sacrificial Animals (Ḍaḥāyā) and the

Number of People Who Can Share in a Sacrificial Cow, Yearling (Shāt),
or Camel
1360. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zubayr al-Makkī reported that Jābir
b. ʿAbd Allāh said, “In the year of al-Ḥudaybiya,540 we, together with the
Messenger of God (pbuh), slaughtered one camel for seven of us and one
cow for seven of us.”
1361. According to Mālik, ʿUmāra b. Ṣayyād reported that ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār
informed him that Abū Ayyūb al-Anṣārī informed him, “It used to be
customary that we would offer only one yearling (shāt) as a sacrifice
(uḍḥiyya). A man would slaughter it for himself and his entire household.

539 In other words, the Prophet (pbuh) prohibited his community from consuming more than
three days’ worth of the sacrificial animals’ meat and ordered them to give away the rest in
order to ensure that the needs of this specific group of destitute visitors had been met. He did
not intend to prohibit Muslims from storing the meat of sacrificial animals in the future.
540 Al-Ḥudaybiya is a valley between ten and fifteen mīls (approximately 9 to 14 km) from Mecca
on the road to Jeddah. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 3:117. The “year of al-Ḥudaybiya” was the
sixth year of the Hijra (628 CE) and is so named because in that year the Prophet (pbuh)
made a peace treaty with the Meccans in al-Ḥudaybiya. The treaty permitted the Muslims to
return the following year to perform the Pilgrimage (ḥajj).
380 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Thereafter pride set in, so it became a game in which the people, out of
pride, strove to outdo one another in their sacrifices.”
1362. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The best view that I have heard regarding
single camels, cows, or sheep is that a man can slaughter any of these on behalf
of himself and his household, provided that he owns the animal outright.
He slaughters it on his household’s behalf, and he shares it with them. As
for a group of people coming together to buy a camel, a cow, or a sheep
and sharing it either for slaughter at the Pilgrimage (ḥajj) or for the Feast
of the Sacrificial Animals (ʿīd al-aḍḥā), with each one of them contributing
his pro rata share of its price and taking his pro rata share of its meat—
that is a detestable practice.541 We have heard the report that there should
be no shared ownership of an animal that is designated for slaughter at the
Pilgrimage. Rather, an animal should be slaughtered exclusively on behalf of
a single household.’”
1363. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh)
never slaughtered anything on behalf of himself and his household other
than a single camel or a single cow.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘I do not know
which of the two Ibn Shihāb said.’”

Chapter 6. Offering a Sacrificial Animal (Ḍaḥiyya) on Behalf of a Fetus

in Its Mother’s Womb542
1364. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said,
“Animals may be offered in sacrifice for two days after the first day of the
Feast of the Sacrificial Animals (ʿīd al-aḍḥā).”
1365. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib said something
similar to that.
1366. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would not
offer a sacrificial animal on behalf of an unborn fetus in the womb of its mother.
1367. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Offering an animal (ḍaḥiyya) in sacrifice
is an act of great merit, but it is not obligatory. Yet it is not acceptable, in
my opinion, for someone who can afford the price of a sacrificial animal to
refrain from offering a sacrifice.’”

The Book of Sacrificial Animals (Ḍaḥāyā) Is Complete,

and Praise Belongs to God, the Lord of the Worlds.

541 The Mālikīs take the position that the slaughter of a jointly owned animal in the manner
described by Mālik renders the sacrifice invalid.
542 Other narrations of the Muwaṭṭaʾ include in the chapter title the phrase “and Mention of the
Number of Days in the Feast of the Sacrificial Animals.”
 Book 23
The Book of the Newborn Sacrifice (ʿAqīqa)

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family
and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.

Chapter 1. What Has Come Down regarding the Newborn Sacrifice

(ʿAqīqa)
1368. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from a man of the Banū
Ḍamra that his father said that the Messenger of God (pbuh) was asked
about the newborn sacrifice, and he said, “I dislike disloyalty in children
(ʿuqūq),” as though he disliked the name of the practice.543 The Messenger
of God said, “If a man to whom a child is born wishes to slaughter an animal
in celebration of the newborn’s birth, he should do so.”
1369. According to Mālik, Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad reported that his father said,
“Fāṭima, the daughter of the Messenger of God (pbuh), weighed the hair of
each of her children, Ḥasan, Ḥusayn, Zaynab, and Umm Kulthūm, when they
were born. Then she gave in charity the silver equivalent of the weight of
the child’s hair.”
1370. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported that
Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Ḥusayn said, “Fāṭima, the daughter of the Messenger of
God (pbuh), weighed the hair of her sons, Ḥasan and Ḥusayn, and she gave
in charity the silver equivalent of the weight of each child’s hair.”

Chapter 2. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to the Newborn

Sacrifice (ʿAqīqa)
1371. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar never
refused the request of any member of his household who asked him to

543 The Arabic word for the practice of slaughtering an animal on the birth of a child is ʿaqīqa,
which is derived from the same root as the word for a child’s disloyalty to his parents, ʿuqūq.

381
382 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

perform a newborn sacrifice. He would slaughter a yearling (shāt) for any

child born, whether male or female.
1372. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported that
Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. al-Ḥārith al-Taymī said, “I heard my father say that
performing the newborn sacrifice is desirable, even if only with a sparrow.”
1373. According to Mālik, it reached him that an animal was slaughtered on
the occasion of the births of Ḥasan and Ḥusayn, the sons of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib.
1374. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father, ʿUrwa
b. al-Zubayr, would slaughter a yearling on the birth of each of his children,
whether male or female.
1375. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) regarding the
newborn sacrifice is that whoever performs it should slaughter a yearling
for each child, whether the child is male or female. The newborn sacrifice is
not obligatory, but it is commendable and one of the norms that the people
among us have always practiced (min al-amr alladhī lam yazal ʿalayhi al-nās
ʿindanā). The position of someone who performs the newborn sacrifice is
equivalent to that of someone who slaughters an animal (nusuk) for the
Pilgrimage (ḥajj) or offers a sacrificial animal (ḍaḥāyā) on the Feast of
the Sacrificial Animals (ʿīd al-aḍḥā). Accordingly, it is not permissible to
slaughter an animal that is blind in one eye, emaciated, wounded, or sick;
neither are its meat or skin to be sold. Its bones are to be broken,544 its meat
eaten by the family, and some of it given away as charity. The child shall not
be smeared with any of its blood.”545

The Book of the Newborn Sacrifice (ʿAqīqa) Is

Complete, and Praise Belongs to God.

544 Breaking the bones of the sacrificial animal is permissible but not obligatory according to
Zurqānī. The practice is undertaken to defy a pre-Islamic Arab taboo against breaking the
bones of sacrificial animals. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 3:151.
545 The prohibition against smearing the newborn with blood reflects a rejection of pre-Islamic
pagan practices. Jurists instead recommend applying perfume to the child. Bājī, al-Muntaqā,
3:104.
 Book 24
The Book of Domesticated Animals Slaughtered
for Ordinary Use (Dhabāʾiḥ)546
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate
May God Bless Muḥammad and His Family.

Chapter 1. Invoking the Name of God When Slaughtering a

Domesticated Animal (Dhabīḥa)
1376. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father said,
“The Messenger of God (pbuh) was asked, ‘Messenger of God, bedouin come
from the desert, laden with slaughtered meat to sell, but we do not know
whether they invoked the name of God when they slaughtered it. Are we
permitted to buy their meat?’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Invoke
the name of God over the meat, and eat it.’” Mālik said, “That was in the
early days of Islam.”
1377. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAyyāsh
b. Abī Rabīʿa al-Makhzūmī ordered one of his young male slaves to slaughter
an animal, and when he was about to do so, ʿAbd Allāh said, “Invoke the
name of God.” The boy said, “I have.” ʿAbd Allāh said, “Invoke the name of
God, curse you!” The boy said, “I did!” ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAyyāsh then said to the
boy, “By God, I shall not eat any of its meat!”

546 Whereas the preceding chapters concerned the slaughter of sacrosanct or sacrificial animals,
this chapter deals with the slaughter of animals unconnected to any religious ritual.

383
384 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 2. What Necessity Permits in Connection with the Slaughter

(Dhakāt) of Domesticated Animals547
1378. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār that a
Medinese man from the Banū Ḥāritha was tending a milch camel of his at
Uḥud,548 when it suddenly showed signs of imminent death. Having nothing
else with him, he slaughtered it using a sharp stake. The Messenger of God
(pbuh) was later asked about what the man had done, so he said, “There is
nothing objectionable in that. You are free to eat it.”
1379. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from a Medinese man, from
Muʿādh b. Saʿd (or Saʿd b. Muʿādh), that a handmaiden of Kaʿb b. Muʿādh
was tending a flock of her sheep in Salaʿ549 when one of her sheep suffered
a mortal injury. Just before it died, she managed to get to it and slaughtered
it using a stone. The Messenger of God (pbuh) was later asked about what
she had done, so he said, “There is nothing objectionable in that. You are
free to eat it.”
1380. According to Mālik, Thawr b. Zayd al-Dīlī reported from ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿAbbās that he was asked about animals that Arab Christians slaughter.
He said, “There is nothing objectionable in eating them,” but he recited this
verse of the Quran: “And whoever of you takes them as his protector surely
is one of them.”550
1381. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās would
say, “Any animal whose carotid arteries have been cut may be eaten.”
1382. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
would say, “In case of necessity, any animal that has been slaughtered with
a cutting edge, even if dull, may be eaten.”

547 In the ordinary course of things, according to the Mālikīs, a Muslim is not permitted to eat
the meat of an animal unless it has been properly slaughtered. The most common method
of slaughter is to use a sharp blade to cut both carotid arteries. The animal must be dis-
patched with one deep cut of the blade across the neck that severs both carotids. The blood
must flow spontaneously and profusely from the arteries by virtue of the continued action
of the animal’s heart. This proves that the animal died from blood loss and not from some
other cause. Otherwise, the animal is considered carrion (mayta) and its flesh is prohibited
from consumption.
548 A mountain near Medina.
549 A small mountain in Medina.
550 Al-Māʾida, 5:51. The point of citing this verse is to imply that although it is permissible for a
Muslim to eat meat slaughtered by Christians, it is preferable for him to eat meat slaughtered
by Muslims.
Book 24 385

Chapter 3. Techniques of Slaughter That Render Meat Impermissible

for Consumption
1383. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Abū Murra, the
freedman (mawlā) of ʿAqīl b. Abī Ṭālib, that he asked Abū Hurayra about a
yearling (shāt) that had been slaughtered, but then part of it twitched. Abū
Hurayra told him it was permissible for him to eat from it. He then asked
Zayd b. Thābit, who said, “A dead animal may at times twitch,” but Zayd
nevertheless prohibited him from eating it out of fear that the animal had
not been properly slaughtered.551
1384. Mālik was asked about a sheep that was badly injured as the result of
a fall from a height. Its owner reached it and promptly slaughtered it, and
its blood gushed out, but it did not move when it was slaughtered. Mālik
said, “If he slaughtered it while it was still breathing and its eyes were still
blinking, then he may eat from it. Otherwise he may not.”

Chapter 4. Slaughtering the Fetus in the Slaughtered Animal’s Womb

1385. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“When a she-camel is slaughtered, the fetus in her womb is also considered
legally slaughtered, provided that it is fully formed and its hair has started
to grow. But when it exits its mother’s womb, it should be slaughtered so as
to drain its body of blood.”
1386. According to Mālik, Yazīd b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Qusayṭ al-Laythī reported
that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab would say, “The fetus of an animal that has been
properly slaughtered is itself deemed to have been properly slaughtered,
provided that its body is formed and its hair has begun to grow.”

551 In other words, Zayd believed that the animal might have been still alive and therefore had
not been slaughtered properly. In that case it would be carrion and could not be consumed.
 Book 25
The Book of Wild Animals (Ṣayd)

Chapter 1. Refraining from Eating What Has Been Killed with a Dull
Stick or a Stone
1387. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ said, “While I was at Jurf,552 I threw a stone
at two birds and hit both of them. One of them died immediately, so ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUmar cast it aside. He tried to slaughter the second one with an axe,
but it died before he managed to slaughter it, so he cast it aside too.”
1388. According to Mālik, it reached him that al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad
disapproved of eating any animal killed by a dull stick or clay pellets.
1389. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
disapproved of killing domesticated animals with weapons that are used to
kill wild animals (ṣayd), such as arrows.
1390. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable, in my opinion, in eating
a wild animal that has been killed with a dull stick, provided that the stick
struck a major artery or a vital organ and penetrated it, leading to the
animal’s death.”553 Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘God, Blessed and Sublime
is He, says, “O you who believe! God shall certainly test you through wild
animals within reach of your hands and your lances.”554 Any beast that a man
subdues by means of his hand, his spear, or any weapon of his, provided that
the weapon pierces it and reaches its vital organs, falls into the category of
“wild animal,” in accordance with what God has said.’”
1391. According to Mālik, he heard the people of knowledge say, “When
a hunter hits his target but some other factors contribute to the animal’s
death, such as the animal’s plunging into a body of water or a hound’s
bringing it down, that wild animal is not to be eaten unless it is certain that

552 A place in Medina.

553 Mālikī jurists understand this ruling to apply only to cases in which the animal is killed with
a sharpened edge of the stick, not with a dull side of it. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 3:121.
554 Al-Māʾida, 5:94.

387
388 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

it was the hunter’s arrow that killed it or pierced its vital organs. There
should be no doubt that the hunter is the one who killed the animal and that
it lost its life after it was hit.”
1392. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘There is nothing objectionable in a
man eating a wild animal even if he did not witness its death, provided he
sees his hound’s bite marks on the animal or his arrow stuck in its body, and
further provided that he does so before night passes. If night has passed,
however, the animal should not be eaten.’”

Chapter 2. What Has Come Down regarding Wild Animals (Ṣayd)

Captured by Hounds (Muʿallamāt)555
1393. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said
regarding hounds, “You may eat whatever they capture, whether they have
killed it or not.”
1394. According to Mālik, he heard Nāfiʿ say, “ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, ‘Eat
the wild animal that your hounds have captured, whether or not they have
eaten from it.’”
1395. According to Mālik, it reached him from Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ that he
was asked about eating a wild animal killed by a hound. Saʿd said, “You may
eat it, even if the hound has left only a single bite.”
1396. According to Mālik, he heard the people of knowledge say, regarding
the case of wild animals killed by falcons, eagles, hawks, and other birds of
prey, “If the bird has been trained to hunt and has the same skill as a hound,
there is nothing objectionable in eating what it kills, provided that the name
of God was invoked when the hunter released the bird.”
1397. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The best view that I have heard regarding a
wild animal that a hunter retrieves from a falcon’s claws or a hound’s jaws
but then fails to slaughter promptly, with the result that the animal later
dies of its wounds, is that it is not lawful to eat.’”
1398. Mālik said, “The same rules applies to a wild animal that the hunter
could have slaughtered while it was alive in the falcon’s claws or the hound’s
jaws but neglected to do so, with the result that the falcon or the hound kills
the animal. It is impermissible to eat such an animal.”
1399. Mālik said, “The same rule also applies when a hunter shoots and
hits a wild animal but it remains alive, and he negligently fails to slaughter
it and then it dies. It is impermissible to eat such an animal.”

555 The Quran expressly permits the eating of wild animals captured by hounds. Al-Māʾida, 5:4.
Book 25 389

1400. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ

ʿalayhi ʿindanā) is that if a Muslim hunts using a Zoroastrian’s hound,
releasing it in pursuit of a wild animal, and the hound takes the animal
down, killing or capturing it, he is permitted to eat that animal. There is
nothing objectionable in eating it, even if the Muslim does not slaughter the
animal. This case is no different from that of a Muslim who slaughters an
animal using a Zoroastrian’s knife, or shoots and kills a wild animal with a
Zoroastrian’s bow or arrow. In each of these cases, he kills the wild animal
using items that are the Zoroastrian’s personal property. In each case, the
meat of the wild animal he hunted and killed and that of the animal he
slaughtered is permissible, and there is nothing objectionable in eating it.
But if a Zoroastrian hunts with a Muslim’s hound, releasing it in pursuit of
a wild animal, and the hound takes it down, the animal is not to be eaten
unless a Muslim first slaughters it. That case is no different from that of a
wild animal that a Zoroastrian shoots and kills using a Muslim’s bow and
arrow, and it is the same as the case of a Zoroastrian who uses a Muslim’s
knife to slaughter an animal. Neither animal would be permissible for a
Muslim to eat.”556

Chapter 3. What Has Come Down regarding the Capture of

Sea Creatures
1401. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Hurayra
asked ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar about eating sea creatures that had been washed
ashore. ʿAbd Allāh prohibited him from eating them. Nāfiʿ said, “Then ʿAbd
Allāh left and asked to see a written copy of the Quran. When he consulted
it, he found the verse that reads, ‘Lawful to you are the sea’s creatures and
vegetation.’557 Afterward, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar sent me to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b.
Abī Hurayra with the message that there is nothing objectionable in eating
such creatures.”
1402. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that Saʿd al-Jārī, the
freedman (mawlā) of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, said, “I asked ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
about the permissibility of eating a fish that had been killed by another fish,
or a fish that had died from the cold.” He said, “There is nothing objectionable
in doing so.” Saʿd said, “I then asked ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣī the same
question, and he gave a similar answer.”

556 The principle underpinning this discussion is that Muslims are not permitted to eat the meat
of animals slaughtered by Zoroastrians, although they are permitted to eat meat slaughtered
by Christians and Jews.
557 Al-Māʾida, 5:96.
390 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1403. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from Abū Salama b.

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān that neither Abū Hurayra nor Zayd b. Thābit believed it
objectionable to eat fish that had washed ashore.
1404. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from Abū Salama b.
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān that some people from al-Jār558 came and asked Marwān
b. al-Ḥakam about eating fish that had washed ashore. He said, “There is
nothing objectionable in that.” He said, “Go ask Zayd b. Thābit and Abū
Hurayra, then come back and tell me what the two of them said.” They went
and asked the two of them the same question they had asked Marwān. They
both said, “There is nothing objectionable in that.” They then returned to
Marwān and told him what the two had said. Marwān said, “I told you so.”
1405. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable in eating fish that a
Zoroastrian catches, because the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘The water
of the sea is purifying—even dead sea creatures are lawful to eat.’
1406. Mālik said,“Because sea creatures may even be eaten when they are
dead, it makes no difference who catches them.”

Chapter 4. The Prohibition against Eating Any Predatory Animal

with Canines
1407. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Abū Idrīs al-Khawlānī,
from Abū Thaʿlaba al-Khushanī, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “It
is impermissible (ḥarām) to eat any predatory animal with canines.”559
1408. According to Mālik, Ismāʿīl b. Abī Hakīm reported from ʿAbīda b.
Sufyān al-Ḥaḍramī, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “It is impermissible to eat any predatory animal that has canines.”
Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘That is the rule among us (dhālika al-amr ʿindanā).’”

Chapter 5. The Riding Animals That One Should Avoid Eating

1409. Mālik said, “The best of the views that have been reported regarding
eating horses, mules, and donkeys is that they should not be eaten. God,
Blessed and Sublime is He, says, ‘He created horses, mules, and donkeys for

558 A village near Medina.

559 Yaḥyā is the only narrator of the Muwaṭṭaʾ to transmit this report with the word ḥarām,
indicating outright prohibition. Other narrators of the Muwaṭṭaʾ use instead the verb nahā,
“to prohibit”: “The Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited the eating of any predatory ani-
mal with canines.” The difference is important insofar as the verb nahā can also be under-
stood to express disapproval, not necessarily prohibition. The position of the Mālikī school
on this question, in fact, is that consumption of such animals is disapproved (makrūh), not
prohibited.
Book 25 391

you to ride and as ornamentation.’560 Likewise, God, Blessed and Sublime

is He, says regarding livestock, ‘That you may use some to ride and some
for food’;561 and God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says, ‘That they may
mention God’s name in gratitude for the provision He has allotted to them
of domesticated livestock’;562 and also, ‘So eat of it, and feed the poor who
show dignified restraint in their homes (qāniʿ), and those who gather around
you (muʿtarr), hoping for provision.’”563 Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘I heard
that bāʾis564 means the poor and that muʿtarr means visitors.’” Yaḥyā said,
“Mālik said, ‘So God mentioned horses, mules, and donkeys in connection
with riding and adornment, and He mentioned livestock in connection with
riding and eating.’” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Qāniʿ also means the poor.’”

Chapter 6. What Has Come Down regarding the Use of the Hides of
Dead Animals (Mayta)
1410. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās said, “The Messenger of
God (pbuh) once gave a yearling (shāt) as a gift to a freedman (mawlā) of
Maymūna, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh). Later, while going for a walk,
he passed by the yearling’s corpse, and he said to the people there, ‘Why
haven’t you taken advantage of its hide?’ They replied, ‘Messenger of God,
it died of natural causes.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Only eating
from it is prohibited.’”
1411. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from Ibn Waʿla al-Miṣrī,
from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “When a
hide has been tanned, it becomes pure.”
1412. According to Mālik, Yazīd b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Qusayṭ reported from
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Thawbān, from his mother, from ʿĀʾisha, the
wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that the Messenger of God (pbuh) decreed that
the hides of unslaughtered animals should be tanned and put to good use.

Chapter 7. What Has Come Down regarding Someone Whom

Necessity Compels to Eat Carrion (Mayta)
1413. Mālik said, “The best of the views that have been reported regarding
a starving man who finds carrion is that he may eat from it until his hunger
is satisfied. Then he should take whatever he can carry of it as provisions

560 Al-Naḥl, 16:8.

561 Al-Ghāfir, 40:79.
562 Al-Ḥajj, 22:34.
563 Al-Ḥajj, 22:36.
564 Al-Ḥajj, 22:28.
392 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

for the remainder of his journey. If he later finds an alternative, he should

throw the carrion away.”
1414. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked whether a starving man is permitted
to eat carrion if dates, crops, or sheep (ghanam) belonging to someone else
are present in that location. Mālik said, ‘If he believes that the owners of
the dates, crops, or sheep would accept his claim of dire hunger and not
deem him a thief and therefore seek to have his hand amputated, I believe
he may eat of any of those items, but only in an amount sufficient to satisfy
his hunger. He is not permitted, however, to carry anything away with him
as provisions for the rest of his journey. I prefer that he do that rather than
eat carrion. If he fears, however, that they will not believe his claim of dire
hunger and that they will accuse him of having stolen their property, then
in my opinion it is better for him to eat the carrion. In this situation, he
enjoys a broad dispensation. Nevertheless, I fear that some people who are
not actually starving will transgress and falsely claim necessity in order to
permit themselves to take other people’s property, crops, and dates.’” Yaḥyā
said, “Mālik said, ‘This is the best view that I have heard.’”

The Book of Slaughter (Dhakāt) of Domesticated

Animals565 Is Complete, with Abundant Praise to God
in the Manner That Befits Him, and His Grace on
Muḥammad, His Servant and Messenger.

565 Although there is a clear mismatch between the concluding title of this chapter and its
opening title, which was “The Book of Wild Animals (Ṣayd),” the prior chapter, “The Book of
Domesticated Animals Slaughtered for Ordinary Use,” lacked a concluding invocation.
 Book 26
The Book of Vows (Nudhūr)

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family
and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.

Chapter 1. When Vows (Nudhūr) to Take a Journey on Foot

Are Binding
1415. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd, from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās, that Saʿd b. ʿUbāda asked
the opinion of the Messenger of God (pbuh) regarding the following case:
“My mother died, having made a vow (nadhr) that she did not fulfill.” The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Fulfill it on her behalf.”
1416. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr reported that his paternal
aunt told him from his grandmother that she had vowed to walk to the
Qubāʾ mosque, but she died without doing so. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās told her
daughter that in his opinion, she should fulfill her mother’s vow by walking
to that mosque.
1417. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘No one should fulfill the unfulfilled
vow to walk made by another person.’”566
1418. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ḥabība said, “When I was still a
young man, I said to someone, ‘If a man says, “I am under an obligation to
walk to God’s House,” but he does not say, “I have vowed to walk to God’s
House,” he is under no obligation to do so.’ That man replied, ‘How about I
give you this cucumber’—he had one in his hand—‘if you say, “I am under
an obligation to walk to God’s House?”’ I said, ‘Sure,’ and said, ‘I am under
an obligation to walk to God’s House.’ I was still young at that time. I did not

566 According to Zurqānī, Mālik rejected the preceding two reports and recognized an oath to
walk to a mosque as binding only if the mosque in question was the Sacred Mosque in Mecca.
Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 3:57.

393
394 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

set out to God’s House. Then later, when I had matured, that man told me,
‘You are obliged to walk to God’s House, as we previously agreed.’ I went to
Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab and asked him about that, and he said, ‘You are under
an obligation to walk to God’s House,’ so I did.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘This
is the rule among us (hādhā al-amr ʿindanā).567’”

Chapter 2. What Has Come Down regarding Someone Who Vows

(Nadhr) to Walk to God’s House
1419. According to Mālik, ʿUrwa b. Udhayna al-Laythī said, “I set out with
one of my grandmothers, who had vowed to walk to God’s House. Along the
way, she grew weary and could not go on. She then dispatched one of her
freedmen (mawlā) to go ask ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar what she should do, and I
went with him. He conveyed her question to ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, who said to
him, ‘Tell her to mount her camel and to complete her journey. Later, if she
is able to do so, let her fulfill her vow by resuming her walk from the point
at which she stopped due to her exhaustion.’” Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say,
‘In our opinion, she must offer a sacrosanct animal (hady) in addition to
fulfilling her vow when she becomes able to do so.’”
1420. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab and Abū
Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān held the same opinion as ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar.
1421. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “I made a vow to walk to God’s
House, but then I came down with a sharp pain in my kidney and could not
continue to walk. I therefore decided to mount my camel, and I rode until
I reached Mecca, where I consulted ʿAṭāʾ b. Abī Rabāḥ and others.568 They
said, ‘You are obliged to offer a sacrosanct animal.’ Later, when I went to
Medina, I asked the people there about my case. They ordered me to fulfill
my vow by resuming my journey on foot from the point at which I stopped,
and so I did.”
1422. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
regarding someone who says, “I am under an obligation to walk to God’s
House,” is that if he becomes incapable of completing the journey on foot,
he should ride in order to complete it. Later, he should return to the spot
at which he became incapacitated and resume walking in order to fulfill
his vow. If he is still unable to complete his journey, let him walk as much
as he can and then ride for the remaining distance. He must also offer a

567 In other words, it is not necessary for a person to use the word “vow” in order to impose a
pious obligation on himself: any phrase whose apparent sense implies such an obligation, so
long as the act is itself an act of piety, is sufficient to create the obligation.
568 These are Meccan scholars from the generation that succeeded the Companions of the
Prophet of God (pbuh). These are known as Followers (tābiʿūn).
Book 26 395

sacrosanct animal, either a camel or a cow, or a yearling (shāt) if that is all

he can find.’”569
1423. Mālik was asked about someone who says to another, “I will convey
you to God’s House.” Mālik said, “If he intended by this expression to carry
that other person on his shoulders and thereby to wear himself out on
that other person’s account, he is under no obligation to fulfill such an
undertaking.570 Instead, he should journey on foot as a person normally
would and offer a sacrosanct animal. If he had no specific intention with
respect to that phrase, he should set out for the Pilgrimage (ḥajj), riding on
the back of an animal, and take that other man with him. This is because he
said, ‘I will convey you to God’s House.’ However, if the other man declines
to set out on the Pilgrimage with him, he is absolved of any further duty
toward him, and he has fulfilled any obligation that he might have owed
that other man.”
1424. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about someone who made so many
oaths on pain of walking to God’s House—such as not to talk to his brother
or his father, and so on—that it was impossible for him to fulfill all of his
obligations upon breaking the oaths. Even if he attempted to fulfill what he
was obliged to do for breaking his oaths each year, he could not possibly
live long enough to fulfill all of what he imposed on himself through his
numerous oaths. Mālik was asked whether fulfilling one of his oaths would
suffice him, or whether he was bound by all of them. Mālik said, ‘I know of
nothing that would relieve him of his obligations other than fulfilling what
he bound himself to do. Let him walk for as long as he is able, and let him
draw himself near to God by performing as many good deeds as he can.’”

Chapter 3. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to Walking to the Kabah

1425. Mālik said, “The best of the views that have been reported from
the people of knowledge regarding a man or a woman who swears an
oath on pain of walking to God’s House and then breaks that oath is that
if the oath-breaker attempts to satisfy the obligations of the broken oath
by walking to perform the Visitation (ʿumra), he or she continues to walk
until he or she finishes marching between the hillocks of Ṣafā and Marwa
(saʿy). At that point, the obligations of the oath have been completely
fulfilled. However, if the oath-breaker took on the obligation to perform
the Pilgrimage (ḥajj) on foot, he or she must walk until Mecca, and once
there, the oath-breaker continues on foot until all the rites of Pilgrimage

569 In other words, a yearling is acceptable only if he cannot easily obtain a camel or a cow.
570 That is because a vow is binding only if it entails an act of piety, and undertaking an act with
the intention of imposing hardship (mashaqqa) on oneself is not an act of piety.
396 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

have been completed, including the Circumambulation of the March (ṭawāf

al-ifāḍa).” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The obligation to walk, when made in a
vow or an oath, may only be fulfilled through performance of the Pilgrimage
or the Visitation.’”

Chapter 4. A Vow (Nadhr) That Is of No Effect Because It Involves

Disobedience to God
1426. According to Mālik, Ḥumayd b. Qays and Thawr b. Zayd al-Dīlī both
informed him—one of their versions being lengthier than the other—that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) saw a man standing in the sun, so he said,
“What is the matter with him?” They said, “He vowed not to speak, stand
in the shade, or sit down, and to fast.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
“Tell him that he should speak, enjoy the shade, and sit, but that he should
complete his fast.” Mālik said, “I have not heard anything to indicate that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) ordered that man to perform any penance
(kaffāra) for breaking his vow; rather, the Messenger of God (pbuh) ordered
him to fulfill only that part of his vow that was an act of devotion to God and
to abandon the part that was impious.”
1427. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he heard al-Qāsim
b. Muḥammad say, “A woman came to ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās and said to him,
‘I made a vow to slaughter my son.’ Ibn ʿAbbās told her, ‘Do not slaughter
your son, but rather do penance for your oath.’ Then an old man who was
present with Ibn ʿAbbās said, ‘How can there be penance for something like
this?’ Ibn ʿAbbās said, ‘God said, “Those of you who declare their wives to be
like the backs of their mothers,”571 and then He imposed penance for saying
that, as you know.’”
1428. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘What the Messenger of God (pbuh)
meant when he said, “Whoever makes a vow in disobedience to God should
not disobey Him,” was that if a man vows to walk to some distant place,
such as the Levant, Egypt, or al-Rabadha,572 or to undertake any other act
that does not entail an act of devotion to God in the event that he talks to
so-and-so or does some other specified act, he is under no obligation to
fulfill the consequences of his oath, whether or not he talks to that person
or otherwise breaks his oath. None of the consequences specified in these
oaths entail devotion to God. Only vows that impose an act of devotion to
God must be fulfilled.’”

571 Al-Mujādila, 58:2.

572 Al-Rabadha is a settlement in the Arabian Peninsula located some 200 km to the northeast of
Medina on the pilgrimage route from Iraq to Mecca.
Book 26 397

Chapter 5. Casual Speech573 in Oaths (Yamīn)574

1429. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, would say, “Casual speech in an oath is
when a person says, ‘By God, no! By God, no!’”
1430. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The best view I have heard regarding this
question is that casual speech in connection with an oath is when a person
swears to the truth of something, believing with certainty that it is indeed
so, but then it turns out not to be as he believed it to be. That is what is
meant by casual speech in connection with an oath.’”
1431. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘A binding oath takes place, for example,
when a man swears that he will not sell his garment for ten dinars but then
sells it for that price anyway, or swears that he shall beat his young slave
but then does not, and similar things. This is the kind of oath that imposes
penance (kaffāra) on its maker if he fails to perform it, but no penance is
due for an oath made in casual speech.’”
1432. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘As for someone who swears over something
while knowing that he is sinning, or swears to the truth of something while
knowing that he is lying, in order to please someone or to apologize to someone
or to gain property thereby—his sin is too great to be remedied by penance.’”

Chapter 6. Oaths (Yamīn) Whose Violation Does Not Warrant Penance

(Kaffāra)
1433. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“Whoever says ‘By God!’ and then ‘God willing’ but then does not do what
he swore to do does not violate his oath.”
1434. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The best view I have heard regarding the
inclusion of an exception in an oath is that it should be interpreted in favor
of the man who made the oath, so long as he did not interrupt his speech
and his speech was a continuous whole, one part following the other, before
he went silent. Once he goes silent, however, and stops speaking, it is too
late for him to make an exception to his oath.’”

573 Mālik’s discussion of “casual speech” in connection with oaths is an allusion to al-Baqara,
2:225, which reads, “God does not take you to account for oaths you make casually, but He
takes you to account for what your hearts have earned.”
574 An oath (yamīn) differs from a vow (nadhr) in that the object of a vow must be an act of piety,
whereas an oath has binding consequences on its maker even if it entails an impious act,
such that if he fails to fulfill the oath, he is obliged to perform an act of penance (kaffāra). It is
impermissible to fulfill an oath that requires its maker to commit a sin, such as “I swear that
if you do such-and-such, I will kill you.” In this case, the oath is deemed automatically broken
upon the occurrence of the specified event, and its maker must offer penance.
398 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1435. Mālik said, regarding a man who swears an oath to the effect that
if he violates his oath, he is a denier of God or a polytheist, and who then
indeed violates his oath, “He is not required to offer penance, nor is he an
unbeliever or a polytheist, unless his heart inwardly denies God or accepts
other deities alongside Him. He should seek God’s forgiveness and not do
that again, for what he did was certainly wicked.”

Chapter 7. Oaths (Yamīn) Whose Violation Requires Penance

(Kaffāra)
1436. According to Mālik, Suhayl b. Abī Ṣāliḥ reported from his father, from
Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Whoever swears
an oath and then comes to believe that another course of action would
be better should break his oath, do what is better, and offer penance for
violating his oath.”
1437. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘Whoever says, “I am under the
obligation of a vow (nadhr),” without specifying what he must do if he
violates it, must offer the penance due for breaking an oath if he fails to
fulfill his vow. As for merely confirming an oath, that is when someone
swears in respect of one particular thing and repeats the oath several times,
such as when he says, “By God, I will not give him less than such-or-such,”
repeating that phrase several times—like three times or more. Only one act
of penance is due for violating that oath, and it is the penance due for the
violation of an oath.’”
1438. Mālik said, “If a man swears an oath, saying, ‘By God, I shall not eat
this food, wear this garment, or enter this room,’ and it is a single oath, he
owes only one act of penance if he violates the oath. That is precisely the
same result as when a man says to his wife, ‘You are divorced if I clothe
you in this garment or permit you to go to the mosque,’ and that is a single,
continuous statement. If he violates either condition of the oath, he is
obliged to divorce his wife, but he incurs no further consequences if he later
violates the oath again. The violation of the oath in this case, regardless of
any further violations, is limited to the original violation.”575

575 What Mālik means is that a single oath that entails numerous commitments is terminated on
the first instance of its violation. Accordingly, the person who swears a single oath to refrain
from doing X, Y, or Z but then violates the oath by doing, for example, X is obliged to offer pen-
ance for that violation but is then free to do X, Y, or Z in the future. This contrasts with the case
of a person who swears three separate oaths—to refrain from doing X, to refrain from doing Y,
and to refrain from doing Z, respectively. Because these are independent oaths, violation of and
penance for one does not eliminate any obligations arising out of the other two.
Book 26 399

1439. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that a woman’s
vow binds her even without her husband’s prior permission. She must
fulfill it immediately if its effect is limited to her own person and does not
cause harm to her husband. If it does harm him, the time of performance is
deferred until such time as she can fulfill it without causing him harm. The
obligation continues to bind her until she fulfills it.”

Chapter 8. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to Penance (Kaffāra) for

Violating an Oath (Yamīn)
1440. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
say, “Whoever swears an oath, confirming it either through repetition or
by invoking God’s holy names, and then violates it must free a slave or
clothe ten poor persons. Whoever swears an oath but does not confirm it
and then violates it must feed ten poor persons, giving each of them 500
grams (one mudd) of wheat; but if he is not able to do so, he must fast
three days.”
1441. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that he
would offer penance for oaths that he had violated by feeding ten poor
people, giving each one of them 500 grams of wheat. If he had confirmed
the oath, he would free several slaves.
1442. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Sulaymān b. Yasār
said, “I found that when the people performed penance for violating
their oaths by feeding the poor, they would give 500 grams of wheat in
accordance with the Prophet’s measure. They believed that this satisfied
their obligation.”
1443. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The best view I have heard regarding
someone who chooses to offer penance for violating his oath by clothing
the poor is that he gives one garment to each man and a tunic and a head
covering to each woman. This is the minimum clothing that a person needs
to perform his or her prayers.’”

Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Reports regarding Oaths (Yamīn)

1444. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from Ibn ʿUmar that the Messenger
of God (pbuh) once found ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb mounted on his camel in the
midst of a group of riders. ʿUmar was swearing oaths in the name of his
father. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “God prohibits you from swearing
oaths in the names of your fathers. If someone wishes to swear an oath, he
should do so in God’s name, or be silent.”
400 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1445. According to Mālik, it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
would say, “No, by the One who turns hearts, from one side to the other!”
1446. According to Mālik, ʿUthmān b. Ḥafṣ b. ʿUmar b. Khalda reported
from Ibn Shihāb that it reached him that Abū Lubāba b. ʿAbd al-Mundhir
said, at the time that God brought him to Islam, “Messenger of God, should
I abandon the land of my people, the place where I have committed sin, and
dwell next to you, and part from my property, giving it freely to God and His
Messenger (pbuh)?” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “One-third of your
property is plenty.”576
1447. According to Mālik, Ayyūb b. Mūsā reported from Manṣūr al-Ḥajabī,
from his mother, from ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, that she was
asked about a man who said, “All my property is dedicated to preserving
the door of the Kabah.” ʿĀʾisha said, “He may perform penance for this
statement in the same way that he would for an oath that he violated.”
1448. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding someone who says, ‘I have placed
my property in God’s service,’ and then breaks his oath, ‘He is to place
one-third of his property in God’s service, and that is on account of what
has come down about what the Messenger of God (pbuh) said in the case of
Abū Lubāba.’”577

The Book of Vows (Nudhūr) Has Been Completed,

with Abundant Praise to God.

576 Although this report is not directly related to oaths or vows, Mālikī jurists limit the
applicability of vows or oaths that involve donating one’s property to a pious purpose to
one-third of the person’s property, presumably in reliance on this report and others like it.
577 See hadith no. 1446 above.
 Book 27
The Book of Mandatory Inheritance Shares
(Farāʾiḍ)
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate
May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family
and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.

Chapter 1. The Inheritance Rights (Mīrāth) of Children

1449. According to Mālik, “The agreed-upon rule among us and the
one that I found the people of knowledge in our town following (al-amr
al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā wa’lladhī adraktu ʿalayhi ahl al-ʿilm bi-baladinā)
concerning determinate inheritance shares (farāʾiḍ)578 is that in the matter
of the inheritance of children from their father or their mother, when
the father or the mother dies leaving male and female children, the male
receives twice the share of the female. If there are only female children and
they number two or more, they receive two-thirds of the estate between
them. If there is only one child and the child is female, she receives one-half
of the estate.579 If another person besides the children has a determinate
share in the estate, and one of the children is male, the division of the
estate begins with the determinate share of the heir who is not a child,
and what remains is shared among the children in accordance with their
proportional rights to the estate, that is, with the male receiving twice
the female’s share. If there are no living children, grandchildren from
sons are treated exactly the same as the children of the decedent would

578 Heirs in Islamic law are of two types. The first type of heir has a determinate share in the
estate, called a farīḍa or a farḍ. The second type, known as ʿaṣaba, consists broadly of the
male paternal near-relations of the deceased. In distributing an estate, one first allocates
any determinate shares owed to heirs. Whatever is left over is the surplus, faḍl, which is
then divided among the closest living paternal near-relations of the decedent, following the
principle that the male receives twice the share of the equivalent female.
579 In this case, as in the immediately preceding case of the two daughters, the daughters receive
a determinate share of the estate, namely, two-thirds in the case of two daughters and
one-half in the case of a single daughter.

401
402 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

have been had they lived—the grandsons like the decedent’s sons and the
granddaughters like the decedent’s daughters. They inherit as their fathers
would have inherited, and they preempt (ḥajb) others from sharing in the
estate just as the children would have preempted other heirs.580 If there are
both children of the decedent and children of the decedent’s sons living
at the time of the decedent’s death, and there is a living male among the
children of the decedent, the grandchildren do not share in the estate.581
If there are no living male children but there are two or more daughters,
any granddaughters from the decedent’s deceased son do not inherit with
the decedent’s daughters,582 unless there is a male relative along with these
granddaughters who has the same relationship to the decedent as they do,
or a more distant (aṭraf) one. The existence of that male relation results in
the inclusion of all the granddaughters from the decedent’s sons in the class
of paternal near-relations, provided that they are at least as closely related
to the decedent as he is.583 Together, they share whatever surplus (faḍl)
remains from the estate after determinate shares have been distributed,584
with the male receiving twice the female’s share. If there is no surplus,
however, the paternal near-relations receive nothing. If the only living child
is a female, she receives one-half of the estate as a determinate share, and
the daughters of a deceased son of the decedent, whether one or more,
share one-sixth of the estate, as long as the deceased son’s relationship to
the decedent is the same as that of the decedent’s daughters.585 If there is

580 The principle of preemption in Islamic inheritance law applies in determining the rights of the
paternal near-relations (ʿaṣaba) after the determinate shares have been distributed. Under this
principle, the existence of a nearer relation precludes a more distant relation from sharing in
the estate; an uncle, for example, preempts the claims of a nephew. The principle also distin-
guishes claimants whose relations to the decedent are equally close but of unequal strength;
for example, a full-brother preempts a half-brother when they stand to inherit from the dece-
dent in the capacity of paternal near-relations rather than as recipients of a determinate share.
581 This is because the decedent left a living son. That living son of the decedent preempts the
claims of the children of the decedent’s dead children.
582 In this case, the daughters of the decedent preempt the claims of the granddaughters.
583 In other words, if the decedent’s deceased son had no living sons at the time of the dece-
dent’s death, the deceased son’s daughters have no claim to the decedent’s estate. If, how-
ever, the deceased son of the decedent had a living son, the deceased son’s daughters would
be included among the paternal near-relations who do have a claim to the estate under the
principle established in the next sentence.
584 If the decedent leaves only two daughters and two granddaughters from a deceased son, as
well as an appropriate male descendant, the two daughters receive two-thirds of the estate
as a determinate share. The paternal near-relations, consisting of the granddaughters and
the male heir, divide the remaining one-third among themselves, adhering to the ratio of the
male’s receiving twice the female’s share.
585 Had the decedent left two or more daughters, they would have shared two-thirds of the
estate. In this case, once the only living daughter receives her determinate share of one-half
of the estate, one-sixth is left of the potential two-thirds share allocated to the daughters. The
daughters of the decedent’s dead son are given this leftover share, which is divided among
them equally.
Book 27 403

a male who has the same relationship to the decedent as do the daughters
of the decedent’s dead son, the granddaughters are entitled neither to a
determinate share nor to one-sixth. If a surplus remains after those with
determinate shares have received their shares, whatever is left goes to the
male and to whatever daughters of the decedent’s sons have the same or
a closer relationship as he has to the decedent, the male receiving twice
the female’s share. More distant relations receive nothing. If there is no
surplus after the determinate shares have been distributed, however, none
of the paternal near-relations receives anything. This is in accordance with
what God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says in His Book: ‘God implores you,
regarding your children: to the male, a share equal to that of two females.
And if there are only daughters, two or more, they receive two-thirds of the
estate, and if there is only one daughter, she receives one-half.’586 And aṭraf
means ‘more distant.’”

Chapter 2. The Inheritance Rights (Mīrāth) of the Husband from His

Wife and of the Wife from Her Husband
1450. Mālik said, “If the wife dies leaving no children or grandchildren from
deceased sons, the husband receives one-half of her estate. If, however, she
leaves children or male or female grandchildren from a deceased son, her
husband receives one-fourth of her estate after her testamentary bequests
(waṣiyya) are fulfilled and her personal debts are paid. If the husband
dies leaving no children or grandchildren from deceased sons, the wife
receives one-quarter of his estate. If, however, he leaves children or male
or female grandchildren from a deceased son, his wife receives one-eighth
of his estate after his testamentary bequests are fulfilled and his personal
debts are paid. This is in accordance with what God, Blessed and Sublime
is He, says in His Book: ‘Half of your wives’ estates belongs to you587 if they
leave no children. But if they leave a child, your share is one-fourth of their
estates after the fulfillment of any testamentary bequests they have made
and the payment of their personal debts. And their share in your estate
is one-fourth if you leave no children. But if you leave a child, your wives
receive one-eighth after the fulfillment of any testamentary bequests you
have made and the payment of your debts.’”588

586 Al-Nisāʾ, 4:11.

587 Throughout this verse, the pronoun “you” is in the male plural form.
588 Al-Nisāʾ, 4:12.
404 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 3. The Inheritance Rights (Mīrāth) of Mothers and Fathers

from Their Children
1451. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The agreed-upon rule about which there is
no dissent and which I found the people of knowledge in our town following
(al-amr al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi wa’lladhī adraktu ʿalayhi
ahl al-ʿilm bi-baladinā) concerning the father’s inheritance from his son or
daughter is that if the decedent leaves children or grandchildren from a son,
the father receives one-sixth of the estate as a determinate share (farīḍa).
If the decedent does not leave any children or male grandchildren from a
son, the division of the estate begins with the determinate shares of any
heirs other than the father. They are given their determinate shares first,
and whatever surplus (faḍl) remains afterward belongs to the father, even
if it is more than one-sixth of the estate. If less than one-sixth would remain,
however, the father receives one-sixth of the estate as a determinate share.’”
1452. Mālik continued,589 “If the mother’s son or daughter dies and leaves
male or female children, or grandchildren from a son, or two or more male
or female siblings, whether half-siblings or full, her inheritance from her
child is one-sixth.”
1453. Mālik continued, “If the decedent does not leave any children,
grandchildren from a son, or two or more siblings, the mother receives
one-third of the estate, except in two cases involving the determinate
shares of others. The first case is when a man dies and leaves his wife and
both his parents, in which case his wife receives one-fourth of the estate
and his mother takes one-third of what remains, that is, one-fourth of the
entire estate. The second case is when a woman dies, leaving her husband
and both her parents, in which case the husband receives one-half and her
mother receives one-third of what remains, that is, one-sixth of the entire
estate.590 This is in accordance with what God, Blessed and Sublime is He,
says in His Book: ‘Parents each receive one-sixth of the estate if the decedent
left children. If he did not leave children and both his parents inherit from
him, the mother receives one-third of the estate. If the decedent left siblings
(ikhwa), the mother receives one-sixth of the estate.’591 The applicable
ordinance has long established (maḍat al-sunna) that ikhwa means two or
more siblings.”

589 Mālik’s speech continues in this report and the following one, even though he is not explicitly
named in the original text.
590 The decedent’s father, by implication, receives two-thirds of what remains, that is, one-third
of the entire estate.
591 Al-Nisāʾ, 4:11.
Book 27 405

Chapter 4. The Inheritance Rights (Mīrāth) of Half-Siblings on the

Mother’s Side
1454. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
is that half-siblings on the mother’s side do not inherit anything from
their deceased sibling if the decedent leaves children or male or female
grandchildren from a son. Nor do they inherit anything if the father or
paternal grandfather of the deceased sibling is still alive. In all other cases,
however, they do inherit, whether male or female, receiving one-sixth of
the estate as a determinate share (farīḍa). If there are two of them, each
receives one-sixth of the estate, but if there are more than two half-siblings
on the mother’s side, they share one-third of the estate, dividing it entirely
among themselves, with the male receiving twice the female’s share.592 This
is in accordance with what God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says in His Book:
“If a man or a woman dies, leaving neither ascendants nor descendants but
leaving a brother or a sister, the sibling receives one-sixth of the estate, but
if there are more than one, they share one-third of the estate.”593 In this case,
males and females are treated the same.’” 

Chapter 5. The Inheritance Rights (Mīrāth) of Full Siblings

1455. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that
siblings do not inherit anything from a decedent who leaves sons, grandsons
from a son, or his father. They do, however, inherit, along with the decedent’s
daughters and granddaughters from the decedent’s sons, any unallocated
surplus (faḍl) from the estate in their capacity as the decedent’s male
paternal near-relations (ʿaṣaba), on the condition that the decedent has not
left a paternal grandfather. In this case, the estate is divided by first fulfilling
the claims of other heirs with determinate shares (farīḍa) in the estate. If
any part of the estate is unallocated after that, the siblings, whether male
or female, divide it among themselves in accordance with God’s Book, the
male receiving twice the female’s share. If, however, there is no surplus, the
siblings receive nothing. If the decedent did not leave a father, a paternal
grandfather, a child, or a male or female grandchild from a son, his sister
receives one-half of his estate as a determinate share, but if the decedent in
this case leaves two or more sisters, they share two-thirds of the estate. If,
however, the decedent also leaves a brother, none of the sisters is entitled

592 The RME’s version of the text here differs materially from other versions of Yaḥyā’s transmis-
sion of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, which instead have “dividing it equally (bil-sawiyya) among themselves,
the male receiving the share of the female.” The RME’s version appears to be erroneous, as
indicated by the previous sentence in the report, which affirms that each half-sibling, regard-
less of gender, receives one-sixth.
593 Al-Nisāʾ, 4:12.
406 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

to a determinate share, whether they are one or many. In this latter case,
division of the estate begins with the other heirs who have determinate
shares in the estate. After the determinate shares have been distributed,
whatever surplus remains goes to the siblings, the male receiving twice
the female’s share, except in one case in which the siblings are not entitled
to anything in their capacity as siblings but rather are compelled to share
what is given to half-siblings on the mother’s side. That case is that of a
woman who dies leaving her husband, her mother, half-sisters from the
mother’s side, and siblings. Her husband receives one-half of the estate,
her mother receives one-sixth, and her half-siblings on her mother’s side
receive one-third. No surplus is left to be allocated after that. For this
reason, the full siblings share in this case the one-third previously allocated
to their half-siblings, with the male receiving twice the female’s share. The
reason for this is that they are all siblings of the decedent on the mother’s
side, and they inherit only because of their common relationship with the
mother. This is in accordance with what God, Blessed and Sublime is He,
says in His Book: “If a man or a woman dies, leaving neither ascendants nor
descendants but leaving a brother or a sister, the sibling receives one-sixth
of the estate, but if there are more, they share one-third of the estate.”594
Because they are all siblings of the decedent on the mother’s side, they
share in this case for that reason.’”

Chapter 6. The Inheritance Rights (Mīrāth) of Half-Siblings on the

Father’s Side
1456. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘If the decedent dies without leaving siblings,
the rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) regarding the inheritance rights of
half-siblings on the father’s side is the same as that which applies to siblings.
Half-brothers on the father’s side are treated just as full brothers are, and
half-sisters on the father’s side are treated just as full sisters are. They are
not, however, entitled to share in the determinate share (farīḍa) awarded
to half-siblings on the mother’s side like siblings are, because in contrast to
the latter, half-siblings on the father’s side do not share a common mother
with half-siblings on the mother’s side.’”
1457. Mālik said, “If the decedent dies leaving siblings as well as
half-siblings on the father’s side, and there is at least one male among the
siblings, half-siblings on the father’s side do not inherit anything. Assuming,
however, that all of the siblings are females and none are males, if there
is only one full sister, she receives one-half of the estate as a determinate
share and the half-sisters on the father’s side receive one-sixth of the estate

594 Al-Nisāʾ, 4:12.

Book 27 407

as a determinate share, the two shares thus collectively accounting for

two-thirds of the estate. If, however, there is a male among the half-siblings
on the father’s side, the half-sisters do not receive one-sixth of the estate
as a determinate share. Rather, the estate is first divided among the heirs
with determinate shares, who receive their shares first. If any surplus
(faḍl) remains, it is awarded to the half-siblings on the father’s side, the
male receiving twice the female’s share. If no surplus remains, they receive
nothing. If the full siblings are two or more females, they receive two-thirds
of the estate as a determinate share, and the half-sisters on the father’s side
receive nothing. If, however, at least one of the half-siblings on the father’s
side is male, there is an exception. In this case, the estate is first divided
among those who have determinate shares. After they have been given
their shares, if any surplus remains, it is awarded to the half-siblings on
the father’s side, the male receiving twice the female’s share. If no surplus
remains, they receive nothing. Half-siblings on the mother’s side, when
there are also full siblings and half-siblings on the father’s side, receive
one-sixth of the estate if there is only one and one-third of the estate if there
are two or more, the male receiving twice the female’s share.595 Males and
females are treated the same in this case.”

Chapter 7. The Inheritance Rights (Mīrāth) of Grandfathers

1458. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that it reached him that
Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān wrote to Zayd b. Thābit, asking him about the
grandfather’s share in the decedent’s estate. Zayd b. Thābit wrote back
to him, saying, “You wrote to me asking about the inheritance rights of
grandfathers, and God knows best, for this is a matter on which only the
caliphs have given a judgment; the Prophet (pbuh) has not. I was with
the two caliphs who preceded you, and I saw them award the grandfather
one-half of the estate when the decedent died leaving only one brother, and
one-third of the estate when the decedent died leaving two brothers. They
never awarded the grandfather less than one-third of the estate, even if the
decedent left more than two siblings.”596
1459. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Qabīṣa b. Dhuʾayb
that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb is the one who established the grandfather’s
determinate share (farīḍa) of the estate that the people award him today.

595 Here, too, the RME’s version of the text differs materially from other transmissions of Yaḥyā’s
Muwaṭṭaʾ, which instead have “the male receiving the share of the female.” The RME’s version
seems to be erroneous, as indicated by the last sentence of the report, which implies that
half-brothers and half-sisters are to be treated in the same way in this case.
596 This rule assumes that the father of the decedent predeceased him.
408 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1460. According to Mālik, it reached him that Sulaymān b. Yasār said,

“ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān, and Zayd b. Thābit each awarded
the grandfather the determinate share of one-third of the estate when the
only other heirs of the decedent were siblings.”
1461. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The agreed-upon rule among us and the one
I found the people of knowledge in our town following (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ
ʿalayhi ʿindanā wa’lladhī adraktu ʿalayhi ahl al-ʿilm bi-baladinā) is that
the paternal grandfather does not inherit anything if the father is alive.
However, if the decedent dies leaving male children or paternal grandsons,
the grandfather receives a determinate share of one-sixth. In all other
cases, when the decedent dies without leaving a sibling on his father’s
side, the estate is first divided among those who have determinate shares.
If one-sixth or more is left of the estate, it belongs to the grandfather as
surplus (faḍl), but if the surplus is not at least one-sixth of the estate, the
grandfather is given a determinate share of one-sixth.’”
1462. Mālik said, “When there are heirs in addition to the grandfather
and the siblings who also have determinate shares in the decedent’s
estate, the division of the estate begins with those other heirs who have
determinate shares. After they receive their shares, the surplus is awarded
to the grandfather and the siblings. It is then determined which distribution
would be most favorable for the grandfather, and he is awarded the most
favorable of three possible distributions: the one-third of the surplus
that he and the siblings receive; what he would receive if he were given
the same share as each of the siblings; or one-sixth of the entire estate. He
receives whichever of these three options is most favorable to him. Then
any remaining surplus goes to the siblings, the male receiving twice the
female’s share. There is one specific case that is an exception to this rule.
That is the case of a woman who dies leaving her husband, her mother, a
sister, and her paternal grandfather. In this case, the husband’s determinate
share is one-half, the mother’s is one-third, the grandfather’s is one-sixth,
and the sister’s is one-half, but the total of these shares exceeds the full
value of the estate. Accordingly, the determinate shares of the husband and
the mother must be reduced, and the grandfather’s one-sixth share and the
sister’s one-half share must be combined and treated as though they were a
joint claim of siblings. Their joint claim is then divided into thirds, the male
receiving twice the female’s share. Consequently, the grandfather receives
two-thirds and the sister one-third of their joint claim.”597

597 This case came to be known in the legal tradition as al-akdariyya. The difficulty in the case
stems from the fact that the determinate shares in this instance exceed the estate, since the
husband should receive one-half of the decedent’s estate (3/6), the mother should receive
Book 27 409

1463. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The inheritance rights of half-siblings on

the father’s side, when the decedent dies leaving his paternal grandfather
but no siblings, are the same as the inheritance rights of siblings in the
previous case; half-brothers on the father’s side are like full brothers, and
half-sisters on the father’s side are like full sisters. If, however, the decedent
dies leaving both full siblings and half-siblings on the father’s side, the full
siblings subsume the grandfather into their class through the relationship
with the deceased father (the grandfather’s son), with the result that, by
virtue of their numbers, they deprive the grandfather of the bulk of the
inheritance. Their status as siblings on the mother’s side does not subsume
the grandfather, because if the decedent died leaving only them and the
grandfather, they would not inherit anything and the entire estate would
be awarded to the grandfather. Therefore, whatever the siblings receive
comes after the grandfather’s share, but only with respect to siblings,
not half-siblings on the father’s side. When there are siblings in this case,
half-siblings on the father’s side receive nothing, unless the only sibling is
a sister. If there is only one sister, she subsumes the grandfather through
her status as a sibling on the father’s side, however many half-siblings
there may be.598 Whatever is allotted to them and to her, she takes her share
before they take theirs until she has received her determinate share of the
estate, which is one-half of the entire estate. If whatever is allocated to her
and her half-brothers on the father’s side exceeds one-half of the entire
estate, the surplus is allocated to her half-siblings on the father’s side, the
males receiving twice the females’ share. If there is no surplus, however,
they receive nothing.’”

one-third (2/6), the grandfather should receive one-sixth (1/6), and the sister should receive
one-half (3/6). The jurists solve the dilemma by increasing the denominator to nine (a pro-
cedure they termed ʿawl), thereby reducing the claim of each heir. The result in this case is
that the husband receives three-ninths, the mother two-ninths, the grandfather one-ninth,
and the sister three-ninths. This distribution creates another problem, however, insofar as
the sister receives three times as much as the grandfather, even though the general rule is
that in the absence of surviving children, the grandfather’s share is at least equal to that of
the decedent’s brother, which in turn should be twice the share of the decedent’s sister. The
jurists’ solution to this problem is to combine the grandfather’s one-ninth share with the
sister’s three-ninths share and then split the combined share at the ratio of two to one, the
grandfather receiving two-thirds and the sister one-third of the four-ninths share. The result
is that the grandfather receives 8/27 of the estate (2/3 * 4/9) and the sister receives 4/27.
The husband’s share is 9/27 and the mother’s is 6/27. In this case, then, the determinate
shares of the husband, the mother, and the sister are reduced in order to guarantee that
the grandfather is treated at least as favorably as a brother would have been. This analysis
is elided in the actual text of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, but it is necessary to make sense of the report’s
concluding sentence.
598 In this case, the decedent dies leaving a daughter. She is entitled to one-half of the estate as
a determinate share (farīḍa). Because she is a descendant of the decedent and the decedent
died leaving half-siblings on the father’s side, they now get to inherit whatever surplus (faḍl)
remains as paternal near-relations (ʿaṣaba).
410 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 8. The Inheritance Rights (Mīrāth) of Grandmothers

1464. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUthmān b. Isḥāq b.
Kharasha that Qabīṣa b. Dhuʾayb said, “A grandmother came to Abū Bakr
al-Ṣiddīq, asking him about her inheritance rights. Abū Bakr said to her,
‘God’s Book is silent about your rights, nor do I know of anything in the
ordinances of the Messenger of God (sunnat rasūl allāh) (pbuh) that would
provide you with anything. Give me some time, and let me ask the people
about your case.’ He then asked the people about her case, and al-Mughīra
b. Shuʿba said, ‘I was present when the Messenger of God (pbuh) awarded
a grandmother one-sixth of the estate.’ Abū Bakr asked, ‘Were there any
other witnesses to this?’ Muḥammad b. Maslama al-Anṣārī stood up and
corroborated what al-Mughīra b. Shuʿba had said. Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq
therefore issued a ruling in the woman’s case on the basis of their report.
Later, the same decedent’s other grandmother came to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb,
inquiring about her inheritance rights. He said to her, ‘God’s Book is silent
about your rights, and all previous decisions in this matter have been
resolved in favor of other heirs. I shall not add any new determinate shares
(farāʾiḍ) to the law. There is, however, that one-sixth share. If the decedent
dies leaving both grandmothers, they may share it, but if only one survives,
it is awarded to her in its entirety.’”
1465. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that al-Qāsim b.
Muḥammad said, “Two surviving grandmothers came to Abū Bakr
al-Ṣiddīq, so he wanted to award one-sixth of the estate to the grandmother
on the mother’s side. A Medinese man said to him, ‘Aren’t you excluding
the only one from whom the decedent would have inherited, if both of the
grandmothers had died and he were alive?’599 Abū Bakr therefore changed
his mind and ruled that the one-sixth should be shared between the two
of them.”
1466. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Rabbih b. Saʿīd reported that Abū Bakr b.
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Ḥārith b. Hishām would allot a determinate share only
to the two grandmothers together.
1467. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The agreed-upon rule among us about
which there is no dissent and which I found the people of knowledge in
our town following (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā alladhī lā ikhtilāfa

599 The decedent was the grandchild of the two grandmothers, but as the preceding cases have
made clear, only the children of sons are entitled to inherit from their grandparents. Abū
Bakr’s initial decision therefore would have excluded the paternal grandmother from inher-
iting from her grandchild, even though in the opposite case of her death and his survival, the
grandchild could have inherited from her. By contrast, the grandchild would not inherit from
his maternal grandmother if his mother—the grandmother’s daughter—predeceased her.
Book 27 411

fīhi wa’lladhī adraktu ʿalayhi ahl al-ʿilm bi-baladinā) is that the maternal
grandmother does not inherit anything when the mother of the decedent
is still alive, but in all other cases, she is given a determinate share of
one-sixth of the estate. In addition, the paternal grandmother does not
inherit anything when either the mother or the father of the decedent is still
alive, but in all other cases, she is given a determinate share of one-sixth of
the estate.’”
1468. Yaḥyā said, “Regarding a scenario in which both maternal and paternal
grandmothers or great-grandmothers are alive and the decedent dies
leaving neither a father nor a mother, Mālik said, ‘I heard that if the survivors
are the maternal grandmother and the paternal great-grandmother,600 the
former receives the one-sixth share of the estate at the expense of the
latter, but if the survivors are the paternal grandmother and the maternal
great-grandmother or if both of them are of the same generation, they
divide the one-sixth share equally between them.’”
1469. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘None of the female ascendants have a share
in the inheritance except for the two grandmothers.601 It reached me that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) awarded a grandmother a share of the estate,
and then Abū Bakr inquired about it and a reliable source informed him that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) had awarded the grandmother a share of the
estate, so he enforced that rule for the benefit of the grandmother. Then the
other grandmother appeared before ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, seeking her share
of the estate, so he said, ‘I shall not add any new determinate shares to the
law. If the decedent dies leaving both grandmothers, they may share the
relevant share, but if only one survives, it is awarded to her in its entirety.’”
Yaḥyā said, ‘Mālik said, ‘We have never heard of anyone granting a share in
the estate to a female ascendant other than the two closest grandmothers,
from the advent of Islam to the present day.’”

Chapter 9. The Inheritance Rights (Mīrāth) of Heirs Who Are Neither

Ascendants Nor Descendants (Kalāla)
1470. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
asked the Messenger of God (pbuh) about the inheritance rights of heirs
who are neither ascendants nor descendants. The Messenger of God (pbuh)

600 Literally, if the maternal grandmother is the “closer” of the two survivors to the decedent in
generational terms.
601 So, for example, if the decedent is survived by both grandmothers and a great-grandmother,
only the grandmothers inherit. However, note that the term “grandmother” includes
“great-grandmother.” Therefore, if the decedent dies leaving two great-grandmothers, they
would share equally the one-sixth allocated to the grandmother.
412 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

said, “The verse that was revealed in the summer at the end of ‘The Women’
(al-Nisāʾ) provides sufficient guidance.”602
1471. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule in our view about which there is no
dissent and which I found the people of knowledge in our town following
(al-amr ʿindanā alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi wa’lladhī adraktu ʿalayhi ahl al-ʿilm
bi-baladinā) is that the rules regarding the inheritance rights of those who
are neither ascendants nor descendants apply in two different situations.
The first is that of the verse that was revealed at the beginning of al-Nisāʾ,603
in which God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says, “If a man or a woman dies,
leaving neither ascendants nor descendants but leaving a brother or a
sister, the sibling receives one-sixth of the estate, but if there are more, they
share one-third of the estate.”’ Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘This is the case in
which maternal half-siblings would not have inherited had the decedent
died leaving either a child or a parent.’”
1472. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The second situation is that of the verse at
the end of al-Nisāʾ,604 in which God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says, “They
ask you about a ruling; say, ‘God answers your inquiry about those who
die leaving no descendants. If a man dies leaving no child but leaving a
sister, she receives one-half of the estate, and he inherits from her in the
same fashion if she dies without leaving a child. If there are two sisters,
they take two-thirds of the estate, but if they are brothers and sisters,
they share two-thirds of the estate, the male receiving twice the female’s
share.’ Thus does God make clear to you His law, lest you go astray. And
God knows well all things.”’ Mālik said, ‘This is the case in which siblings
and half-siblings on the father’s side take the surplus (faḍl) of the estate as
paternal near-relations (ʿaṣaba) when the decedent dies without leaving
a descendant. Therefore, the siblings and half-siblings on the father’s side
share with the grandfather in this situation, that is, when a decedent dies
without leaving a descendant or an ascendant.’”605
1473. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The grandfather inherits alongside the
siblings in this case because his claim to the estate is stronger than theirs.
That is because he inherits one-sixth of the estate even when the decedent
leaves male children, whereas the siblings do not inherit anything in that
case. How can he not be like one of them when he inherits one-sixth of the

602 Al-Nisāʾ, 4:176.

603 Al-Nisāʾ, 4:12.
604 Al-Nisāʾ, 4:176.
605 According to Mālik, the term kalāla applies to two circumstances. The first is when the dece-
dent leaves neither ascendants nor descendants. The second is when the decedent leaves
neither descendants nor parents but does leave a paternal grandfather.
Book 27 413

decedent’s estate even when the decedent leaves children? How can he
not share in one-third of the estate with the siblings when the half-siblings
on the mother’s side share the one-third of the estate with them? The
grandfather is the one who preempts the half-siblings on the mother’s
side from inheriting, and his presence as an heir excludes them from a
claim to the estate. He therefore has a stronger entitlement to what would
have been due to them because their claims lapse on his account. Had the
grandfather not taken the one-third in question, it surely would have been
allocated to the half-siblings on the mother’s side. He has only taken that
which would never have been given to the half-siblings on the father’s side.
The half-siblings on the mother’s side have a greater claim to that one-third
than do the half-siblings on the father’s side, and the grandfather himself
has a better claim to it than do the half-siblings on the mother’s side.’”

Chapter 10. What Has Come Down regarding the Inheritance Rights
(Mīrāth) of the Paternal Aunt (ʿAmma)
1474. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr b. Muḥammad b. ʿAmr
b. Ḥazm reported from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥanẓala al-Zuraqī that someone
informed him that an elderly freedman (mawlā) of the Quraysh known as
Ibn Mirsā said, “I was sitting with ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, and when he finished
performance of the Noon Prayer (ṣalāt al-ẓuhr), he said, ‘Yarfā, bring me
that document!’ meaning the document that he had drafted regarding
the inheritance rights of the paternal aunt. Meanwhile, ʿUmar was asking
others for their views about her inheritance rights, seeking the best advice
of the people. When Yarfā finally brought the document, ʿUmar called for a
small vessel or a bowl of water in which he plunged the document to erase
it. He then said, ‘Had God approved of you, He would have confirmed you.’”
1475. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr b. Ḥazm reported that
he would often hear his father say, “ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb would say, ‘How
strange is the case of the paternal aunt! Her estate is inherited, but she does
not inherit!’”

Chapter 11. The Inheritance Rights (Mīrāth) of Male Paternal Near-

Relations (ʿAṣaba)
1476. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The agreed-upon rule among us about which
there is no dissent and which I found the people of knowledge in our town
following (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi wa’lladhī
adraktu ʿalayhi ahl al-ʿilm bi-baladinā) with respect to the inheritance rights
of male paternal near-relations is that the decedent’s brother has a stronger
claim to the estate than does the half-brother on the father’s side. The
414 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

half-brother on the father’s side has a stronger claim to the estate than do the
brother’s children. The brother’s children have a stronger claim to the estate
than do the children of the half-brother on the father’s side. The children of
the half-brother on the father’s side have a stronger claim to the estate than
do the children of the brother’s sons. The children of the half-brother on the
father’s side have a stronger claim to the estate than does the paternal uncle
who is a brother of the father. The paternal uncle who is a brother of the
father has a stronger claim to the estate than does the paternal uncle who is
a half-brother on the father’s side. The paternal uncle who is a half-brother
on the father’s side has a stronger claim to the estate than do the children of
the paternal uncle who is a brother. The son of the paternal uncle who is a
half-brother on the father’s side has a stronger claim to the estate than does
the father’s paternal uncle who is a brother.’”
1477. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Everything that I have been asked
concerning the inheritance rights of paternal near-relations is resolved
according to this principle: Determine the relationship of the decedent
to those presenting conflicting claims to his estate among his paternal
near-relations. If one of the paternal near-relations shares a common
father with the decedent whereas the other paternal near-relations share
only a more distant paternal ancestor with the decedent, award the estate
to that paternal near-relation who shares with the decedent the closest
common ancestor, rather than to a paternal near-relation with a more
distant common paternal ancestor. If they all share the same paternal
ancestor, one who connects them all, then closest common descent with
the decedent is the relevant consideration. Accordingly, if the decedent
leaves only one half-brother on the father’s side, give the entirety
of the estate to him rather than to a more distant relation, even if the
further-removed relation shares common male and female ascendants
with the decedent. If all the paternal near-relations are separated from
the common paternal ancestor by the same number of generations, such
that they all share a common paternal ancestor with the decedent and are
all either half-siblings on the father’s side or full siblings, they share the
entirety of the estate. If the father of any of them is a full brother of the
decedent’s father whereas the others are the children of the decedent’s
father’s half-brothers on the father’s side, the entirety of the estate goes
to the children of the decedent’s full brother, excluding the children of
the half-brother on the father’s side. This is in accordance with what God,
Blessed and Sublime is He, says: “But some kin have greater rights than
others in God’s Book. And God knows well all things.”’”606

606 Al-Anfāl, 8:75. Mālik’s theory of priority among the claims of the decedent’s paternal
near-relations takes into account two variables. The first is the nature of the relationship to
Book 27 415

1478. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The paternal grandfather has a stronger
claim to the estate than do the children of the decedent’s full brother and
a stronger claim than does the decedent’s paternal uncle, who is a full
brother of the decedent’s father. The son of the decedent’s full brother,
however, has a stronger claim than the grandfather does to be the patron of
the decedent’s freedmen.’”607

Chapter 12. Persons with No Inheritance Rights (Mīrāth)

1479. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The agreed-upon rule among us about which
there is no dissent and which I found the people of knowledge in our town
following (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi wa’lladhī
adraktu ʿalayhi ahl al-ʿilm bi-baladinā) is that the son of a half-brother on
the mother’s side, the maternal grandfather, the paternal uncle who is a
half-brother of the decedent’s father on the mother’s side, the maternal
uncle (khāl), the great-grandmother (that is, the mother of the mother’s
father), the daughter of the full brother, the paternal aunt (ʿamma), and the
maternal aunt (khāla) do not inherit anything by virtue of their kinship to the
decedent. No woman who is more distantly related to the decedent than those
mentioned above inherits anything by virtue of her kinship to the decedent.
No woman inherits anything unless she was specifically designated as an
heir. God, Blessed and Sublime is He, mentioned in His Book the inheritance
rights of the mother from her children, the inheritance rights of daughters
from their fathers, the inheritance rights of the wife from her husband, the
inheritance rights of half-sisters on the father’s side, and the inheritance
rights of half-sisters on the mother’s side. Further, the grandmother has a
right to inherit by virtue of what has come down from the Prophet (pbuh).
Likewise, a woman inherits the estates of any of her deceased former slaves
that she herself manumitted, because God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says in
His Book, “For they are your brothers in faith and your freedmen.”’”608

the decedent—son, brother, male first cousin, nephew, etc.—and the second is the genera-
tion. As a rule, a brother of the decedent has a stronger claim to the estate in his capacity as
a paternal near-relation than does a paternal half-brother, but a paternal half-brother has a
stronger claim than does the decedent’s paternal uncle, even if the decedent and the paternal
uncle share both a male and a female ascendant, such as the decedent’s paternal grandpar-
ents, who are the parents of both the decedent’s father and his paternal uncle.
607 Bājī explains the different treatment of the right to be the patron of the decedent’s freedmen
as compared to inheritance with reference to the fact that patronage (walāʾ) is not prop-
erly speaking part of the estate but instead passes on exclusively according to the principles
of agnatic succession and not the logic of the fixed shares of inheritance. Accordingly, the
fixed share (farīḍa) that the grandfather enjoys in inheritance does not give him a superior
claim to act as the patron of the decedent’s freedmen; this role instead falls to the decedent’s
nephew from his full brother insofar as the nephew and the decedent share the common
agnatic ancestor of the decedent’s father (who is the nephew’s grandfather), making him
closer to the decedent in this respect than the grandfather is. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 6:245.
608 Al-Aḥzāb, 33:4.
416 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 13. The Estates (Mīrāth) of Non-Muslims

1480. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿAlī b. Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī,
from ʿAmr b. ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān, from Usāma b. Zayd, that the Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, “A Muslim does not inherit from a nonbeliever.”
1481. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that ʿAlī b. Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b.
Abī Ṭālib informed him that ʿAqīl and Ṭālib had inherited from Abū Ṭālib,
but ʿAlī had not. ʿAlī b. Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib said, “That is why we
abandoned our share of al-Shiʿb.”609
1482. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Sulaymān b. Yasār
that Muḥammad b. al-Ashʿath informed him that a paternal aunt of his, who
was Jewish or Christian, died. Muḥammad b. al-Ashʿath mentioned this to
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb and asked him who should inherit her estate. ʿUmar
b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “Her coreligionists inherit her estate.” Muḥammad b.
al-Ashʿath then went to ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān and asked him for his opinion.
ʿUthmān said, “Do you think I have forgotten what ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said
to you? Her coreligionists inherit her estate.”
1483. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Ismāʿīl b. Abī Ḥakīm
that a Christian slave whom ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz had manumitted died.
Ismaʿīl said, “ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz then ordered me to transfer his property
to the public treasury.”
1484. According to Mālik, a source that he deemed reliable reported that
he heard Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab say, “ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb would not allow any
non-Arab to share in the distribution of an estate, unless he was was born
among the Arabs.”610
1485. Mālik said, “If a pregnant woman comes from enemy territory and
gives birth in Arab territory, it is her child, and he inherits from her if she
dies and she inherits from him if he dies, receiving her share of his estate as
specified in God’s Book.”
1486. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us, and the long-established
ordinance about which there is no dissent and that which I found the
people of knowledge in our town following (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi
ʿindanā wa’l-sunna allatī lā ikhtilāfa fīhā wa’lladhī adraktu ʿalayhi ahl al-ʿilm

609 The ancestral home of the Banū Hāshim, the clan of the Prophet (pbuh) in Mecca.
610 This is a reference to claims to kinship-based inheritance rights made by individuals born
in territories beyond the frontiers of the Islamic state that were subsequently incorporated
into the Islamic state. ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb did not recognize such claims because of the evi-
dentiary problems they posed. If, however, the non-Arab claimants had been born within the
frontiers of the Islamic state, they could present reliable Muslim witnesses to confirm their
claims of kinship to the decedent.
Book 27 417

bi-baladinā), is that a Muslim does not inherit the estate of a non-Muslim,

whether on account of paternal kinship, patronage, or a maternal
relationship, nor does he preempt the claim of any other heir to his share of
the estate. This applies to every person who does not inherit: even though
he may be the closest heir, he does not preempt anyone else from his or her
share of the estate.”611

Chapter 14. Those Who Died during Battle in Unknown

Circumstances or Died in Other Unknown Circumstances
1487. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān and several of their
scholars reported that those killed in the Battles of the Camel, Ṣiffīn, and
al-Ḥarra did not inherit from one another. Later, the Battle of Qudayd took
place,612 and none of the fallen was permitted to inherit anything from the
estate of a fallen relation, unless it was known with certainty which of the
two died first. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘That is the rule about which
there is no dissent, nor do any of the people of knowledge in our town have
any doubt regarding it (dhālika al-amr alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi wa-lā shakka
ʿinda aḥad min ahl al-ʿilm bi-baladinā).’”
1488. Mālik said, “This is the rule that is followed in the case of two persons
who are heirs of one another and die, whether by drowning, being killed,
or any other cause of death, if it is not known which of the two was the
first to die. When it is unknown which of them died first, neither inherits
anything from the other. Rather, their estates are divided among those who
remain of their respective heirs. Each decedent’s heirs inherit from their
respective relatives.”
1489. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘No one inherits from another person
if there is any doubt about his claim. No one inherits from another person
except on the basis of certain knowledge and the testimony of witnesses.
This is because a man and his freedman whom his father had manumitted

611 Accordingly, were a non-Muslim man to die leaving a Muslim son and a non-Muslim daugh-
ter, the son would not reduce his non-Muslim sister’s share from one-half of the estate to
one-third, as would be the case if they were all Muslims.
612 Battles that took place between Muslims in the early civil wars over the caliphate. The Battle
of the Camel involved the forces of ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, Ṭalḥa, and al-Zubayr
against the forces of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib; the Battle of Ṣiffīn involved the forces of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib
against those of Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān; the Battle of al-Ḥarra involved the forces of ʿAbd
al-Malik b. Marwān, commanded by al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf al-Thaqafī, against those of the Medi-
nese; and the Battle of Qudayd involved a group of Khawārij who took over Medina temporarily
during the reign of the last Umayyad caliph, Marwān b. Muḥammad (r. 126–132/744–750).
“Khawārij” literally means “secessionists,” and it refers to Muslims who seceded from the gen-
eral body of the Muslim community with the aim of establishing their own government. In this
early period, they would have consisted of Muslims of non-Qurayshī descent.
418 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

might die at the same time, and the Arab man’s sons will say, “Our father
certainly inherited the estate of the freedman (mawlā).” But they are not
entitled to inherit the estate of the freedman in the absence of knowledge
and testimony that he died before their father. Instead, the people closest to
the freedman inherit his estate.’”
1490. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘This is also the rule that applies to the case
of two full brothers who die, one leaving children and the other childless.
They also leave a half-brother on the father’s side, and it is unknown which
of the two died first. Accordingly, the estate of the childless man goes to his
half-brother, and the children of his full brother get nothing.’”613
1491. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Another instance of that rule is when the
paternal aunt (ʿamma), her nephew, her niece, and the latter’s paternal uncle
(ʿamm) all die, and the order of their deaths is unknown. If it is unknown
who died first, the paternal uncle does not inherit anything from his niece,
and the nephew does not inherit anything from his paternal aunt.’”

Chapter 15. The Estate of a Repudiated Child (Walad al-Mulāʿana)614

and the Estate of an Illegitimate Child (Walad al-Zinā)
1492. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr would say,
regarding the estate of a repudiated child and the estate of an illegitimate
child, “When he dies, his mother inherits his estate in accordance with her
rightful share as set out in God’s Book; likewise, his half-siblings on his
mother’s side take their rightful share. If she is a freedwoman (mawlāt), her
patrons inherit whatever remains of the estate. If she is an Arab woman,615
she takes her rightful share of the estate, and his half-siblings on his
mother’s side take their rightful share of the estate, and whatever remains
becomes property of the Muslim community.” Mālik said, “A position similar

613 In this case, if it were known that the childless brother predeceased the brother with chil-
dren, his estate would be divided equally between the half-brother and the full brother. Upon
the full brother’s death, his children would then inherit this property in turn, thus receiving
property that had originally belonged to the estate of the childless brother. Under Mālik’s
rule, however, the court is to divide the estate of the childless brother as though the brother
with children had no claim at all, with the result that the half-brother takes the entirety of the
childless brother’s estate instead of sharing it with his nephews and nieces.
614 Mālik is referring here to the formal procedure by which a husband may accuse his wife of
adultery. This procedure involves the husband swearing four times in public that he is truthful
in his accusation, followed by a fifth oath invoking God’s damnation on himself should he be is
lying. The wife can rebut the charge by swearing four public oaths denying the charge, followed
by a fifth oath invoking God’s anger on herself should she be lying. Once the husband completes
the five oaths, any child that the woman subsequently delivers is affiliated only to her. Al-Nūr,
24:6–9. If the father, however, later retracts his accusation against the wife and acknowledges
the child, he receives eighty lashes as punishment for slander. Al-Nūr, 24:4.
615 What is meant by “Arab” here is that she was born free.
Book 27 419

to this reached me from Sulaymān b. Yasār. This is also the opinion that I
found the people of knowledge of our town express regarding this question
(ʿalā dhālika adraktu raʾy ahl al-ʿilm bi-baladinā).”
 Book 28
The Book of Manumission (ʿAtāqa)
and Patronage (Walāʾ)

Chapter 1. Manumission of a Partial Interest (Shirk) in a Slave

1493. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Whoever manumits his partial interest in
a slave and owns a sufficient amount of other property to allow him to pay
the slave’s full price is obliged to give the slave’s co-owners their share
of the slave’s price after his fair market value has been fairly appraised.
Otherwise, only the former’s share in the slave is manumitted.”616
1494. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ
ʿalayhi ʿindanā) regarding a slave whose master, using a testamentary
disposition effective upon his death, manumits a slave of his in part—be it
one-third, one-fourth, or one-half—or a portion of his share in a co-owned
slave is that the only portion of the slave that is effectively manumitted is the
portion that the master expressly manumitted in his will out of the interest
he owns in the slave.617 This is because the manumission of that portion
of the slave became due and effective only after the decedent’s death. The
master was free, as long as he was alive, to retract or fulfill the promise of
manumission that he included in his will. When the slave’s manumission
took effect after the master’s death by virtue of his bequest, the testator
no longer had any rights to the property in his estate except in respect of
that over which he had testamentary rights. The remaining portion of his

616 In other words, if four people co-own a slave, each having a one-quarter interest in the slave,
and one of the part-owners manumits his share of the slave, the manumitting co-owner is
obliged to buy out the remaining three-quarters of the slave from his co-owners after the
slave’s fair market value has been appraised. Once he pays the co-owners three-quarters
of the slave’s price, the slave becomes fully free. This requirement, however, applies only if
the manumitting co-owner can afford the compensation due to his fellow co-owners. Other-
wise, the co-owners retain their interest in the slave, and the slave is one-quarter free and
three-quarters slave.
617 In other words, if the deceased master owns one-half of a slave and manumits one-half of his
interest in the slave in his will, one-quarter of the slave is effectively manumitted.

421
422 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

slave was not effectively manumitted because others, namely, his heirs, now
owned his property. How, then, could the remaining portion of the slave be
manumitted in contravention of the ownership rights of another group of
people who neither initiated the manumission nor ratified it? Nor would
they take the status of patrons of the freedman (mawlā), nor would the law
grant them the right of patronage. It was only the decedent who actually
performed the manumission, and the law accordingly granted him the right
of patronage. Therefore, the costs of the manumission should not be paid
out of someone else’s property. If, however, the decedent provided in his
will that the remaining, unmanumitted portion of the slave be manumitted
out of his property, such a provision would bind both his fellow co-owners
of the slave and his heirs. His fellow co-owners cannot refuse to carry
out such an instruction so long as the cost is paid out of the one-third of
the decedent’s interest in the estate that is available for testamentary
disposition.618 Moreover, the provision also binds the heirs because it does
not cause any injury to their rights in the estate.”
1495. Mālik said, “If someone manumits one-third of his slave while he
is ill, intending the manumission to take effect immediately, the slave is
automatically manumitted in his entirety, provided that the value of the
slave is not more than one-third of the master’s property at that time. This
is because the ill man is not in the position of someone who manumits
one-third of his slave after his death: such a person, had he lived, could
have retracted his decision, in which case his partial manumission would
never have taken effect. By contrast, the slave whose master pronounces an
immediately effective one-third manumission during his deathbed illness
is entitled to have the manumission completed by operation of law if the
master recovers from his illness and lives. If the master dies as a result of
the illness, the slave is also entitled to have the manumission completed,
provided that the slave’s value is not more than one-third of the master’s
property at the time of his death. This is because the decedent’s directions
regarding his property, so long as they do not exceed one-third of the
property, are effective, just as a healthy person’s directions regarding his
property are effective with respect to all of his property.”

Chapter 2. Conditional Manumission

1496. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘A man who manumits his slave with
immediate effect, such that the slave’s testimony becomes effective in
court, his inviolability is perfected, and his estate can be passed to his heirs,

618 A decedent in Islamic law may dispose of only one-third of his property by testamentary
disposition.
Book 28 423

cannot impose conditions in connection with that manumission as he could

with his slave, nor can he impose anything on the former slave that would
resemble bondage. This is because the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘If
someone manumits his interest in a slave, the slave’s co-owners are to be
given their share of his price after the slave’s value is fairly appraised, and
the slave is fully manumitted, regardless of the owner’s intention.’”
1497. Mālik said, “If he is the sole owner of the slave, his obligation to
complete the slave’s manumission without undermining the manumission
with any kind of bondage is even more binding.”

Chapter 3. Manumitting Slaves When One Owns No Other Property

1498. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from several people, from
al-Ḥasan b. Abī al-Ḥasan, from Muḥammad b. Sīrīn, that a man in the time
of the Messenger of God (pbuh) freed six slaves that belonged to him at the
time of his death. The Messenger of God (pbuh) drew lots among them,
manumitting one-third of them. Mālik said, “It reached me that the man’s
only property was those slaves.”
1499. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported that in the
time of Abān b. ʿUthmān’s term as governor of Medina, a man manumitted
all of his slaves. Abān b. ʿUthmān ordered that the slaves be divided into
three groups, and he then drew lots, stating that the group on which the
decedent’s lot fell would be freed. The one-third of the slaves represented
by the lot that Abān drew were manumitted.

Chapter 4. Disposition of a Slave’s Property When He Is Manumitted

1500. According to Mālik, he heard Ibn Shihāb say, “The applicable ordinance
has long established (maḍat al-sunna) that a slave’s property follows him
when he is manumitted.” Mālik said, “Something that corroborates the
rule that a slave’s property follows him upon his manumission is that the
property of a slave who is a party to a manumission contract (mukātab)619
follows the slave. This is because a manumission contract is also a contract
of patronage (walāʾ) upon the contract’s completion.620 The property of
a slave or of a slave under a manumission contract is not treated in the
same manner as a slave’s children are. Rather, children are deemed physical
extensions of the slaves themselves. They are not deemed part of their

619 Such a contract is known as kitāba.

620 Mālik is arguing that since the master of a slave who is a party to a manumission contract
enjoys the right of patronage of that slave upon the latter’s performance of the contract, and
since there is no disagreement that such a slave retains all his property, it must be the case
that any slave who is manumitted retains all his personal property after he is manumitted.
424 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

property.621 This is because the long-established ordinance about which

there is no dissent (al-sunna allatī lā ikhtilāfa fīhā) is that a slave’s property
follows him after he is manumitted, but his children do not, and that the
property of a slave who is a party to a manumission contract follows him,
but his children do not.”
1501. Mālik said, “Another thing that further corroborates this rule is that
if a slave or a slave who is a party to a manumission contract becomes
insolvent, his property, including any handmaiden of his who has borne
him a child (umm walad), is taken to satisfy the claims of his creditors, but
his creditors may not take his children, because they are not part of his
property.”
1502. Mālik said, “Another thing that also further corroborates this rule
is that when a slave is sold and the purchaser stipulates inclusion of the
slave’s property in the contract of sale, the slave’s children are not included
in the slave’s property under the contract.”
1503. Mālik said, “Another thing that also further corroborates this rule is
that if a slave injures someone in a manner requiring compensation, he and
his property may be taken in compensation, but his children may not.”

Chapter 5. Manumission of Handmaidens Who Have Given Birth to

Their Masters’ Children (Umm Walad) and Miscellaneous Matters
Relating to Judicial Rulings regarding Manumission
1504. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “Any master whose handmaiden has given birth to
his child (umm walad) may neither sell her nor give her as a gift or bequeath
her as part of his estate. He may continue to use her as a slave, but when he
dies, she becomes free.”
1505. According to Mālik, it reached him that a handmaiden went to ʿUmar
b. al-Khaṭṭāb, her master having beaten her or struck her with a red hot
iron. ʿUmar decreed that she be manumitted.
1506. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that a man’s
manumission of a slave is not effective if his total debts exceed his property.

621 Mālik views the ownership interest of a master in his slave as consisting of two parts: the first
concerns the body of the slave (raqaba), and the second concerns the usufruct. The income a
slave generates for his master or for himself is part of the slave’s usufruct, and under Mālik’s
rule, when the slave becomes free he becomes the full owner of whatever property he has
acquired for himself, insofar as that property originated in usufruct. Children, however, are
not part of usufruct under Mālik’s principle, and therefore they are deemed an extension of
the slave’s body or even part of the slave’s body.
Book 28 425

Likewise, a minor’s manumission of a slave is not effective before he attains

puberty or reaches the age of puberty. Finally, the manumission of someone
under an order of interdiction that prevents him from freely disposing of
his own property (al-mūlā ʿalayh) is not effective, even if he has undergone
puberty, until the authority to dispose of his own property is restored
to him.”

Chapter 6. Acts of Manumission That Are Effective in Discharging

Obligations to Manumit Slaves
1507. According to Mālik, Hilāl b. Usāma reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār that
ʿUmar b. al-Ḥakam622 said, “I went to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and said,
‘Messenger of God, a handmaiden of mine was herding some of my sheep
(ghanam). When I went to check on her, she had lost a yearling (shāt), so
I asked her what had happened. She said that a wolf killed and ate it. I
became angry with her and, being human, I lost my temper and slapped her
in the face. I am now under an obligation to manumit a slave,623 so should
it be her?’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to the girl, ‘Where is God?’
She replied, ‘In the sky.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Who am I?’ She
said, ‘You are the Messenger of God.’624 The Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
‘Manumit her.’”
1508. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd that a Medinese man came to the Messenger of
God (pbuh) with a black handmaiden of his and said to him, “Messenger of
God, I am under an obligation to manumit a believing slave. If you deem her
a believer, I shall manumit her.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) asked her,
“Do you testify that there is no god but God?” She said, “Yes.” He said, “Do
you testify that Muḥammad is the Messenger of God?” She said, “Yes.” He
said, “Do you firmly believe in resurrection after death?” She said, “Yes.” The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Manumit her.”
1509. According to Mālik, it reached him that al-Maqburī said, “Abū Hurayra
was asked whether a man who is under an obligation to manumit a slave
can discharge his obligation by manumitting a slave born of adultery.” Abū
Hurayra said, “Yes, that would discharge his obligation.”

622 The correct name of this transmitter is Muʿāwiya b. al-Ḥakam, as explained by the editors of
the RME.
623 Bājī suggests that the narrator either caused the girl serious injury when he hit her or was
already under an obligation to free a slave for some other reason. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 6:274.
624 The Prophet (pbuh) asked her these questions to determine whether she was a Muslim.
When a Muslim is obliged to manumit a slave as an act of penance, the slave must be Muslim.
See hadith no. 1514 and no. 1516.
426 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1510. According to Mālik, it reached him that Faḍāla b. ʿUbayd al-Anṣārī,

who was a Companion of the Messenger of God (pbuh), was asked whether
a man who is under an obligation to free a slave can discharge his obligation
by manumitting a slave born of adultery. He said, “Yes, that satisfies
his obligation.”

Chapter 7. Acts of Manumission That Are Ineffective in Discharging

Obligations to Manumit Slaves
1511. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar was asked
whether a person under an obligation to manumit a slave could fulfill his
obligation by purchasing a slave whose seller makes the sale conditional on
the slave’s manumission. He said no.
1512. Mālik said, “That is the best view I have heard regarding slaves who
are acquired to fulfill an obligatory duty of manumission: the one who is
obliged to manumit a slave may not purchase a slave subject to the seller’s
condition that he manumit the slave. Were he to do so, he would not have
manumitted someone entirely subject to bondage, insofar as the slave’s
price is reduced in accordance with the seller’s stipulation that the slave
be manumitted.”
1513. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable, however, in someone
purchasing a slave on the condition that the buyer manumit him if it is a
voluntary act of manumission.”
1514. Mālik said that the best view that he had heard regarding someone
who is under an obligation to manumit a slave is that he cannot fulfill his
obligation by manumitting a slave belonging to the following categories: a
Christian or Jewish slave; a slave who is a party to a manumission contract
(mukātab); a slave whose master has designated him for manumission
upon the master’s death (mudabbar); a handmaiden who has borne her
master a child (umm walad); a slave to be manumitted upon the expiration
of a determined term; or a blind slave.
1515. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable in someone voluntarily
manumitting a Christian, Jewish, or Zoroastrian slave, because God, Blessed
and Sublime is He, says in the Book regarding prisoners, ‘Therefore release
them freely (mannan) or ransom them.’625 Manumission means releasing
freely (mann).”626

625 Muḥammad, 47:4.

626 For Mālik, manumission of any slave, regardless of religion, is meritorious, but if the manu-
mitter is under a duty to manumit a slave, whether as an act of penance (kaffāra) or as the
result of a vow (nadhr), the duty can be satisfied only by manumitting a Muslim slave. See,
Book 28 427

1516. Mālik said, “As for those slaves whose manumission God has
expressly commanded in the Book, only the manumission of believing
slaves discharges that obligation.”
1517. Mālik said, “The same rule applies to feeding poor persons in
satisfaction of the duty to perform penance: only the feeding of Muslims
satisfies the duty. No one following a religion other than Islam should be fed
in satisfaction of that obligation.”627

Chapter 8. Manumission by a Living Person on Behalf of a Dead One

1518. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī ʿAmra al-Anṣārī reported
that his mother wanted to make a bequest for the purpose of manumitting
a slave, but she postponed it until the next morning. Then she died in her
sleep. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said, “I then asked al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad whether
God would reward her if I manumitted a slave on her behalf.” Al-Qāsim
replied that Saʿd b. ʿUbāda said to the Messenger of God (pbuh), “My mother
died. Would God reward her were I to manumit a slave on her behalf?” The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Yes.”
1519. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī
Bakr died in his sleep, so his sister ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh),
manumitted a large number of slaves on his behalf.” Mālik said, “Of all
the views that I have heard regarding this question, this view is the one I
prefer most.”

Chapter 9. The Virtue in Manumitting Slaves, and the Manumission of

an Adulteress and an Illegitimate Child
1520. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father, from
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
was asked which slaves earn the greatest merit for those who manumit
them. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Those who are the dearest in
price and the most valuable to their owners.”
1521. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that he
manumitted an illegitimate child and his mother.

for example, al-Nisāʾ, 4:92, which provides that the penance for the unintentional killing of a
person is “freeing a Muslim slave” (taḥrīr raqaba muʾmina).
627 Mālik is here speaking of how to discharge an obligation of penance (kaffāra), not whether it
is permissible to give charity to non-Muslims.
428 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 10. Patronage (Walāʾ) Belongs to the Manumitter

1522. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said, “Barīra came and said, ‘I have
entered into a manumission contract with my people for nine measures
of silver (awāq),628 one measure payable each year, so please assist me.’ I
replied, ‘If your people have no objection, I will give them the entirety of
the price at once, provided that the right of patronage (walāʾ) belongs to
me.’ Barīra then went to her people and presented my offer to them, but
they rejected it. She returned to me and found the Messenger of God (pbuh)
sitting there. She said to me, ‘I made them the offer, but they refused me,
insisting that the right of patronage remains with them.’ The Messenger
of God (pbuh) heard that, so he asked her about what was going on. I
informed him about the matter, and he said, ‘Take her and demand that the
right of patronage belong to you as condition of the agreement. The right of
patronage belongs exclusively to the one who manumits the slave.’ I did as
I was told, and the Messenger of God (pbuh) stood among the people, and
praised God and honored Him. Then he said, ‘Why is it that some people
impose conditions that are not stipulated in God’s Book? Any condition that
is not in God’s Book is void, even if there be one hundred such conditions
in an agreement. God’s judgment is more worthy of respect, and God’s
condition is firmer. The right of patronage belongs exclusively to the one
who manumits the slave.’”
1523. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that
ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, wanted to acquire a handmaiden in
order to manumit her, so her owners said, “We are prepared to sell her to
you, provided that the right of patronage remains with us.” She mentioned
this to the Messenger of God (pbuh), who said, “Let that not deter you,
for the right of patronage belongs exclusively to the one who manumits
the slave.”
1524. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān that Barīra came to seek the assistance of ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of
the Believers, in discharging her obligations under a manumission contract.
ʿĀʾisha said, “If your people have no objection, I am ready to pay what you
owe in its entirety and manumit you immediately.” Barīra communicated
that offer to her owners, who said, “No, not unless the right of patronage
stays with us.”
1525. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said that Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, ‘ʿAmra claimed that
ʿĀʾisha mentioned this to the Messenger of God (pbuh), who said, “Purchase

628 Sing. awqiya. Nine awāq of silver are equivalent to a little more than 1,000 grams.
Book 28 429

her and manumit her, for the right of patronage belongs exclusively to the
one who manumits the slave.”’”
1526. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported from ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar that the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited the sale and gifting of
the right of patronage.
1527. Mālik said, regarding a slave who purchases his freedom from his
master on the condition that he has the right to choose whomever he
wishes as his patron, “Such an arrangement is not permissible. The right of
patronage belongs exclusively to the one who manumits the slave. Even if
a master permitted his freedman (mawlā) to choose whomever he wished
as his patron, it would not be permissible, because the Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, ‘The right of patronage belongs exclusively to the one who
manumits the slave,’ and the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited the sale
and gifting of the right of patronage. If it were permissible for the master
to grant the slave that condition and to permit him to choose as his patron
whomever he wished, it would amount to a gift of the right of patronage.”

Chapter 11. The Right of Patronage (Walāʾ) in Respect of the

Freedman’s Descendants
1528. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported that
al-Zubayr b. al-ʿAwwām bought a slave and then manumitted him. The slave
had children from a free woman (who had formerly been a slave), and when
al-Zubayr freed him, the former declared, “The children are my freedmen.”
The latter, however, said, “It is rather their mother’s former owners who are
our patrons.” They took their dispute to ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān, and he ruled that
they were the freedmen of al-Zubayr.
1529. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab was
asked, regarding a slave who had children from a free woman (who had
formerly been a slave), “Who has the right of patronage (walāʾ) with respect
to the children?” Saʿīd said, “If their father dies while still a slave, not having
been manumitted, the right of patronage belongs to their mother’s patrons.”
1530. Mālik said, “A similar case is that of the children of freed slaves,
when their fathers have accused their wives, the mothers of the children, of
adultery (mulāʿana). Such children are affiliated to their mother’s patrons.
When such a child dies without an heir, the patrons inherit his estate. If
he commits battery, they are required to contribute to the payment of any
compensation that is due to the victim. If his father acknowledges the child,
however, the child is affiliated to the father, and the right to the child’s
patronage goes to his father’s patrons. The child’s estate reverts to them in
430 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

the event that he dies without heirs. They are also required to contribute
to the payment of any compensation that is due to the victim of any battery
committed by the child. His father, in this case, is subject to the mandatory
punishment for falsely accusing the mother of adultery.”
1531. Mālik said, “This is also the rule that applies to an Arab woman
whose husband has publicly accused her of adultery but then comes to
acknowledge her child. The child in this case is in the same position as the
child in the previous case, except that whatever remains of his estate after
his mother and siblings have taken their respective shares belongs to the
Muslim community as long as he is unaffiliated to his father. The repudiated
child of the freedwoman (mawlāt) is inherited only by his mother and her
patrons until such time as his father acknowledges him. That is because
until he is acknowledged as his father’s child, he has neither a father nor
paternal near-relations (ʿaṣaba). If his father acknowledges him, however,
thereby establishing his paternal descent, whatever remains of his estate
belongs to his paternal near-relations.”
1532. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ
ʿalayhi ʿindanā) regarding the grandchildren of a freed slave when their
father is still a slave but their mother is a freedwoman is that the right of
patronage to the grandchildren is transferred from the mother’s patron to
the grandfather. The grandfather inherits the grandchildren’s estates as
long as their father remains a slave. If their father is manumitted, however,
the right of patronage is transferred from the grandfather to the father’s
patrons. But if the father dies while still a slave, the grandchildren’s estates
and the right to their patronage go to the grandfather. And if the slave
has two free sons and one of them dies while his father is still a slave, the
right of patronage and the right of inheritance go to the grandfather, the
father’s father.”
1533. Mālik said, regarding the case of a handmaiden who is manumitted
while pregnant but whose husband remains a slave and is manumitted
later, either before or after she delivers her baby, “The right of patronage to
the fetus goes to whoever manumitted the mother. This is because the child
had been destined for bondage before the mother was manumitted. This
child is not in the position of a child whose mother becomes pregnant with
him after her manumission. That is because the right of patronage to a child
whose mother becomes pregnant with him after her manumission goes to
his father’s patrons once the father is manumitted.”
1534. Mālik said, regarding a slave who seeks his master’s permission to
manumit one of his own slaves and whose master permits him to do so,
Book 28 431

“The right of patronage to the manumitted slave, in this case, belongs to

the first slave’s master, not the master who manumitted him (i.e., the first
slave), even if the first slave is subsequently manumitted.”

Chapter 12. Inheritance of the Right of Patronage (Walāʾ)

1535. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr reported from ʿAbd
al-Malik b. Abī Bakr b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Ḥārith b. Hishām that his father
told him that al-ʿĀṣī b. Hishām died leaving three sons, two from a first wife
and one from a second. One of the sons from the first wife subsequently
died, leaving property and freedmen. His full brother inherited al-ʿĀṣī’s
property and the right of patronage to his freedmen. Then this full brother
died. He left his own son and his half-brother on his father’s side. His son
said, “Whatever my father acquired from his brother, whether property or
the right of patronage to the freedmen, is now mine.” His uncle said, “That
is not the case. Only the property is yours, not the right of patronage to the
freedmen. Is it not the case that had the first of my deceased brothers died
today, I would have inherited him?” They took their dispute to ʿUthmān b.
ʿAffān, who ruled that the decedent’s half-brother on his father’s side should
inherit the right of patronage to the freedmen.
1536. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Ḥazm reported that his
father told him that he was sitting with Abān b. ʿUthmān when a group from
the tribe of Juhayna and another group from the tribe of Banū al-Ḥārith
b. al-Khazraj came, asking him to resolve a dispute that had broken out
between them. There was a woman from Juhayna who was married to a man
from Banū al-Ḥārith b. al-Khazraj named Ibrāhīm b. Kulayb. The woman
died, leaving property and freedmen, and her son and husband inherited
her. Then her son died, and his heirs said, “The right of patronage to the
freedmen should go to us, just as her son had that right.” The people from
Juhayna said, “That is not the case, for they are the freedmen of our female
relation, and when her son died, we should get the right of patronage with
respect to them, and we inherit them upon their death.” Abān b. ʿUthmān
ruled that the right of patronage to the freedmen belonged to the group
from Juhayna.
1537. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab said,
regarding a man who died leaving three sons and freedmen that he himself
had manumitted and who was then followed in death by two of his sons,
who left children of their own, “The third son, who is still alive, inherits
exclusively the right of patronage to the freedmen. When he dies, his
children and his nephews inherit the right of patronage to the freedmen on
an equal basis.”
432 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 13. The Estates of Abandoned Slaves (Sāʾiba) and the Right
of Patronage (Walāʾ) of Someone Who Manumits a Jewish or a
Christian Slave
1538. According to Mālik, he asked Ibn Shihāb about abandoned slaves,
and Ibn Shihāb said, “The abandoned slave may enter into a relationship
of patronage with anyone who agrees to be his patron. If he dies without
entering into a relationship of patronage, his estate belongs to the Muslim
community, and they are required to contribute to the payment of any
compensation (ʿaql) due for any batteries629 he may commit.”
1539. Mālik said, “The best opinion that has been reported about an
abandoned slave is that he is not entitled to enter into a relationship of
patronage with someone on the sole basis of an agreement with that person.
Rather, the right of patronage with respect to an abandoned slave defaults
to the Muslim community, his estate goes to the Muslim community, and
the Muslim community is required to contribute to the payment of any
compensation due for batteries that he commits.”
1540. Mālik said, regarding a Jew or a Christian whose slave converts to
Islam and who consequently manumits the slave before a judicial sale is
ordered,630 “The right of patronage (walāʾ) of freedmen such as these
belongs to the Muslim community. Even if the Jewish or Christian master
subsequently converts to Islam, he shall never enjoy the right of patronage
to that slave.” Mālik said, “On the other hand, if a Jew or a Christian manumits
a slave who is a follower of his own religion and the manumitted slave then
converts to Islam, and then the master himself converts to Islam, the right
of patronage is restored to the master. This is because it had validly come
into existence in his favor on the day he manumitted the slave.”
1541. Mālik said, “If a Christian or a Jew has Muslim children, the Muslim
children inherit the right of patronage to the freedmen of their Jewish or
Christian father in the event that the freedmen convert to Islam before
their former master does. If the manumitted slave is a Muslim when he is
manumitted, however, the Muslim children of the Christian or the Jew do

629 In common law, a battery in most jurisdictions is an intentional injury to the body of another
person. When the injury is unintentional, it is called negligence. In Islamic law, the term for
battery is jināya, and it includes both intentional and unintentional injuries to the body of
another. However, the duty of close relations or, in this case, of the Muslim community to
contribute to the compensation due to the victim arises only if the battery was unintentional.
Accordingly, in this translation, we use the term battery for both intentional and uninten-
tional violations of bodily integrity.
630 Under Islamic law, non-Muslims were not permitted to own Muslim slaves. If they came to
own a Muslim slave, whether by conversion, gift, inheritance, or other means, the Muslim
slave would be sold by judicial order and the price received given to the non-Muslim master.
Book 28 433

not receive the right of patronage to the Muslim slave, because in this case
the Jewish or Christian master has no claim to the right of patronage. The
right of patronage to a manumitted Muslim slave belongs exclusively to the
Muslim community.”

The Book of Manumission Has Been Completed, with

Praise to God in the Manner That Befits Him, and May
God Grace Muḥammad, His Prophet, and His Family.
 In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate
May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family
and Grant Them Peace.

Book 29
The Book of the Slave Who Is a Party to a
Manumission Contract (Mukātab)631

Chapter 1. Judicial Rulings (Qaḍāʾ) with Respect to the Slave Who Is a

Party to a Manumission Contract (Mukātab)
1542. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“The slave who is a party to a manumission contract remains a slave as long
as any portion of his contract remains unperformed.”
1543. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr and
Sulaymān b. Yasār would say, “The slave who is a party to a manumission
contract remains a slave as long as any portion of his contract remains
unperformed.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘And that is my opinion as well.’”
1544. Mālik said, “If a slave who is a party to a manumission contract dies
before performing the contract but leaves property in an amount greater
than what he owed, and if he has children who were born during the term
of his contract or if he included them within the scope of his contract, they
inherit whatever remains of his property after the outstanding amount has
been paid.”
1545. According to Mālik, Ḥumayd b. Qays al-Makkī reported that a
slave who was a party to a manumission contract belonging to the son of

631 A slave who is a party to a manumission contract is still a slave, but he is in important respects
almost free, as the reports in this book indicate. Such a slave enjoys the right, among other
things, to enter contracts on his own behalf, and he is obliged to discharge his obligations to
third parties, whether arising out of his contracts or caused by his perpetration of battery.
However, if the slave repudiates or is deemed to have repudiated the manumission contract,
he reverts to his previous status as a chattel slave (ʿabd mamlūk) under the complete control
of his master.

435
436 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

al-Mutawakkil died in Mecca. At the time of his death, he still owed amounts
under his manumission contract as well as other debts to third parties. He
also left a daughter. The governor of Mecca was uncertain about how to
adjudicate these claims, so he wrote to ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān, seeking
his view. ʿAbd al-Malik wrote back, saying, “Begin with the debts owed to
the third parties and then pay the unpaid amounts due under the contract.
Whatever remains, divide it between his daughter and his former master.”632
1546. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that
the slave’s master is not obliged to enter into a manumission contract with
his slave upon the slave’s request. I have not heard of anyone in authority
who ever compelled anyone to enter into a manumission contract with
his slave. I did hear, however, that some of the people of knowledge, when
asked about the verse “Contract with them for their manumission, if you
perceive any good in them,”633 would recite these two verses in response:
“When you exit the consecrated state, hunt,”634 and “And when the Friday
congregational prayer is concluded, disperse throughout the land and
seek out God’s bounty.”635 This is simply a matter in which God has granted
people permission without imposing an obligation.’”636
1547. Mālik said, “I heard some of the people of knowledge say, regarding
the statement of God, Blessed and Sublime is He, in His Book, ‘Give them
out of God’s property, over which God has given you stewardship,’637 that
it refers to the case of a man who enters into a manumission contract with
his slave and then freely remits a specified portion of the contract’s final
instalment.” Mālik said, “This is what I heard from the people of knowledge,
and I found the practice of the people among us (ʿamal al-nās ʿindanā) to be
in accordance with that.”
1548. Mālik said, “It reached me that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar entered into a
manumission contract with one of his slaves for 35,000 dirhams. He then
later reduced the final instalment of the contract by 5,000 dirhams.”

632 If any property remains after satisfying the claims of the third-party creditors and the obliga-
tions of the deceased slave under the manumission contract, the manumitted slave’s daugh-
ter inherits one-half in accordance with her stipulated Quranic share. The former master has
the right of patronage (walāʾ) in respect of the manumitted slave and therefore takes the
remainer of the decedent’s estate.
633 Al-Nūr, 24:33.
634 Al-Māʾida, 5:2.
635 Al-Jumuʿa, 62:10.
636 The point being made by the citation of these verses is that despite their use of the imper-
ative mood, no one believes that the first verse imposes an obligation to hunt or that the
second verse imposes an obligation to engage in commerce. By analogy, the mere fact that
the imperative mood is used in the verse about manumission contracts does not, by itself,
establish an obligation to enter into a manumission contract with any slave who requests it.
637 Al-Nūr, 24:33.
Book 29 437

1549. Mālik said, “The rule in our view is that when a master enters into
a manumission contract with his slave, the contract includes the slave’s
property but not his children, unless the slave expressly stipulates their
inclusion in the contract.”
1550. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, regarding a slave who has entered into a
manumission contract with his master and who himself owns a handmaiden
who, unbeknownst to both the master and himself, was pregnant from the
slave at the time they entered into the contract, ‘The slave’s unborn child
is not included in the manumission contract because the slave did not
expressly include it in the contract when he was still the master’s property.
As for the handmaiden, she belongs to the slave because she was part of his
property at the time he entered into the manumission contract.’”
1551. Mālik said, regarding a slave who enters into a manumission contract
with his owner, a free woman, and the woman then dies, leaving the slave to
her husband and her son, “If the slave dies before completing payment of all
the instalments due under his contract, the husband and the son divide the
slave’s estate in accordance with God’s Book. If he pays all the instalments
due under the contract and then dies, his estate goes to the former owner’s
son, and the husband receives nothing.”638
1552. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a slave who is a party to a manu-
mission contract and who then enters into a manumission contract with his
own slave, ‘Such a matter is to be investigated. If he was motivated to do this
only to show favoritism to his own slave, and that comes to be known, for
example, through evidence that he lessens the slave’s burden, that contract
is not binding. If, on the other hand, he was motivated by a desire to obtain
additional property and extra funds to help him pay the instalments due
under his contract, it is binding.’”
1553. Mālik said, regarding a man having intercourse with a handmaiden
of his who is a party to a manumission contract with him, “If she becomes
pregnant, she has a choice: if she wishes, she may choose to take the
status of a mother of the master’s child (umm walad) and cancel her
manumission contract; or she may continue performance of her contract.
But if she does not become pregnant, she remains subject to the terms of
her manumission contract.”

638 In the first case, in which the slave dies with outstanding instalments left under the manu-
mission contract, he is still legally a slave, and therefore the husband and the son inherit the
estate of the slave in accordance with each man’s respective share in the decedent’s estate. In
the second case, in which the slave dies after completing payment of all the instalments due
under the contract, he dies as a free person, so his estate goes to his patron. In this case, that
would be the woman’s son, insofar as he is the descendant of the person who manumitted
the slave.
438 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1554. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr
al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā) regarding a slave whom two men own in
common is that neither of them may individually enter into a manumission
contract in respect of his own share in the slave, whether or not his
co-owner consents; rather, both of them must jointly agree to enter into
the contract. This is because this is a contract that promises the slave
manumission. In the case of a partial contract, even if the slave were to
perform the contract, he would be only half-free, and the co-owner with
whom the slave contracted would not be obliged to complete the slave’s
manumission. That result contradicts what the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said: “If someone manumits his interest in a slave, the slave’s co-owners are
to be given their share of his price after the slave’s value is fairly appraised,
and the slave is fully manumitted.”’”
1555. Yaḥyā said, “And Mālik then said, ‘If no one other than the parties
to the contract knows of its existence until the slave has performed the
contract, in whole or in part, the master who contracted with the slave
must return whatever the slave paid him and share it with his partner in
accordance with their respective interests in the slave; the manumission
contract is invalidated, and the slave is restored to his original condition.’”
1556. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a slave is a party to a
manumission contract and is owned in common by two men, one of whom has
granted him an extension in the payment of an instalment due to him under
the contract while the other has refused to grant a similar extension and so
the former has collected only part of what he is owed, and the slave then
dies, leaving insufficient property to discharge the remaining instalments
under the manumission contract: “The co-owners share whatever property
the slave left, pro rata, in accordance with each one’s proportional share of
the slave’s unpaid obligation. If, on the other hand, the slave left property in
excess of what is due, each one of them takes in accordance with his share.
If the owner, the party entering into the manumission contract with the
slave, leaves a surplus beyond what is due under the contract, each one
of them takes what he is owed under the contract, in accordance with his
share, and whatever remains is divided equally between them.639 If the

639 The text of the RME differs materially from other recensions of Yaḥyā’s Muwaṭṭaʾ in the
two-sentence passage beginning with “If, on the other hand,” and concluding with “divided
equally between them.” The RME includes the following sentence not found in other ver-
sions: Fa-in taraka al-mukātib faḍlan ʿan kitābatihi akhadha kull wāḥid minhumā mā baqiya
min al-kitāba. This addition is likely a scribal error. If it were omitted, the text would be
translated as follows: “If, on the other hand, the slave left property in excess of what is due
under the manumission contract, each one of them takes what he is owed under the contract,
in accordance with his share, and whatever remains is divided equally between them.” This
Book 29 439

slave repudiates the contract and if the co-owner who refused to grant the
slave an extension collected more of what was due to him than his co-owner
did, the slave continues to be co-owned, in equal shares. The co-owner who
collected more than his fellow co-owner is under no obligation to share
the additional payment he collected from the slave, because he agreed to
manumit the slave only in accordance with the terms of the manumission
contract to which his co-owner expressly consented. If one of the co-owners
remits part of what he is owed but the other co-owner collects what is due
to him, and then the slave is unable to perform the rest of the contract, the
slave continues to be their common property. The co-owner who collected
more is under no obligation to share whatever excess payment he received
with his fellow co-owner, because he did nothing more than collect what
he was owed. This is similar to the case of a single contract of debt owed to
two creditors. One of them grants the debtor an extension, while the other
insists on prompt payment, collecting part of what he is owed. Then the
debtor becomes insolvent. In that case, the creditor who received partial
payment is not obliged to share that partial payment with the creditor who
granted an extension.”

Chapter 2. Guaranty of a Manumission Contract

1557. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr
al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā) is that when a group of slaves jointly contract
for their manumission, they act as mutual guarantors of one another’s
obligations. Accordingly, should any of them die, they are not entitled to
any reduction in their obligations. If one of them were to throw up his
hands and say, “I can’t do it,” his fellows are entitled to engage him in some
kind of employment that he can reasonably endure, thereby assisting one
another in discharging their obligations, so that he is manumitted if they
are manumitted, and he remains a slave if they remain slaves.’”
1558. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us is that when a master
enters into a manumission contract with his slave (mukātab), the master
is not allowed to benefit from another person’s guaranty of the slave’s
performance of the contract should the slave die or abandon the contract.
Such a guaranty is not part of the long-established ordinances of the
Muslims (sunnat al-muslimīn). This is because if a third party guarantees
the slave’s obligation to his master under the manumission contract and
the master enforces that obligation against the guarantor, the master would
be unjustly enriched by the guarantor’s property. The master neither sold

version makes more sense, but we have nonetheless preserved the apparent error for the
sake of of fidelity to the text of the RME.
440 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

him the slave, in which case what the master took from the guarantor would
have been the price of something that is now the guarantor’s property,
nor was the slave manumitted, in which case the payment of the guaranty
would have been the price of establishing the slave’s inviolability. Thus, if
a slave who is a party to a manumission contract repudiates (or is deemed
to have repudiated) the contract, he reverts to his former status as a chattel
slave (ʿabd mamlūk) of his master. This is because a manumission contract
is not an enforceable debt in respect of which the master may benefit from
a guaranty. Rather, it is a way for the slave to be manumitted if he performs
it. If a slave who is a party to a manumission contract dies with outstanding
debts, his master is not allowed to claim payment of what he is owed under
the manumission contract out of the slave’s estate, in contrast to the slave’s
third-party creditors, who are entitled to repayment out of the dead slave’s
property. The slave’s third-party creditors have a greater claim than the
master to the slave’s estate. If a slave who is a party to a manumission
contract repudiates the contract, he reverts to his former status as a chattel
slave of his master, even if he is indebted to third-party creditors. In this case,
the slave remains liable with respect to the debts he owes to the third-party
creditors, but they are payable only out of any property the slave presently
has or might have in the future. The third-party creditors have no right to
share ownership of the slave’s person with his master.”
1559. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘When a group of slaves jointly enter into
a single manumission contract, and they share no ties of kinship through
which they would inherit from one another, they are mutual guarantors of
one another’s obligations. None is manumitted until all are manumitted
through payment of all of the obligations under the contract. If one of them
dies, leaving property in excess of the entire amount they collectively owe,
that property is used to satisfy the entirety of their joint obligation, with
any surplus going to the deceased slave’s master. None of the surplus goes
to the other slaves who entered the manumission contract along with the
deceased slave. The master of the dead slave may also recoup from the other
slaves the amounts that were paid from the deceased slave’s property, in
accordance with their shares. The deceased slave was only their guarantor.
Consequently, they must reimburse his estate for the property that was
used to pay for their manumission.640 If the deceased slave had free children
who had been born before the manumission contract was concluded but
who were not included in the manumission contract, they do not inherit
from him because the slave was manumitted only after he died.’”

640 In this case, the master’s only claims against his former slaves are those of a creditor; the
slaves, although indebted to their former master, are now free.
Book 29 441

Chapter 3. Accelerated Prepayment (Qaṭāʿa) of a Manumission

Contract641
1560. According to Mālik, it reached him that Umm Salama, the wife of the
Prophet (pbuh), would agree to accept prepayment in gold and silver642 in
discharge of manumission contracts from any slaves of hers with whom she
had made such contracts.
1561. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ
ʿalayhi ʿindanā) concerning a slave who is a party to a manumission contract
(mukātab) and who is owned by two partners in common is that neither of
them may accept from the slave prepayment of his share of the manumission
contract without the other’s consent. This is because the partners own both
the slave and his property. Accordingly, neither of them is permitted to take
any of their commonly owned property without his partner’s consent. Were
it the case that only one of them accepted prepayment from the slave, and
that transaction were deemed valid, and then the slave died, whether or not
the slave left property, the partner who accepted prepayment would not have
a claim to any of the dead slave’s property; nor could that partner refund
what the dead slave had given him as advance payment of the manumission
contract and then retroactively resume his status as the slave’s co-owner.
When a co-owner accepts prepayment of the manumission contract with
his partner’s consent, however, and the slave then repudiates the contract,
that partner has the right to refund the prepayment that the slave made
and retroactively reclaim his proportional ownership of the slave. If, in this
case, the slave dies leaving property, the partner whose claim under the
manumission contract was unsatisfied can satisfy his claim in full out of the
deceased slave’s property. Then, whatever remains of the slave’s property
is divided between the partner who accepted prepayment and the other
partner who did not, in accordance with their respective shares in the slave.
If one of them accepted prepayment of the contract while the other partner
insisted on the original payment terms, and the slave then repudiated the
contract, the partner who accepted prepayment is given a choice: ‘If you
wish, you may share with your partner half of the prepayment that you
took from the slave, in which case you will co-own the slave equally. If you

641 Such prepayment is a transaction between a slave who has already entered a manumission
contract and his master. The transaction involves the slave offering to pay the master imme-
diately a reduced amount in exchange for immediate manumission.
642 Mālik mentions Umm Salama’s precedent of accepting a reduced prepayment in gold and
silver to make clear that in his opinion this transaction was exempt from the general rules
prohibiting the accelerated payment of commercial debts denominated in gold and silver
in exchange for a reduction in the debtor’s contractual obligation. See Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr,
al-Istidhkār, 7:397–98.
442 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

refuse to share the prepayment with your partner, the slave becomes the
sole property of your partner, who maintained his rights under the contract
in their entirety.’”
1562. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a slave whom two partners
own in common is a party to a manumission contract with them, and his
offer of prepayment of the contract is accepted by one of the partners
with the other partner’s consent; the partner who insisted on the original
payment terms then receives instalments from the slave under the contract
in an amount equivalent to or in excess of what the other partner accepted
as prepayment of the entire contract; and the slave then repudiates the
contract: “The slave remains their common property, because the partner
collected only what was owed to him from the slave. If, on the other hand,
he collected less than what the partner who accepted prepayment from
the slave received, and then the slave repudiates the contract, the partner
who accepted prepayment is free to do one of two things. If he agrees to
share with his partner half of what he received from the slave in excess of
what his partner received, the slave again becomes their commonly owned
property. If he refuses, however, the slave becomes the sole property of the
partner who insisted on the original payment terms. If the slave dies leaving
property and the partner who accepted prepayment agrees to give his
partner half of the amount that he received from the slave in excess of what
his partner received, they divide the slave’s estate equally. If the one who
maintained his rights under the manumission contract received an equal
or greater amount compared to the partner who accepted prepayment, the
slave’s estate belongs to both of them, because he took only his due.”
1563. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a slave owned in common
is a party to a manumission contract, and one of the co-owners agrees
to accept prepayment of the contract for half of what is due to him with
his partner’s consent, but then the co-owner who maintained his rights
under the manumission contract collects less from the slave than what the
partner who accepted prepayment received, and then the slave repudiates
the contract: “If the partner who accepted prepayment agrees to share with
his partner half of the amount that he received in excess of his partner, the
slave once again becomes their commonly owned property. If he refuses to
do so, however, the partner who maintained his rights under the contract
takes over his partner’s share in the slave. An example of this would be a
slave owned by two men in common in equal shares. They then jointly enter
into a contract of manumission with the slave. Then, with the permission
of his partner, one of the co-owners agrees to accept prepayment from the
slave for one-half of his claim under the contract, that being one-fourth of
Book 29 443

the entire slave. The slave then repudiates the contract. In this case, the
partner who accepted prepayment has two choices. He is told, ‘If you wish,
share with your partner half of the excess amount that you received from
the slave relative to what your partner received, in which case the slave
becomes your common property in equal proportions.’ If he refuses to share
that excess amount with his partner, the other partner takes the one-fourth
interest of the partner who accepted prepayment exclusively for himself.
He also maintains his own one-half interest in the slave. That amounts
to three-fourths of the slave. The partner who accepted prepayment of
one-half of what he was owed under the contract is given one-fourth of
the slave, because he refused to share what he received in respect of the
one-fourth of the slave for which he had accepted prepayment.”
1564. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which the master of a slave who
is a party to a manumission contract accepts prepayment from him for a
reduced amount, resulting in his complete manumission, but then imposes
on the manumitted slave the unpaid amount under the contract as a debt,
and the slave then dies, owing debts to third parties: “The master’s claim,
arising out of the unpaid amount under the original manumission contract,
is not included along with the claims of the third-party creditors against the
deceased debtor’s property. The claims of the third-party creditors must be
satisfied first.”
1565. Mālik said, “The slave who is a party to a manumission contract may
not offer to prepay what he owes his master if he owes debts to third parties,
if the result would be that he would be insolvent upon his manumission.
This is because the third-party creditors have a greater claim to the slave’s
property than his master does. He is thus not permitted to do that.”
1566. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that there is
nothing objectionable in the scenario of a master who has entered into a
manumission contract with his slave for a specific amount of gold later
agreeing to remit some of that amount on condition that the slave pays the
reduced amount immediately. The only reason some people disapprove of
it is that they deem this exchange the equivalent of the case of a debt owed
by one man to another, in respect of which the creditor agrees to reduce
the amount owed in exchange for the debtor’s immediate payment of the
reduced amount. However, this is not the equivalent of a debt. Rather, the
slave’s immediate prepayment of a reduced amount to his master is in
exchange for immediate manumission, as a result of which the slave receives
the right to inherit and to testify in court, as well as the full protections of
criminal law, including against slander. He also receives the inviolability
that manumission entails. He has not sold dirhams for dirhams, nor gold
444 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

for gold; instead, his case is more like that of a master who says to his
slave-boy, ‘Give me such-and-such a number of dinars, and I will set you
free.’ Later, the master unilaterally remits some of that amount, saying, ‘If
you give me some lesser amount, I will set you free.’ The master’s initial
statement does not establish a determinate contractual debt. If it were a
determinate contractual debt, the master would be entitled to share the
slave’s property with the slave’s third-party creditors in respect of whatever
the slave still owed him under the manumission contract if the slave were
to die or become insolvent without having met his obligations under the
manumission contract.”643

Chapter 4. Batteries (Jirāḥ) Committed by a Slave Who Is a Party to a

Manumission Contract (Mukātab)
1567. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The best view I have heard regarding a slave
who is a party to a manumission contract and who causes someone else
an injury grave enough to require compensation is that if he has property
sufficient to pay the required compensation as well as what he owes under
his manumission contract, he must first pay the compensation due. In this
case, he continues to enjoy his rights under the manumission contract. If he
is unable, however, to pay the required compensation, he is deemed to have
repudiated his manumission contract. This is because his obligation to pay
compensation for the battery (jurḥ) takes priority over his right to complete
performance of the manumission contract. Further, if he is unable to pay the
compensation due for his battery, his master is given a choice. If he wishes,
he may pay the compensation due for the injury and retain his slave, who in
this case reverts to being a chattel slave (ʿabd mamlūk). Alternatively, if the
master wishes, he may surrender the slave to the injured party. The master
is not required to do anything beyond surrendering his slave.’”
1568. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘If a group of slaves jointly enter into a man-
umission contract, and then one of them commits a battery that requires
compensation, he and his fellow slaves who are parties to the same man-
umission contract will be told, “You are all jointly liable for payment of
the compensation due for that battery.” If they satisfy that obligation, they

643 Mālik’s analysis of the manumission contract analogizes it to a unilateral contract or a

reward contract (juʿl), which, in Mālik’s doctrine, binds the offeror once the offeree begins
performance. The offeree remains free to repudiate the contract at any time, but only upon
completion of the contract does the offeree become entitled to the reward promised by the
offeror. In the case of a manumission contract, the slave is being offered freedom as a reward
for obtaining an agreed-upon sum of money or other property. Once the slave accepts this
offer, the master is not free to repudiate the offer, whereas the slave is. Because it is a unilat-
eral reward contract, moreover, it does not constitute a debt, and therefore the master is free
to reduce what the slave must deliver in order to receive his reward.
Book 29 445

retain their rights under their manumission contract, but if they do not,
they are deemed to have repudiated their manumission contract, and their
master is given a choice. If he wishes, he may pay the compensation due
for the battery, in which case the slaves all revert to their former status as
his chattel slaves. Alternatively, he may surrender the perpetrator to the
victim. In this case, the others revert to their former status as his chattel
slaves because of their failure to pay the compensation due for the battery
perpetrated by their fellow.’”
1569. Mālik said, “The rule about which there is no dissent among us
(al-amr alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi ʿindanā) is that if a slave who is a party to a
manumission contract is injured and is entitled to compensation for that
injury, or if one of his children included with him under the manumission
contract is injured, the measure of compensation to which they are entitled
is the diminution in their fair market value. Whatever compensation is
paid in respect of them is given to their master, who owns the right to
payment under the manumission contract. Any amount the master collects
in compensation for such injuries must be deducted from the amount the
slave owes under the manumission contract. An example of this rule is a
situation in which the manumission contract is for 3,000 dirhams and the
compensation received by the master is 1,000 dirhams; once the slave
pays his master 2,000 dirhams, the slave is manumitted. If the unpaid
portion of the contract is 1,000 dirhams and the compensation received
for the injury is 1,000 dirhams, the slave is manumitted immediately. If,
on the other hand, the amount due to the master in respect of the injury
to his slave exceeds the outstanding amount under the manumission
contract, the master keeps only an amount equal to that which he is
owed, and the slave is manumitted. Whatever amount remains after the
contract has been fully paid belongs to the slave. In no case should any
of the compensation due for an injury be paid directly to the slave, lest
he consume it or dissipate it. Should it happen that he later repudiates
the manumission contract (or is deemed to have repudiated it), he might
revert to his master mutilated, perhaps one-eyed, with only one hand,
or otherwise crippled. His master entered into a manumission contract
with the slave relying on the slave’s possessions and his prospective
earnings, not in anticipation of receiving compensation for injuries to the
slave or his children and being subjected to the risk that the slave may
consume the compensation or otherwise dissipate it. For this reason, any
compensation received for injuries to the slave, his children born during
the term of the manumission contract, or his children included as part of
the manumission contract is paid directly to his master. The slave is given
credit for these amounts at the conclusion of the contract.”
446 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 5. The Sale of a Slave Who Is a Party to a Manumission

Contract (Mukātab)
1570. Mālik said, “The best view that has been reported regarding a man
who purchases a manumission contract,644 if that manumission contract
is to be paid in gold dinars or silver dirhams, is that he must pay for the
contract using goods that are due immediately and are delivered without
any delay. This is because if the purchaser were to defer payment of the
contract’s purchase price, the transaction would amount to settling one
debt through another debt,645 and payment of one debt by means of another
debt is unlawful.”
1571. Mālik said, “If the master who has entered into a manumission
contract with his slave has specified payment in terms of particular goods,
be they camels, cattle, sheep (ghanam), or slaves, a purchaser may purchase
that contract from the master for gold, silver, or goods—provided that the
goods are different from the goods specified in the manumission contract—
on the condition that the purchaser agrees to pay immediately and makes
delivery without any delay.”
1572. Mālik said, “The best view I have heard regarding a slave who is a
party to a manumission contract and whose contract is sold is that he has
a greater right to purchase his own manumission contract than any third
party does, provided that he can deliver to his master in cash the price at
which the master has agreed to sell the contract. This is because his act
of self-purchase amounts to manumission, and manumission is given
priority over any other bequests that a testator may make in his will.646
However, if one of the co-owners of a slave sells his share in the slave, be it
one-half, one-third, one-quarter, or any other share, after all the co-owners
have entered into a manumission contract with that slave, the slave does
not enjoy a right of first refusal (shufʿa) to purchase that share. That is
because the purchase of a fractional interest in himself is the equivalent of
a prepayment (qaṭāʿa) of the manumission contract with only one of the

644 In other words, the purchaser is paying for the right to receive the payments due from the
slave under the manumission contract.
645 In this case, if the manumission contract provides for the future payment of gold or silver
instalments, the purchaser of the manumission contract is acquiring a right to be paid in gold
and silver in the future. If the purchaser acquires this right by promising the master future pay-
ment of instalments in gold and silver, the agreement amounts to the seller settling his future
obligations to the purchaser by means of the purchaser’s future obligations to the seller.
646 If a person dies and provides for the disposition of some of his assets in a will, and the
property he intends to dispose of exceeds one-third of his assets, any slaves whom he has
designated for manumission are to be manumitted before any of the other testamentary dis-
positions are distributed, even if that means that some testamentary dispositions will not be
fulfilled as a result.
Book 29 447

slave’s co-owners. A slave owned in common is not permitted to prepay the

share of any of his masters in his manumission contract unless the others
agree. Moreover, he does not attain complete freedom through acquisition
of what is being offered for sale. He is still barred from complete ownership
of his own property. Finally, if he purchases only a partial interest in himself,
there is the risk that he later repudiates (or is deemed to have repudiated)
the manumission contract because his ability to pay what he owes under
the manumission contract has been reduced through his purchase of that
partial interest. Therefore, the slave’s purchase of a partial interest in
himself is not the equivalent of the slave’s buying himself completely, unless
the co-owners who retain an interest in the manumission contract give him
permission. If they do, he has a greater right to acquire the partial interest
that is being sold.”
1573. Mālik said, “The sale of one or more instalments (najm) due from
a slave who is a party to a manumission contract is not permissible. This
is because of material uncertainty in the consideration (gharar).647 If the
slave repudiates (or is deemed to have repudiated) the contract, his debt
is canceled. If the slave dies owing debts to third parties or goes bankrupt,
the purchaser of an instalment due under the manumission contract is not
entitled to make a claim to the slave’s assets along with his third-party
creditors. The purchaser of an instalment due under a manumission contract
has only the rights of the slave’s master. The slave’s master is not entitled
to make a claim to the slave’s assets alongside third-party creditors on the
basis of the unpaid amounts of the manumission contract. Rather, their
claims are paid first. The same rule applies to the slave’s earnings that the
slave owes to the master: the master may not recoup them out of the slave’s
assets until the third-party creditors’ claims have first been satisfied.”
1574. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable in a slave who is a party
to a manumission contract purchasing his obligations under that contract
from his master, with payment in either specie (ʿayn)648 or goods, which
may be the same as or different from the genus of the payment specified in
the contract, whether he pays promptly or defers payment.”649

647 In Islamic contract law, there can be no uncertainty with respect to the material terms of
the contract, whether arising out of indefiniteness in the description of the consideration or
relating to uncertainty regarding the ability of the party to perform the obligation.
648 ʿAyn is used generically in Islamic law to refer to either gold or silver.
649 Mālik’s point here is that the manumission contract is not a commercial contract between the
slave and his master. Accordingly, ordinarily applicable rules regarding the means by which
debt obligations may be satisfied do not apply. For this reason, a slave is permitted to prepay
what he owes under a manumission contract using the same genus of payment as that owed
under the original contract, whereas a third party could not do so.
448 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1575. Mālik said, regarding a slave who is a party to a manumission

contract and dies leaving a handmaiden who has borne him children (umm
walad) and minor children, whether from her or from another woman, who
are incapable of earning money and thus at risk of being deemed to have
repudiated the manumission contract, “The father’s handmaiden, whether
or not she is the childrens’ mother, should be sold, but only if she would
fetch a price sufficient to discharge the entirety of what they owe under the
manumission contract to secure their manumission. The father would not
have objected to selling her if he feared that he would be deemed to have
repudiated the manumission contract. Consequently, if there is a concern
that the children will repudiate (or be deemed to have repudiated) the
manumission contract, their father’s handmaiden should be sold and the
proceeds from her sale applied to the discharge of the childrens’ obligations
under the manumission contract. If, on the other hand, the price she would
fetch is insufficient to discharge their obligations under the manumission
contract, and neither she nor they are capable of earning money, all of them
revert to their prior status as chattel slaves of their master.”650
1576. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) regarding a
scenario in which a person purchases the obligations of a slave who is
a party to a manumission contract but the slave dies before discharging
those obligations is that the purchaser of the contract inherits the
slave’s estate. Alternatively, if the slave repudiates (or is deemed to have
repudiated) the contract, the purchaser becomes the slave’s master. If the
slave is able to discharge his obligations under the manumission contract
to the purchaser, he is manumitted; however, the right of patronage
(walāʾ) with respect to the manumitted slave nevertheless belongs to the
master with whom the slave first entered the manumission contract. The
purchaser of his obligations under the manumission contract receives
none of the rights of patronage.”

Chapter 6. What Has Come Down regarding the Work of a Slave Who
Has Entered a Manumission Contract (Mukātab)
1577. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr and
Sulaymān b. Yasār were both asked about a male slave who entered into a
manumission contract with his master for himself and his children and then
died: were the slave’s children entitled to work for manumission under the

650 In order for this hypothetical case to make sense, one must assume that the deceased slave
included his children within the terms of his manumission contract. His handmaiden, insofar
as she was his personal property, would not have needed to be specified in the contract,
because under Mālik’s rule, a slave who is a party to a manumission contract retains what-
ever personal property he has upon discharge of his obligations under the contract.
Book 29 449

terms of their father’s manumission contract, or were they simply chattel

slaves? They said, “Indeed, they are entitled to work pursuant to the terms
of their father’s manumission contract, but they are not entitled to any
reduction of the amount owed as a result of their father’s death.” Mālik said,
“If the children are minors and incapable of working, there is no obligation
to wait until they are older to resolve their status: they are the slaves of
their father’s master, unless the dead slave left sufficient property to pay
the instalments they owe to the master until they are able to work. If he did
leave enough to cover the instalments, their amount is paid on the children’s
behalf out of the dead slave’s property, and the children are left alone until
they are old enough to work. Then, if they discharge what they still owe, they
are manumitted, but if they repudiate (or are deemed to have repudiated)
the contract, they revert to their former status as chattel slaves.”
1578. Mālik said, regarding a slave who is a party to a manumission contract
and dies leaving property insufficient to discharge what he owes under the
contract, children who were included within the manumission contract,
and a handmaiden who bore him children (umm walad) who desires to
work in order to obtain money to discharge their obligations under the
manumission contract, “The deceased slave’s property should be given
to her if she is sufficiently trustworthy to preserve it and healthy enough
to work. If, however, she is not healthy enough to work nor sufficiently
trustworthy to preserve the property, she should not receive anything. In
that case, she and the slave’s children revert to their prior status as chattel
slaves of the deceased slave’s master.”
1579. Mālik said, “If a group of slaves who are unrelated to one another
jointly enter into a manumission contract, and some of them repudiate (or
are deemed to have repudiated) the contract while the others work, earning
money successfully until all of them are manumitted, those who successfully
worked for money are entitled to a contribution from those who repudiated
(or were deemed to have repudiated) the contract in accordance with their
proportionate share of what they paid on their fellows’ behalf, because they
are all guarantors for one another.”

Chapter 7. The Accelerated Manumission of a Slave (Mukātab) Who

Discharges What He Owes under the Manumission Contract before
Its Maturity Date
1580. According to Mālik, he heard Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān and
others mention that a slave who had entered into a manumission contract
with his master, al-Furāfiṣa b. ʿUmayr al-Ḥanafī, offered to prepay the entire
balance due under his manumission contract, but al-Furāfiṣa refused. The
450 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

slave then went to Marwān b. al-Ḥakam, who was the governor of Medina
at the time, and complained to him. Marwān summoned al-Furāfiṣa and
renewed the offer to him, but al-Furāfiṣa again refused to accept it. Marwān,
therefore, ordered that the money be taken from the slave and placed in
the public treasury for safekeeping. He then said to the slave, “Go; you have
been manumitted.” When al-Furāfiṣa heard of Marwān’s decision, he went
and took possession of the money.
1581. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that a slave
who is a party to a manumission contract may pay his master all of his
instalments before their maturity dates. His master may not refuse him,
because payment in full of what he owes relieves the slave of every condition
and obligation of service or travel that the master could impose on him.
Moreover, a person’s manumission is not complete if any trace of bondage
over him remains, nor in this case would his inviolability under the law be
complete, his testimony admissible before a judge, his estate passable to
his heirs, or his other affairs valid. His master is not permitted, therefore, to
require any service of him after his manumission.”
1582. Mālik said, regarding a slave who is a party to a manumission
contract and becomes afflicted with a severe illness, consequently wishing
to pay all the instalments due to his master at once so that his free heirs
may inherit him—none of them, however, being his own children, because
they were not included in the manumission contract—“That is permissible
for him, because by doing so he completes his inviolability under the law
and renders his testimony admissible before a judge, his acknowledgment
of debts owed to third parties binding, and his bequests enforceable. His
master may not refuse him that by claiming, ‘He is trying to deprive me of
his property.’”651

Chapter 8. The Estate of a Slave Manumitted through a Manumission

Contract (Mukātab)
1583. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab was asked
about a slave whom two men owned in common and who entered into a
manumission contract with both of them. One of the two decided to manumit
his share of the slave, and then the slave died, leaving substantial property.

651 If the slave died as a result of his illness and he had not been allowed to discharge what he
owed under the manumission contract before his death, the slave’s property would pass to
the master. Mālik rejects the master’s argument that the slave’s decision to pay the outstand-
ing amount should be invalidated because it took place on the slave’s deathbed, even though
gratuitous deathbed transfers are ordinarily not valid. Mālik’s argument is that the transfer
in this case is not gratuitous, because it results in the slave’s freedom.
Book 29 451

Saʿīd said, “The amount still outstanding under the manumission contract
is paid to the one who maintained the manumission contract, and whatever
remains of the decedent’s estate is divided between them equally.”652
1584. Mālik said, “When a slave who is a party to a manumission contract
is manumitted and then dies, the nearest living male kin of his manumitter
on the day of his death, be they children or male paternal near-relations
(ʿaṣaba), inherit him. This is the rule for every person who has been
manumitted: his estate goes to his manumitter’s nearest male kin as of the
day of his death, be they children or paternal near-relations, and his estate
passes according to the right of patronage (walāʾ).”653
1585. Mālik said, “Brothers who are parties to a manumission contract are in
the same position as the children of a slave who is a party to a manumission
contract, provided that they jointly entered a single manumission contract
and further that none of them has any children of his own whom he included
in his own manumission contract from its outset or who were born to him
during the term of the manumission contract. In this case—that is, where
there are no children—the brothers inherit one another, should one of
them die. However, if one of them has children either born during the term
of the manumission contract or included in the manumission contract from
its outset, and he dies leaving property, that property is used to satisfy
the unpaid amount under the manumission contract. If it is sufficient to
discharge the amount, the deceased brother’s children are manumitted.
Moreover, any remaining surplus property (faḍl) belonging to the deceased
brother goes to his children, not to his brothers.”

Chapter 9. Conditions Imposed by the Master on His Slave (Mukātab)

at the Time of the Manumission Contract
1586. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man enters
into a manumission contract with his slave for an amount of gold or silver
and imposes on him an additional condition, such as undertaking a journey,
performing a service, or slaughtering an animal, expressly specifying these
additional things, and the slave successfully pays all the instalments under
the contract before they are due: ‘Once he pays all of his instalments, even
if any of these conditions remain unfulfilled, he immediately becomes free,

652 In this case, the former masters inherit the slave’s estate as a right of patronage (walāʾ), not
as owners of the property.
653 This rule applies only to the extent that the manumitted slave dies without any familial heirs
or the familial heirs do not exhaust the manumitted slave’s estate. In either case, the right of
patronage allows the manumitter or the nearest male relation of the manumitter to inherit
the slave’s estate or the undistributed surplus (faḍl) of the slave’s estate.
452 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

and his inviolability under the law is perfected. The condition that his
master had imposed on him, be it travel, service, or some other, similar
thing that requires the slave’s personal performance, is to be examined. He
is excused from any requirement that requires his personal performance,
and the master has no claim against him with respect to such things. As for
matters that do not require the slave’s personal performance, such as the
slaughter of an animal, the preparation of clothing, or anything else that the
slave is to deliver to the master, such matters are deemed the equivalent of
a payment of gold and silver coins. An appraisal is made of the fair market
value of these services in money, and the slave must then pay it in addition
to the instalments that are due under the contract. He is not manumitted
until he pays these amounts in addition to his instalments.’”654
1587. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us about which there is no
dissent (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīh) is that
a slave who is a party to a manumission contract and whose master dies
before the slave is able to perform the manumission contract is subject to
the same rule as a slave whose master has agreed to manumit him after
the slave provides him ten years of service but whose master dies before
the ten years have elapsed: the remaining time of his service belongs to the
master’s heirs, and the right of patronage (walāʾ) belongs to the one who
entered into the manumission contract with the slave, his male children, or
his male paternal near-relations (ʿaṣaba).”655
1588. Mālik said, regarding a man who says to his slave at the time of entering
into a manumission contract with him, “You may neither travel, nor marry,
nor leave my domicile without my permission, and if you do any of these
things without my permission, I am entitled to cancel the manumission
contract”: “The master is not entitled to cancel the manumission contract
unilaterally, even if the slave does one or more of these things. Rather,
the master should file a complaint with the authorities. A slave who is a
party to a manumission contract is not entitled to travel, marry, or leave
his master’s domicile without the master’s prior permission, whether or
not the master stipulated any of these things in the manumission contract.

654 Mālik distinguishes here between two kinds of conditions that a master could impose on his
slave in a manumission contract. The first is a condition that can be fulfilled only by the slave
himself. In Mālik’s opinion, such a condition is void and provides the master no claim against
the slave. The second is a condition that the slave can fulfill by paying someone to do it. In this
case, Mālik’s rule is that the slave is obliged to pay to the master the fair value of the service
involved as part of the amount due under the manumission contract.
655 In other words, the deceased master’s heirs inherit the slave, subject to the terms of the
manumission contract. The master’s death does not terminate the manumission contract
with the slave, nor does it deprive the master’s male heirs of the right of patronage (walāʾ) if
the slave performs the contract and is manumitted.
Book 29 453

This is because a master might very well enter into a manumission contract
for one hundred dinars, for example, knowing that the slave already has in
his possession one thousand dinars, or even more than that, but then the
slave goes out and marries a woman, giving her a dower that consumes the
entirety of his property and bankrupting himself, with the result that he is
forced to repudiate the manumission contract, and the master is left with
a penniless slave. Or the slave sets out on a journey, and his instalments
mature while he is away and he is thus unable to pay them. He is not free to
do that, nor would his manumission contract give him the liberty to do it.
Such matters and others like them remain subject to his master’s control. If
he wishes, the master may permit the slave to do any of these things, and if
he wishes, he may forbid him.”

Chapter 10. The Rights of Patronage (Walāʾ) When a Slave Who Is a

Party to a Manumission Contract (Mukātab) Manumits His Own Slave
1589. Mālik said, “If a slave who is a party to a manumission contract
manumits a slave of his own, the manumission is of no effect unless the
first slave’s master ratifies it. If the master approves the first slave’s
decision to manumit the second slave, and if, sometime later, the first slave
is manumitted, the right of patronage (walāʾ) with respect to the second
slave goes to the first slave. If the first slave dies before he is manumitted,
however, the right of patronage to the second slave goes to the master of the
first slave. If the second slave dies after having been manumitted but before
the first slave’s manumission, the master of the first slave (and not the first
slave himself) inherits the second slave’s property.”656
1590. Mālik said, “The same applies if a slave who is a party to a
manumission contract enters into a manumission contract with his own
slave, and the second slave is manumitted before the first. The right of
patronage with respect to the second slave, in this case, goes to the first
slave’s master, as long as the first slave has yet to be manumitted. Once the
first slave is manumitted, however, the right of patronage with respect to
the second slave, who was manumitted earlier, reverts to the first slave.
If the first slave dies before performing his manumission contract or
repudiates (or is deemed to have repudiated) it, and leaves free children,
they do not inherit the right of patronage with respect to their father’s
slave, because the right of patronage was never vested in their father. The

656 The principle that governs this case is that the first slave’s manumission of the second slave
is valid only if the master of the first slave approves it. Even if the master approves it, how-
ever, the first slave does not receive the benefits of patronage until he himself is manumitted.
Therefore, should the first slave die before he is manumitted, or should the second slave die
before the first slave is manumitted, the master steps into his shoes in each case.
454 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

right of patronage would only have been vested in him after he himself
had been manumitted.”
1591. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a slave is owned in common
by two men who have together entered into a manumission contract with
him, one waiving what the slave owes him under the contract but the other
insisting on payment in full, and the slave then dies, leaving property: “The
one who insisted on payment in full is paid what is owed him, and then they
divide the remaining property between them equally, as would have been the
case had the decedent died as a slave. This is because what the first co-owner
did was not tantamount to an act of manumission but rather constituted
a waiver of his right to a sum of money. A similar case corroborates this
conclusion. Take the case of a man who dies leaving a slave who is a party
to a manumission contract as well as male and female heirs. Then one of
the heirs manumits his share of the slave. That would not entitle the heir
to claim any portion of the right of patronage with respect to the slave. Had
this been a case of manumission, however, the right of patronage would
have been established for whichever of the heirs manumitted him, male or
female. Another similar case that corroborates this is one in which one of the
heirs manumitted his share of the slave and then the slave repudiated (or
was deemed to have repudiated) the contract: the remaining, unmanumitted
portion of the slave would not be subject to mandatory appraisal in order to
calculate what the manumitting heir owes to the other heirs. Had this been
a case of manumission, however, an appraisal of the unmanumitted value of
the slave would have been required, that sum would have been due out of
the manumitting heir’s own property, and the slave would be immediately
manumitted, in accordance with the statement of the Messenger of God
(pbuh), who said, ‘If someone manumits his interest in a slave, the slave’s
value is fairly appraised, and the appraised value is deducted from the
manumitter’s property and given to his co-owners in proportion to their
shares in the slave. If he lacks sufficient property, only that portion of the
slave that has been manumitted is in fact manumitted.’”
1592. Mālik said, “Another point that corroborates this is that it is a
long-established ordinance of the Muslims about which there is no dissent
(sunnat al-muslimīn allatī lā ikhtilāfa fīhā) that whoever manumits his
interest in a slave who is a party to a manumission contract is not then
compelled to complete the slave’s manumission out of his own property.
Were he so compelled, he would hold the exclusive right of patronage in
respect of this slave.”
1593. Mālik said, “Another point that corroborates this is that it is a
long-established ordinance of the Muslims that the right of patronage goes
Book 29 455

to whoever made the manumission contract with the slave. The female
heirs of the master who made the manumission contract do not inherit
any right to patronage of the slave, even if they manumitted their interests
in the slave after they inherited him. It is rather the case that the right of
patronage goes only to the manumitting master’s male children or to his
male paternal near-relations (ʿaṣaba).”

Chapter 11. Invalid Manumission of a Slave Who Is a Party to a

Manumission Contract (Mukātab)
1594. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘If a group of slaves have jointly entered into a
single manumission contract, their master is not permitted to manumit any
one of them without first consulting the other parties to the manumission
contract and obtaining their consent. If they are minors, however, there is
no point in consulting them, and such a manumission would not bind them
in any case.’”
1595. Mālik said, “This is because it may very well be that the specific
manumitted slave could labor for the benefit of all of them and would
be able to discharge successfully their obligations under the contract,
thereby securing the manumission of them all. Realizing this, the master
intentionally manumits the one slave among them who is clearly able to
discharge all of their obligations, the one in whom lies the deliverance of
them all from bondage. As a consequence, the remaining slaves are forced
to repudiate (or will be deemed to have repudiated) their obligations under
the manumission contract. The master does this only out of a desire to
realize profit and gain for himself. Accordingly, his manumission of that
slave has no binding effect on the remaining slaves.657 The Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, ‘No one should harm another or repay one injury with
another,’ and that is the worst form of injury.”
1596. Mālik said, regarding slaves who jointly enter a single manumission
contract, “Their master may manumit those of them who are old and
decrepit, or who are minors incapable of contributing anything toward the
discharge of the contract, or who are too weak to work and incapable of
assisting in the performance of the contract in any way. The manumission
of such slaves is valid and binding.”

657 Mālikīs disagree, however, regarding whether the remaining slaves may consent to the man-
umission of one of their group, with some authorities concluding that their consent to such
a manumission renders it valid and binding and others arguing that their consent is insuf-
ficient to render the manumission valid since it increases the risk that the remaining slaves
will be re-enslaved. All Mālikīs agree, however, that if any of the slaves are minors, the mas-
ter’s manumission of one of the adult slaves is always invalid. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 7:34.
456 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 12. Miscellaneous Reports on What Has Come Down

regarding the Manumission of a Slave Who Is a Party to a
Manumission Contract (Mukātab) and the Manumission of His
Handmaiden Who Has Borne Him a Child (Umm Walad)
1597. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man enters
into a manumission contract with his slave and the slave then dies without
having paid the manumission contract in full, leaving his handmaiden
who has borne him children (umm walad) and enough other property to
discharge what he owed at his death: ‘His handmaiden reverts to being a
chattel slave, because he died before he was manumitted. Moreover, he did
not leave children who would have become manumitted upon payment of
the balance due under the manumission contract. Had that been the case it
would have resulted in the manumission of their father’s handmaiden as an
effect of their manumission.’”
1598. Mālik said, regarding a slave who is a party to a manumission
contract and who manumits a slave of his own or gives away some of his
own property in charity, in each case without the prior knowledge of his
master, who discovers the actions only after the slave has been manumitted:
“These actions bind the former slave, and he cannot repudiate them. Had
the slave’s master known about them before the slave was manumitted and
rescinded them and refused to ratify them, they would not bind him after
his manumission: if at that time the former slave still has in his possession
the slave whom he previously attempted to manumit and the property that
he previously attempted to give away as charity, he is not obliged either
to manumit the slave or to give away the property unless he now does so
willingly, of his own free will.”

Chapter 13. Testamentary Dispositions (Waṣiyya) in Respect of a

Slave Who Is a Party to a Manumission Contract (Mukātab)
1599. According to Mālik, the best view that he had heard concerning a
slave who is a party to a manumission contract and whose master manumits
him while the master is on his deathbed was the following: “The slave’s fair
market value should be appraised to establish the best price he could fetch if
he were to be sold. If the slave’s fair market value is less than what remains
outstanding under the manumission contract, that amount is deducted from
the one-third of the decedent’s estate available for testamentary dispositions,
and no consideration is given to the nominal sum of unpaid dirhams owing
under the manumission contract.658 This is because if someone were to kill

658 What Mālik is saying here is that for the purpose of determining whether the testamentary
disposition exceeds the one-third permitted to every decedent, the relevant figure is the fair
Book 29 457

the slave, the killer would be liable to pay only the slave’s fair market value on
the day he killed him, and if someone were to injure the slave, the perpetrator
would be liable to pay only the compensation due in respect of the slave’s
injury on the day of the injury. In both cases, no consideration is given to the
nominal sum of dinars and dirhams specified in the manumission contract,
because as long as anything remains unpaid under the manumission
contract, the slave remains a slave. However, if the unpaid amount under
his manumission contract is less than the slave’s fair market value, only
the amount still due under the manumission contract is deducted from the
decedent’s estate. That is because in this case the decedent did no more
than waive the amount still due to him from the slave. Accordingly, it is the
equivalent of a testamentary disposition (waṣiyya) made by the decedent
in favor of the slave in that amount. This point can be illustrated by the
following example. If the fair market value of the slave who was a party
to the manumission contract was one thousand dirhams, and if only one
hundred dirhams remained outstanding under that contract, and then his
master made a testamentary disposition in the slave’s favor in the amount
of the one hundred dirhams that the slave still owed, it would be deducted
from the one-third of the master’s property that he may use for testamentary
dispositions. The result would be that the slave becomes free.”659
1600. Mālik said, regarding a man who, while on his deathbed, enters into a
manumission contract with his slave, “The slave’s fair market value prior to his
entering the manumission contract should be determined. If the slave’s fair
market value is less than one-third of the dying man’s estate, the manumission
contract is valid. This point can be illustrated by the following example. If the
slave’s fair market value were 1,000 dinars, and his master entered into a
manumission contract while on his deathbed with the slave for 200 dinars,
and one-third of the master’s estate at that time amounted to 1,000 dinars,
that contract would be valid, and the amount would be merely a testamentary
disposition that the master made in the slave’s favor out of one-third of
his estate.660 If, however, the master has made numerous testamentary

market value of the slave, not the amount owed under the contract, at least when the fair
market value of the slave is less than what the slave owes under the contract. Accordingly,
were a master, on his deathbed, to manumit a slave who was a party to a manumission con-
tract, and the slave owed 1,000 dirhams, for example, and the entire value of the deceased
master’s estate was 2,000 dirhams, the master’s heirs could claim that the deathbed manu-
mission was invalid because it represented one half of the master’s estate. Mālik rejects this
analysis and argues that the relevant amount is the fair market value of the slave, not the
contractual obligation. Consequently, if the fair market value of the slave in this case is less
than 667 dirhams, the deathbed manumission would be effective.
659 This hypothetical assumes that the value of the dead master’s estate is at least 300 dirhams.
660 The amount referred to here is the 800-dinar difference between the slave’s fair market
value and the money due under the manumission contract.
458 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

dispositions to several people, and the fair market value of the slave exhausts
the one-third of the decedent’s estate available for testamentary dispositions,
the disposition in favor of the slave is given priority over the other dispositions.
This is because a manumission contract is a form of manumission, and
manumission takes priority over testamentary dispositions involving
ordinary property. The value of those other dispositions, however, is made
part of the manumission contract, and their beneficiaries may claim them
from the slave. The heirs of the decedent are given a choice: they can satisfy
the decedent’s testamentary dispositions to the beneficiaries in full and retain
their rights under the slave’s manumission contract, or they can turn over the
slave, along with whatever he now owes under the manumission contract, to
the beneficiaries of the decedent’s testamentary dispositions. This is because
the slave now represents the entirety of the one-third of the decedent’s
estate out of which testamentary dispositions could have been made. The
heirs of any decedent whose testamentary dispositions exceed one-third
of his estate may object and say, ‘That which our decedent has bequeathed
exceeds one-third of his property, and he has taken what is not his.’ His heirs,
in such cases, are given a choice. They are told, ‘Your decedent has made
testamentary dispositions, as you know, in an amount exceeding one-third
of his estate. If you wish, you may ratify those testamentary dispositions in
accordance with the decedent’s wishes; or you may turn over the entirety of
the one-third of the decedent’s estate to the beneficiaries.’ If the heirs hand
over the slave, owing what he owes under the manumission contract, to the
beneficiaries, and if he discharges his obligations under the manumission
contract, they must accept that sum in lieu of their testamentary dispositions,
in accordance with their respective shares.661 However, if the slave repudiates
(or is deemed to have repudiated) the contract, he reverts to being a chattel
slave of the beneficiaries of the testamentary dispositions. He does not revert
to the heirs, because they waived their claim to him when they exercised
their option. In addition, the beneficiaries bear the risk of his loss from the
moment he is handed over to them. If he dies, they have no recourse against
the heirs. Conversely, if he dies without discharging his obligations under the
manumission contract and leaves property worth more than he owed, his
property goes to the beneficiaries and not to the heirs. If the slave discharges
his obligations under the manumission contract, he is manumitted, with the
right to patronage (walāʾ) over him going to the male paternal near-relations
(ʿaṣaba) of the former owner who made the manumission contract with him.”

661 In other words, if the decedent made equal bequests in favor of three beneficiaries, they each
take one-third of the sums collected in respect of the manumission contract in lieu of the
specific bequests the decedent made in their favor.
Book 29 459

1601. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a slave who is a party

to a manumission contract owes his master 10,000 dirhams under that
contract, and the master, at the time of his death, unilaterally reduces that
amount by 1,000 dirhams: “The slave should be appraised and his fair
market value determined. If the slave’s fair market value is equal to 1,000
dirhams, for example, the amount owing under the manumission contract
is reduced by one-tenth, which in relation to the slave’s fair market value
equals one hundred dirhams, that is, one-tenth of the slave’s fair market
value. Accordingly, one-tenth of the amount owed under the manumission
contract is immediately waived. The deduction is treated as though it were
a cash payment to the slave out of the one-third of the master’s estate that
is available for testamentary dispositions. This is the same result as it would
be had the entire amount under the manumission contract been waived.
Had the master indeed done that, only the slave’s fair market value of 1,000
dirhams would have been deducted from the one-third of the master’s estate
available for testamentary dispositions. Further, if the amount waived had
been one-half of the amount due, one-half of the slave’s fair market value
would have been deducted from the one-third of the master’s estate available
for testamentary dispositions.662 Regardless of the precise amount the master
waives in respect of the slave’s obligation, its impact on the property available
for testamentary dispositions is always calculated in this fashion.”
1602. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘If a man on his deathbed unilaterally reduces
his slave’s obligation under his manumission contract by 1,000 dirhams
from an original amount of 10,000 dirhams, but he does not specify whether
the reduction should be applied to the first instalment of the contract or the
last, each instalment should be reduced by one-tenth.’”663
1603. Mālik said, “If a man on his deathbed reduces his slave’s obligation
under the manumission contract by 1,000 dirhams and specifies which
instalment (or instalments) is to be reduced, whether the contract’s first

662 Mālik’s rule, as set out in hadith no. 1599, provides that in cases in which the amount out-
standing under the manumission contract exceeds the slave’s fair market value, only the fair
market value of the slave is relevant to determining whether the master has exceeded the
one-third of his estate out of which he is entitled to make testamentary dispositions. Accord-
ingly, if the fair market value of the slave is 1,000 dirhams, the amount outstanding under the
manumission contract is 10,000 dirhams, and the master, in his testamentary disposition,
waives 1,000 dirhams, Mālik concludes that one-tenth of the slave’s fair market value must
be deducted from the one-third available to the deceased master for testamentary dispo-
sitions. This result follows from Mālik’s rule in hadith no. 1599 that if the master were to
manumit outright a slave who is a party to a manumission contract, the only relevant consid-
eration in determining whether the master’s manumission is valid is the slave’s fair market
value at the time of the deathbed manumission: if it is less than one-third of the deceased
master’s estate, it is valid, regardless of the size of the unpaid amount on the contract.
663 Mālik assumes here that the contract consists of ten equal instalments. Otherwise, the
reduction would be applied proportionally to all the instalments due under the contract.
460 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

or its last instalment, and the original obligation under the manumission
contract is 3,000 dirhams, for example, the slave must be appraised to
determine his fair market value in cash. Then, the slave’s cash value is
divided between the contract’s instalments. The initial instalment of 1,000
dirhams is allocated its proportional share of the slave’s cash value in
accordance with the brevity of its term and its difference relative to the cash
value of that instalment. Then the second instalment of 1,000 dirhams is
also allocated its proportional share of the slave’s cash value in accordance
with its difference relative to the cash value of the second instalment. Then
the third instalment of 1,000 dirhams is also allocated its proportional
share of the slave’s cash value in accordance with its difference relative
to the cash value of the third instalment, and so on and so forth, until all
the instalments are taken into consideration, with each later instalment
being allocated its share of the cash value in accordance with its place in
the schedule of payments, whether immediate or deferred. This is because
the value of a deferred amount is less than the value of an amount paid
before it, even if the stated amount of each instalment is the same. Then
the proportionate value of the one-third reduction in the slave’s obligation,
taking into account the difference between the value of the instalment and
its stated amount, is deducted from the one-third of the master’s estate
available for testamentary dispositions. Whether the difference is small or
great, the value of the waiver is calculated in this manner.”664
1604. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man makes a testamentary
disposition to another man of one-fourth of his slave with whom he has
entered into a manumission contract and also manumits one-fourth of

664 The following example illustrates how this rule is applied. Suppose a master has entered
into a manumission contract with his slave for 9,000 dirhams, payable in three annual instal-
ments of 3,000 dirhams, in each case paid at the end of the calendar year. On his deathbed,
however, the master reduces the amount owed under the manumission contract by the 3,000
dirhams of the third and final instalment. Mālik’s general rule in such cases is that the value
of the waiver (determined by its proportion to the slave’s fair market value) is deducted from
the one-third of the decedent’s estate available for testamentary dispositions. Application
of this principle is complicated here, however, by the time value of money, that is, the fact
that prior payments are more valuable than later payments are. Mālik solves this problem
by determining the fair market value of the slave at the time of the master’s death and then
determining the relationship of the stated amounts of the instalments under the manumis-
sion contract to their fair market value, taking into account the time value of money. In this
case, suppose that the fair market value of the slave at the time of the master’s death is 9,000
dirhams, but the slave will be permitted to obtain his freedom if he is able to pay three annual
instalments of 3,000 dirhams at the end of each calendar year. Because of the time value of
money, the value of the 3,000-dirham waiver is in fact less than one-third of the slave’s fair
market value, and it is that value which must be calculated in order to deduct the proper
amount from the deceased master’s estate. Accordingly, although the nominal amounts of
the instalments are the same, the first instalment is more valuable than the second, and the
second more valuable than the third. On the assumption the master made no other testamen-
tary dispositions, the master’s deathbed waiver will be valid if the present value of the waiver
of the future instalment is less than the value of one-third of the deceased master’s estate.
Book 29 461

his interest in that same slave, and the master then dies, followed by his
slave, who leaves a substantial amount of property that more than satisfies
his obligations under the manumission contract: “The heirs of the master
and the beneficiary of the testamentary disposition are given what they
are owed under the manumission contract.665 They then divide whatever
surplus remains between them. The beneficiary of the testamentary
disposition receives one-third of any surplus that remains, and the master’s
heirs receive the remaining two-thirds. This is because a slave who is a party
to a manumission contract remains a slave so long as any obligation under
the manumission contract is outstanding. Therefore, the slave’s estate in
this case passes only by virtue of ownership (not patronage).”
1605. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a slave who is a party to a
manumission contract and whose master manumits him on his deathbed,
‘If manumission of the slave would exhaust the one-third of the decedent’s
estate available for testamentary dispositions, the slave is manumitted
in proportion to what the one-third of the decedent’s estate can bear,
and the amount due under his manumission contract is reduced by that
same proportion. If, for example, the slave owed 5,000 dirhams, his fair
market value in cash at the time of his master’s death was 2,000 dirhams,
and one-third of the decedent’s estate was 1,000 dirhams, then one-half
of the slave would be manumitted. In addition, the amount due under his
manumission contract would be reduced by one-half (to 2,500 dirhams).’”
1606. Mālik said, regarding a man who manumits one of his slaves in
his will and directs his heirs to enter into a manumission contract with
another one of his slaves, “Manumission takes priority over entrance into a
manumission contract, if the value of the testamentary disposition exceeds
one-third of the decedent’s estate.”

The Book of the Slave Who Is a Party to a

Manumission Contract (Mukātab) Is Complete,
with Abundant Thanks to God.

665 The division of the amounts owed under the manumission contract is unaffected by the par-
tial manumission. Therefore, the master’s heirs receive three-fourths of the unpaid amount
under the contract, and the beneficiary of the testamentary disposition receives one-fourth.
Any surplus property in the slave’s estate is distributed in accordance with their respective
ownership interests in the slave. The master, after manumitting one-quarter of his interest
in the slave, has a three-fourths interest in the slave. When the master dies, his testamen-
tary disposition of one-fourth of the slave to the beneficiary becomes effective, leaving him
with only a one-half interest and giving the beneficiary a one-quarter interest. The master’s
heirs inherit the decedent’s one-half interest, while the beneficiary retains his one-quarter
interest. The master’s heirs thus receive twice the share of the beneficiary of any property
the slave may leave after the unpaid amounts under the manumission contract have been
satisfied. See Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 7:38.
 Book 30
The Book of a Master’s Designation of Slaves for
Manumission upon His Death (Tadbīr)
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate
May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family
and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.

Chapter 1. The Judicial Rule (Qaḍāʾ) regarding the Status of the

Children of a Handmaiden Who Is Designated for Manumission upon
Her Master’s Death (Mudabbara)
1607. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) regarding a
handmaiden designated for manumission upon her master’s death who
gives birth to children after the designation but predeceases the master who
designated her for manumission is that her children step into her shoes.
The designation of freedom granted to her applies to them to precisely the
same extent. Their mother’s death does not undermine their position in any
way. Accordingly, when the one who designated her for manumission dies,
they are manumitted, as long as their value does not exceed one-third of the
master’s property.”666
1608. Mālik said, “Children always take the status of their mother. If she is
free and gives birth after her manumission, her children are free. And if she
is designated for manumission upon her master’s death, or if she is a party
to a manumission contract (mukātaba), or if she is to be manumitted after
the passage of a number of specified years or the completion of a designated
service, or if part of her is free, or if she is pledged as collateral, or if she has
borne children to her master (umm walad), her children in each case have
the same status as their mother, and they are manumitted when she is.”
1609. Mālik also said, regarding a woman designated for manumission
upon her master’s death who is pregnant at the time of the designation,

666 The father of the children in this case is not the handmaiden’s master.

463
464 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

“Her children take her status. This rule is equivalent to that governing the
case of a man who manumits a handmaiden of his who, unbeknownst to
him, is pregnant. The long-established ordinance (al-sunna) with respect to
such a woman is that her children’s status is derivative of hers, so they are
manumitted when she is.”
1610. Mālik also said, “The same rules applies were a man to purchase a
handmaiden who, unbeknownst to him, is pregnant. Both the pregnant
woman and that which is in her womb belong to the purchaser, whether or
not he expressly stipulates that.”
1611. Mālik also said, “It is not permissible in the previous case for the
seller to reserve what is in the handmaiden’s womb for himself, because
that introduces into the contract material uncertainty (gharar), which
reduces her price, and the seller cannot know whether he will or will not
receive a benefit from it. Such a reservation is the equivalent of selling a
fetus still in its mother’s womb. Such a sale is not permissible, because it
entails material uncertainty.”
1612. Mālik said, regarding a slave who is designated for manumission
upon his master’s death or is a party to a manumission contract, and who
purchases a handmaiden and has sexual intercourse with her, resulting
in her pregnancy and the birth of children, “In both cases, the children of
the handmaiden take the same status as their father: they are manumitted
when he is manumitted, and they are slaves as long as he remains a slave.
Upon his manumission, his handmaiden who bore him children is delivered
to him and becomes his exclusive property.”

Chapter 2. Miscellaneous Matters That Have Come Down Related

to Designating Slaves for Manumission upon Their Master’s Death
(Tadbīr)
1613. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a slave
designated for manumission upon his master’s death (mudabbar) tells
his master, ‘Manumit me now, and I will give you fifty dinars, paid in
instalments,’ and the master says, ‘Yes; you are free, and you are indebted
to me in the amount of fifty dinars, of which you will pay me ten every year
for five years,’ and the slave accepts that, but then two or three days later
the master dies: ‘His manumission is valid, and he is obliged to pay the
fifty dinars. His testimony in court is now admissible. He is now inviolable
as a free man, has the right to pass his estate to heirs, and is fully liable
for his crimes. His master’s death does not, however, in any way reduce
his debt.’”
Book 30 465

1614. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man designates a slave

of his for manumission upon his death and then dies, leaving property at
hand and elsewhere, but the property at hand is insufficient to permit the
slave’s manumission:667 “The slave, along with his personal property and
whatever he earns, should be sequestered until the value of the master’s
property located elsewhere has been determined. Once that value is added
to the property at hand, if the slave’s value is less than one-third of all the
property that the master left behind, the slave’s manumission becomes
effective. The slave also retains his personal property and whatever he has
earned in the interim. If the property that the master left behind is less
than two times the slave’s value, however, only that portion of the slave that
equals one-third of the value of the deceased master’s estate is manumitted,
but he nonetheless retains his personal property.”668

Chapter 3. Testamentary Dispositions (Waṣiyya) Related to

Designating Slaves for Manumission upon Their Master’s Death
(Tadbīr)
1615. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that
whoever makes a testamentary disposition (waṣiyya), whether in good
health or in illness, and manumits a slave as part of that testamentary
disposition may change it as long as he is alive or even rescind it in
its entirety, however he wishes. If, however, he designates a slave for
manumission upon his death (tadbīr), he is bound by the designation and
may not rescind it.’”
1616. Mālik said, “The children born to a handmaiden whose master
manumits her in his will rather than in his lifetime via designation are not
manumitted upon her manumission. This is because her master may change
his will if he so wishes or rescind it whenever he likes. Therefore, she has
not received the benefit of manumission during his lifetime. Her position
is the equivalent of that of a handmaiden whose master says, ‘If so-and-
so remains with me until I die, she shall be free.’ When that condition is
fulfilled, she becomes free, but before that time he can, if he so wishes, sell
her along with her children, because he did not include her children as
beneficiaries of what he granted her.”

667 In other words, the slave’s value exceeds the value of one-third of the deceased master’s
property at hand.
668 So, for example, if the fair market value of the dead master’s estate was 3,000 dirhams and
the fair market value of the slave was 1,500 dirhams, only two-thirds of the slave—1,000
dirhams’ worth—would be manumitted.
466 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1617. Mālik said, “A manumission granted in a testamentary disposition

is different from the designation of a slave for manumission upon the
master’s death. The long-established ordinance (mā maḍā min al-sunna)
distinguishes between the two. Were it the case that a manumission
effected in a testamentary disposition is the equivalent of designating a
slave for manumission upon the master’s death, no testator would be able
to change a testamentary disposition, including anything in it pertaining to
manumission. The testator’s property would become immobilized, and he
would not be able to benefit from it.”
1618. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a man who, while in good health,
designates a group of his slaves for manumission after his death but has
no property other than those slaves, ‘If he designated some of them for
manumission before the others, priority is given to the first of the slaves so
designated, followed by the next, and so on, until one-third of the value of
the master’s property is reached. If he designated them all for manumission
at the same time by saying on his deathbed in one single, continuous
statement, “So-and-so is free and so-and-so is free, if something happens
to me during my illness,” or if he designated all of them for manumission
in a single declaration, they each share equally in the value of the master’s
one-third of the estate, none of them having priority over the others. This
is simply a testamentary disposition. Accordingly, they are entitled only
to one-third of the decedent’s estate, to be divided among them in equal
shares, so one-third of each of them is manumitted, whatever their number
may be. If any of these scenarios takes place during the master’s deathbed
illness, none of the slaves is given priority over the others.’”669
1619. Mālik said, regarding a master who designates his slave-boy for
manumission upon his death and then dies, leaving no property other than
that slave, but with the slave possessing his own property, “One-third of the
slave is manumitted, and the slave’s property remains in his possession.”
1620. Mālik said, regarding a slave whose master designates him for man-
umission after his death and who then enters into a manumission contract
with his master, after which the master dies, leaving no property other than
the slave, “One-third of the slave is manumitted, and one-third of his obliga-
tions under the manumission contract is canceled, but he is still obligated to
pay the remaining two-thirds outstanding under the manumission contract.”

669 What Mālik means here is that even if the master made consecutive declarations designating
his favorite slaves for manumission, because he did so while on his deathbed the designa-
tions are treated as testamentary dispositions. Consequently, no priority is granted on the
basis of the order of the master’s declarations, contrary to the rule that applies if the master
makes the declarations while in good health.
Book 30 467

1621. Mālik said, regarding a man who manumits one-half of a slave of his
during his deathbed illness, giving immediate effect to the manumission,
either in half or even in full, and who has previously designated another
slave of his for manumission upon his death, “Priority is given to the slave
whom the master designated for manumission upon his death over the
slave manumitted during the master’s deathbed illness in the event that
the value of the deathbed manumission, when combined with the value of
the previously designated slave, exceeds one-third of the decedent’s estate.
This is because a man cannot rescind a prior designation for manumission
that he made for his slave, nor may he perform any act after making such a
designation that would undermine its effectiveness. When the designated
slave is manumitted after the master’s death, anything that remains of the
master’s one-third share available for testamentary dispositions should
then be applied toward a full manumission of the slave whom the master
attempted to manumit one-half of while on his deathbed. If that cannot
be accomplished within what is left of the decedent’s one-third of the
estate, the slave is manumitted up to whatever is left of the one-third after
the value of the slave previously designated for manumission has been
deducted.”

Chapter 4. A Man Having Intercourse with His Handmaiden after

Designating Her for Manumission upon His Death (Tadbīr)
1622. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar designated
two of his handmaidens for manumission after his death, and he had
intercourse with both of them after the designation.
1623. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
would say, “A man may have intercourse with his handmaiden despite
having designated her for manumission upon his death, but he may neither
sell nor gift her, and her children take the same status that she has.”

Chapter 5. The Sale of a Slave Designated for Manumission upon His

Master’s Death (Mudabbar)
1624. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr
al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā) concerning a slave designated for manumission
upon his master’s death is that his master may not sell him nor otherwise
undermine his status, which the master himself has granted him, in any way.
If the master becomes insolvent, his creditors are not permitted to sell the
slave as long as his master is alive. Should the master die leaving no debts,
the slave is charged against the one-third of the master’s estate available
for testamentary dispositions, because the master reserved the slave’s
468 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

service for himself as long as he lived. The master may not benefit from
the slave’s service all his life and then manumit him only at the moment of
his death, thus depriving his heirs by reducing the value of his estate. If the
master dies leaving no property other than the slave, one-third of the slave
is manumitted and the remaining two-thirds go to the master’s heirs. If the
master dies leaving debts that exceed the value of his slave, the slave is sold
in satisfaction of the debt. This is because the slave may be manumitted
only out of the one-third available for testamentary dispositions. Should
the debt reach only one-half of the slave’s value, only one-half of the slave
is sold to satisfy the debt, and then one-third of the portion of the slave that
remains after the debt is manumitted.’”670
1625. Mālik said, “The sale of a slave designated for manumission is
invalid. No one is permitted to purchase him, unless the slave purchases
himself from his master, in which case the sale is valid. Alternatively, it is
permissible for someone to give the master some property on the condition
that he manumit the slave immediately. That is also valid. However, the
right to the slave’s patronage (walāʾ) in this latter case goes to the master
who designated the slave for manumission.”
1626. Mālik said, “It is not permissible for the master of a slave designated
for manumission to sell the slave’s labor to a third party. This is because
such a transaction involves material uncertainty in the consideration
(gharar), insofar as it is impossible to know how long the master will live.
That results in material uncertainty that is not appropriate in a contract.”671
1627. Mālik said, regarding a slave who is owned in common by two
men, one of whom designates his share of the slave for manumission
upon his death, “They must jointly appraise the slave’s fair market value.
If the designating co-owner purchases his co-owner’s share in the slave,
the slave is deemed to be designated for manumission in his entirety. If,
however, the designating co-owner does not purchase his co-owner’s share
in the slave, the designation of the slave’s freedom is repealed, unless the
non-designating co-owner desires to give his share of the slave to the
designating co-owner in exchange for the fair market value of his share in
the slave. If the non-designating co-owner gives the designating co-owner
his share of the slave in exchange for the share’s fair market value, that binds

670 In other words, one-sixth of the slave is manumitted.

671 What Mālik has in mind here is a contract that would entail the master’s transferring to a
third party all of the master’s rights to the slave’s future labor. Because the slave becomes
free immediately upon the master’s death, the purchaser of the slave’s labor cannot know
with reasonable certainty what he is acquiring: the purchaser could enjoy the rights to the
slave’s labor for the next twenty years, or his rights could lapse the next day, if the master
suddenly and unexpectedly dies.
Book 30 469

the designating co-owner. Consequently, in this case the slave becomes

designated for manumission in his entirety.”
1628. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a Christian designates
a Christian slave of his for manumission, and then the slave becomes
a Muslim: “The master is to be separated from the slave, but the slave’s
earnings are to be given to his Christian master. The slave should not be
sold until his situation becomes clear. Should the Christian die, leaving a
debt, the debt may be discharged out of the proceeds received from selling
the slave. However, if the master dies leaving property sufficient to pay the
debt, the slave is manumitted.”

Chapter 6. Batteries (Jirāḥ) Committed by a Slave Designated for

Manumission upon His Master’s Death (Mudabbar)
1629. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ruled
that if a slave designated for manumission upon his master’s death causes
injury to a third party, the slave’s master may deliver his share of the slave to
the injured party. If the master does so, the injured party may put the slave to
use and collect the compensation due to him for his injury out of the proceeds
from the slave’s labor. In this case, if the slave discharges his obligation to the
injured party before his master dies, he returns to his master.
1630. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) regarding a slave
designated for manumission who causes injury to a third party and whose
master subsequently dies, leaving no property other than that slave, is that
one-third of the slave is manumitted and then the compensation due in
respect of the battery is divided into three equal parts. One-third is borne
by that part of the decedent’s estate from which the slave was manumitted,
and the other two-thirds are borne by the two-thirds of the decedent’s
estate that goes to the heirs. Accordingly, the heirs may, if they wish, give
the victim their share of the slave, or they may give him two-thirds of the
compensation due and retain their share of the slave. This is because the
liability for compensation arose only as a result of the slave’s battery, not
from any contractual debt of the master. Therefore, the injurious conduct
of the slave is not of the kind that would invalidate the master’s previous
acts of manumission and designation of that slave for manumission.672 If,

672 In this case, the master has died leaving no property other than a slave designated for man-
umission upon the master’s death, and the slave has injured a third party, giving rise to an
obligation of compensation. Mālik’s rule in such a case is that one-third of the slave becomes
manumitted upon the master’s death in accordance with the master’s prior designation of
the slave. Because the master left no other property, however, only one-third of the slave
can be manumitted, with the remaining two-thirds passing to the master’s heirs. The obliga-
tion arising out of the slave’s battery, meanwhile, attaches to the person of the slave himself.
470 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

on the other hand, the master owes a contractual debt to third parties in
addition to the liability arising out of the slave’s battery, the portion of
the slave necessary to satisfy both sets of obligations is sold. Priority is
given to payment of the obligation arising out of the slave’s battery, which
is satisfied first out of the proceeds received from the slave’s sale. Only
once that obligation is satisfied is the master’s contractual debt repaid.
Then, once both prior obligations have been discharged, the disposition
of whatever share of the slave remains is then resolved in the following
fashion: one-third of the remaining share of the slave is manumitted, and
the remaining two-thirds goes to the master’s heirs. This is because the
compensation due as a result of the slave’s battery takes greater priority
than does payment of his master’s contractual debt. This is because if a
man dies, leaving a slave designated for manumission who has a fair market
value of 150 dinars, and if that slave happens to have dealt a free man a
blow to the head causing an open wound in his skull, thereby resulting in
an obligation to compensate the victim in the amount of fifty dinars, and if
the slave’s master owes a contractual debt of fifty dinars, priority is given
to the payment of the fifty dinars that constitute the compensation for the
injury. This amount is collected from the price received from the sale of the
slave, in whole or in part. Only after that is paid in full is the master’s debt
satisfied. Finally, what is left of the slave is then disposed of, one-third being
manumitted and two-thirds going to the master’s heirs. The obligation to
pay compensation for the battery takes a higher priority against the slave’s
person than does his master’s contractual debt, and the contractual debt
has a greater priority than does the master’s designation of the slave for
manumission, which in these circumstances becomes the equivalent of a
testamentary disposition. A testamentary disposition can be satisfied only
out of the one-third of the decedent’s estate available for testamentary
dispositions.673 Accordingly, no part of the master’s designation of the slave

Accordingly, the slave, one-third of whom is now manumitted, is himself liable for one-third
of the obligation. The heirs are liable for the remaining two-thirds, in accordance with their
ownership interest in the slave. They are free to give the injured party their two-thirds inter-
est in the slave, or they may pay the injured party two-thirds of the compensation due and
retain their interest in the slave.
673 To give another, more detailed example, a master dies leaving no property other than a slave
designated for freedom. Before the master’s death, the slave committed a battery against
a third party, giving rise to an obligation to pay twenty-five dinars of compensation to the
injured party. The master also leaves an unpaid contractual debt of twenty-five dinars. In
this case, Mālik’s rule is that fifty dinars’ worth of the slave must be sold to satisfy these two
obligations. If the fair market value of the slave is one hundred dinars, one-half of the slave
would be sold and the fifty dinars received would be used to discharge the two obligations. Of
the remaining one-half of the slave, one-third would be manumitted pursuant to the master’s
designation of the slave for manumission, so one-sixth of the slave becomes free. The heirs
would then take two-thirds of the remaining one-half of the slave, that is, one-third of the
Book 30 471

for manumission can take effect as long as the master has outstanding
debts. In such circumstances, the master’s designation of the slave becomes
a testamentary disposition, and God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says,
‘After the payment of testamentary dispositions made by the decedent, or
repayment of debts.’”674
1631. Mālik said, “If one-third of the decedent’s estate is sufficient to absorb
the entirety of the designated slave’s fair market value, he is manumitted
immediately upon his master’s death. The compensation owed for his battery
becomes the former slave’s personal obligation, for which he remains liable
after his manumission, even if what is due is the compensation owed for
the unlawful killing of a free man.675 This rule applies only if the master died
without owing any contractual debt.”676
1632. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a slave who has been
designated for manumission injures a third party, and his master, instead of
compensating the injured party, hands him over to the victim but then dies,
leaving an unpaid debt and no property other than the slave, and the heirs
say, “We will abandon the slave to the victim,” while the creditor says, “But
I am prepared to offer more for him than the amount of the compensation
due to the victim”: “If the creditor in fact pays more than the amount of the
compensation due to the victim, his claim to the slave is superior to the
victim’s, but the debt owed by the master’s estate is reduced only by the
difference between the amount that the creditor pays for the slave and the
amount of the compensation due to the victim. But if the creditor does not
pay more than what is owed to the victim, he has no claim to the slave.”677

slave. The other half of the slave is owned by whatever third party purchased the one-half
sold to raise the cash necessary to discharge the amounts owed at the time of the master’s
death. If, however, the fair market value of the slave does not exceed fifty dinars, then the
entirety of the slave would be sold to satisfy the obligations outstanding at the time of the
master’s death. If the amount realized through the sale is less than fifty dinars, the victim of
the slave’s battery is paid first, and the master’s contract creditors are entitled to receive only
whatever remains of the proceeds from the sale of the slave.
674 Al-Nisāʾ, 4:12.
675 The issue here is that the master could, in lieu of paying the full compensation due to the
injured party, have simply delivered the slave to the injured party and relieved himself of all
liability. Now that the slave is free, however, he is obliged to pay the indemnity in full and may
not, for example, turn himself over to the victim to be his slave.
676 The manumitted slave has no personal liability for his master’s contractual debts, provided
that the estate is large enough to satisfy them.
677 For example, a slave, S, who has been designated for manumission by his master, M, upon
the master’s death, commits a battery against X, resulting in a duty to compensate X in the
amount of one hundred dinars. M surrenders S to X in lieu of paying him the amount. M then
dies, owing 150 dinars to a creditor, C, and possessing no property beyond S. In this situation,
if C offers 125 dinars for S, he can take S from X, but the debt owed to him by M (now M’s
estate) is only reduced from 150 to 125 dinars. X can now collect the 100 dinars he is owed
from the estate. The estate still owes C 125 dinars, but since it lacks sufficient assets, C is not
472 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1633. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a slave designated for

manumission injures a third party but possesses his own property, and
the master refuses to pay the compensation due to the victim in order to
redeem the slave from the victim’s possession: “The victim can collect the
compensation due to him out of the slave’s property. If the slave’s property
is sufficient to discharge the compensation due, the victim can collect the
entire amount out of the slave’s property. In this case, the slave is then
returned to his master. However, if the slave’s property is insufficient to
compensate the victim in full, the victim can deduct it from the compensation
due to him and then employ the slave until he collects the balance of the
compensation owed for his injury.”

Chapter 7. Batteries (Jirāḥ) Committed by a Handmaiden Who Has

Borne Her Master a Child (Umm Walad)
1634. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a handmaiden who has borne her
master a child (umm walad) and who injures a third party, ‘The master is
solely liable for the compensation due to the victim, and he must satisfy
it out of his own property, unless the compensation due exceeds her fair
market value. In the latter case, her master is not obliged to pay more than
her fair market value. This is because when the master of a slave, whether
male or female, surrenders the slave in satisfaction of his obligation to
indemnify the slave’s victim, he is never obliged to do more, even if the
compensation due is substantially in excess of the slave’s fair market value.
Because the long-established ordinance (mā maḍā min al-sunna) precludes
the master from delivering to the victim his handmaiden who has borne
him a child, when he pays to the victim her fair market value, it is as though
he has delivered her to the victim. He is under no obligation to do more.
That is the best view I have heard regarding this question. The master is not
obliged to bear liability for batteries (jināya) committed by his handmaiden
beyond her fair market value.’”

The Book of Designating Slaves for Manumission upon

the Master’s Death (Tadbīr) Is Complete,
with Praise Due to God.

able to collect the debt. By purchasing S from X, however, C will presumably have the ability
to recover some of the amount owed to him. See Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 7:50.
 Book 31
The Book of Marriage (Nikāḥ)

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family
and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.

Chapter 1. What Has Come Down regarding Proposals of Marriage

(Khiṭba)
1635. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. Ḥabbān reported from al-Aʿraj,
from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “No suitor should
propose to a woman if another has already made her a proposal (khiṭba).”
1636. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “No suitor should propose to a woman if
another has already made her a proposal.” Mālik said, “In our opinion, and
God knows best, the explanation for this statement of the Messenger of God
(pbuh) is that it applies to the case of a suitor who proposes to a woman,
and the woman responds positively; they agree on a determinate dower
(ṣadāq), having come to a mutual agreement to marry; and she makes
stipulations for her own benefit in the terms of the marriage contract.
That is the category of woman to whom other suitors may not propose.
The statement of the Prophet (pbuh) was not intended to apply to a suitor
who proposes to a woman, but she does not find his proposal agreeable,
nor does she respond positively to him. In such a case, other suitors are
not prohibited from proposing to that woman. Were it otherwise, much
mischief would result.”
1637. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported that his
father would say, regarding the statement of God, Blessed and Sublime is He,
“You commit no wrong whether you allude indirectly to marriage or keep
it hidden in your hearts,”678 that it applies to a situation in which a suitor

678 Al-Baqara, 2:235.

473
474 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

says to a widow while she is still in her waiting period (ʿidda),679 mourning
her deceased husband, and therefore prohibited from remarrying, “You are
certainly precious to me,” or “I really like you,” or “God is certain to provide
you good fortune and provisions,” or similar statements.

Chapter 2. Consulting the Virgin (Bikr) and the Matron (Ayyim)

regarding Their Marriages
1638. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Faḍl reported from Nāfiʿ b. Jubayr
b. Muṭʿim, from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
“The matron has a stronger claim than her guardian does with regard to
her own marriage, and the virgin, too, must be consulted with regard to her
marriage—but her silence constitutes consent on her part.”680
1639. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab said,
“ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, ‘A woman’s marriage is contracted only after the
approval of either her guardian (walī), a man of good judgment from her
kin, or a responsible public official (sulṭān).’”
1640. According to Mālik, it reached him that al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad
and Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh contracted the marriages of their virgin daughters
without first consulting them. Mālik said, “The rule among us is in
accordance with that (ʿalā dhālika al-amr ʿindanā) concerning the marriage
of virgins.”
1641. Mālik said, “A virgin’s disposition of her own property is not effective
until she enters her marital home and her competence in the management
of that property is proven.” 
1642. According to Mālik, it reached him that al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad,
Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh, and Sulaymān b. Yasār would say that a virgin girl was
bound by the marriage contract that her father contracted for her, even if he
did so without her consent.

679 A period of time following a woman’s divorce from her husband or her husband’s death
during which she may not remarry. Following a divorce, this period is usually around three
months; for a widow, it is ordinarily 130 days. Al-Baqara, 2:234.
680 This rule reflects the understanding that a previously married woman is not embarrassed to
express her desire for marriage, whereas a girl who has not previously been married is too
bashful to say openly that she desires marriage. Therefore, her silence is taken to be tanta-
mount to her acceptance of the proposal, whereas in the case of a previously married woman,
her consent is evidenced only by an explicit statement.
Book 31 475

Chapter 3. What Has Come Down regarding the Dower (Ṣadāq) and
Gifts to the Guardian (Ḥibāʾ)
1643. According to Mālik, Abū Ḥāzim b. Dīnār reported from Sahl b. Saʿd
al-Sāʿidī that a woman went to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and said,
“Messenger of God, I have freely given myself to you in marriage!” She
stood there for a long time, waiting for a reply. When the Messenger of God
(pbuh) did not respond, a man stood up and said, “Messenger of God, let
me marry her, if you do not wish to do so.” The Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “Do you have anything to offer her as a dower?” The man said, “Only
this undergarment of mine.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “But if you
were to give that to her, you would not have an undergarment for yourself.
Find something else.” The man said, “But I cannot find anything else.” The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said to him, “Find something, even an iron ring.”
The man then went looking for something but failed, finding nothing he
could offer as a dower. Finally, the Messenger of God (pbuh) said to him,
“Have you memorized any verses of the Quran?” The man said, “Yes, I know
such-and-such a chapter all the way through to such-and-such a chapter,”
naming them. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “I give her to you in
marriage,681 and her dower is your knowledge of the Quran.”
1644. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
said, “ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, ‘Whoever marries a woman afflicted with
insanity or leprosy and consummates the marriage with her must give her
the entirety of her dower but may recover that amount from her guardian
(walī).’”
1645. Mālik said, “In those circumstances, her husband may recover
the dower from her guardian only when the guardian who arranged her
marriage to him was her father, her brother, or anyone else in a position to
have reasonably known about her condition. If, however, the guardian who
arranged her marriage to him was her paternal first cousin, a freedman
(mawlā), or anyone else in her extended family—someone who would not
have been in a reasonable position to know about her condition, he is not
liable to compensate the husband. In that case, the woman must return
to the husband whatever was given to her as a dower, retaining only the
amount that would have made intercourse licit.”682

681 The Prophet’s (pbuh) act of giving the woman in marriage should not be seen as a sacrament
but rather as a case of the Prophet’s (pbuh) acting as the woman’s guardian or representative
for the purpose of entering into the marriage contract.
682 In other words, she is entitled to keep the legal minimum dower, which is one-quarter of a
dinar. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 3:197.
476 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1646. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that the daughter of ʿUbayd Allāh b.
ʿUmar (whose mother was the daughter of Zayd b. al-Khaṭṭāb) was married
to one of the sons of ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar. However, the groom died before
bringing her to the marital home and without specifying a determinate
dower for her.683 Her mother then attempted to collect her dower, but ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUmar said that she was not entitled to one, and that had she been
so entitled, he would not have deprived her of it, and that he was not acting
unjustly toward her. The mother disagreed, refusing to accede to Ibn ʿUmar’s
argument. They then appointed Zayd b. Thābit to arbitrate between them.
He ruled that she was not entitled to a dower but that she was entitled to
inherit from her deceased husband.684
1647. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz had,
during his term as caliph, sent a decree to one of his governors, saying, “If
the person contracting a marriage for a woman, whether he is her father or
anyone else, stipulates in connection with the marriage contract that the
groom is to give him any kind of gift (ḥibāʾ), the gift belongs to the bride, if
she claims it for herself.”
1648. Mālik said, regarding a woman whose father arranges her marriage
and stipulates that the groom give him a gift, that whatever gift is
stipulated as a condition of the marriage belongs to the daughter, not the
father, if she claims it. If, however, her husband fails to bring her to the
marital home, whether as a result of death or of divorce, he (or in case of
his death, his heirs) may reclaim one-half of the gifts that were given as a
condition of the marriage.

683 Marriage in the early Islamic community (and up to the present day in many Muslim societ-
ies) took place in two stages. The first was entrance into the marriage contract, and the sec-
ond was the beginning of the bride’s cohabitation with her husband. The two events, in most
cases, did not occur at (or around) the same time. Rather, a period of time, which could be
substantial, would normally pass between the time of the marriage contract and the bride’s
performance of the marriage contract in the form of leaving her natal home and entering her
marital home. Given these arrangements, if the husband died before the marriage contract
was fulfilled, disputes sometimes arose with regard to dower and inheritance, as reflected in
this case.
684 This form of marriage is called “the marriage of delegation” (nikāḥ al-tafwīḍ) In it, the dower
is undetermined at the time of the contract, and the husband holds the power to determine
the amount of the dower at a later date. If the dower later specified by the husband amounts
at least to her fair dower (ṣadāq al-mithl), she is bound to the contract. If the husband pro-
poses a dower that exceeds the legal minimum but is less than the fair dower, she is entitled
to refuse the marriage; and if he proposes a dower that is below the minimum, the marriage
is invalid. This type of marriage applies also to other scenarios not relevant to this incident.
Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 3:281. Had the dower been specified at the time of the contract, and the
husband died prior to the marriage’s consummation, she would have been entitled to half
of the specified dower. Because the dower had not been specified in this case, she was not
entitled to anything.
Book 31 477

1649. Mālik said, regarding a father who contracts a marriage for his son,
who is a minor without property of his own, “The father is liable for the
dower, if the son has no property as of the date the marriage is contracted.
If the son does have property as of that date, the dower is payable out of
the son’s property, unless the father states expressly in the contract that he
himself is liable for the dower. Such a marriage binds the son, as long as he
is a minor and subject to his father’s guardianship.”
1650. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man divorces his virgin
wife before bringing her to the marital home, and then her father waives
the one-half of the dower that was her due, “The husband is permitted
to accept whatever reduction in the dower owed the father grants him.
This is because God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says in His Book, ‘Unless
they waive it.’685 ‘They’ in this phrase refers to wives who have taken up
residence in the marital home with their husbands but were divorced prior
to the marriage’s consummation. The phrase ‘or the one in whose hand is
the marriage contract waives it’686 refers to the virgin daughter’s father or
the handmaiden’s master. That is what I have heard about this case, and
that is the rule that applies among us (alladhī ʿalayhi al-amr ʿindanā).”
1651. Mālik said that a Jewish or Christian woman who is married to a
Jew or a Christian and who converts to Islam before she is brought to the
marital home is not entitled to any dower.
1652. Mālik said, “I am of the view that no woman may be married with a
dower of less than one-quarter of a dinar, this being the minimum amount
that, if stolen, mandates amputation of the hand.”

Chapter 4. Marital Privacy (Irkhāʾ al-Sutūr)

1653. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb ruled that when a woman marries a man and
marital privacy takes place, the dower (saḍāq) becomes mandatory.
1654. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Zayd b. Thābit would
say, “When a man brings his bride to the marital home and marital privacy
takes place, the dower becomes mandatory.”
1655. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab would
say, “If the husband visits his wife in her home, his claim is credited over
hers; however, if she visits him in his home, her claim is credited over his.”
Mālik said, “I believe this refers to a dispute about the occurrence of sexual

685 Al-Baqara, 2:237.

686 Al-Baqara, 2:237.
478 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

intercourse. If he visits her in her home and she says, ‘He had intercourse
with me,’ and he says, ‘I did not have intercourse with her,’ his claim is
credited over hers. If she visits him in his home, however, and he says, ‘I did
not have intercourse with her,’ and she says, ‘He had intercourse with me,’
her word is credited over his.”687

Chapter 5. Residing with a Virgin Bride (Bikr) and with a Bride Who
Is a Matron (Ayyim) at the Outset of the Marriage
1656. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b.
Ḥazm reported from ʿAbd al-Malik b. Abī Bakr b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Ḥārith
b. Hishām al-Makhzūmī, from his father, that when the Messenger of God
(pbuh) married Umm Salama and she awoke in his chambers, he said to her,
“I, as your husband, have full respect for you. Accordingly, if you wish, I will
spend the next seven nights with you, and then I will spend the next seven
nights with my other wives. Alternately, if you prefer, I will spend the next
three nights with you, and then visit each of my other wives in turns.” She
replied, “Let it be three nights.”
1657. According to Mālik, Ḥumayd al-Ṭawīl reported that Anas b. Mālik
would say, “A virgin bride is entitled to seven consecutive nights with her
husband at the outset of her marriage, and a matron is entitled to three
consecutive nights.”688 Mālik said, “That is the rule among us (dhālika
al-amr ʿindanā).”
1658. Mālik said, “If a man has a wife other than the one he just married, he
shall split his time equally between them after the wedding nights. However,
he should not count the nights he spent with the newest bride against her.”

Chapter 6. Nonbinding Stipulations in a Marriage Contract (Nikāḥ)

1659. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab was
asked about a woman who stipulated in her marriage contract that her
husband could not relocate her from her home town. Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
said, “He may relocate her despite the stipulation, if he so wishes.”
1660. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that if the
husband stipulates something for the benefit of his wife, even if it is in the

687 This refers to a case that would arise after the bride and groom have entered into their mar-
riage contract but the bride has yet to join the husband in the marital home, and there is a
dispute as to whether sexual intercourse has taken place. If it has taken place, the bride is
entitled to the full dower. If it has not taken place and she is divorced before joining her hus-
band in the marital home, she is entitled to only one-half of the dower.
688 This rule applies at the outset of a marriage when the husband has more than one wife.
Book 31 479

marriage contract—for example, that he will not marry another woman or

take a concubine while married to her—this condition is of no effect, unless
it is accompanied by an oath of divorce or manumission of a slave. Such an
oath creates obligations for him and therefore binds him.”

Chapter 7. The Marriage (Nikāḥ) of a Man Who Marries a Woman

Solely for the Purpose of Allowing Her to Remarry Her Previous
Husband (Muḥallil), and Similar Cases
1661. According to Mālik, al-Miswar b. Rifāʿa al-Quraẓī reported from
al-Zubayr b. ʿAbd al-Rahmān b. al-Zabīr that Rifāʿa b. Simwāl divorced his
wife Tamīma bt. Wahb three times at the time of the Messenger of God
(pbuh). She then married ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Zabīr. Because he found her
unattractive, he was not able to consummate the marriage, so he divorced
her. Then Rifāʿa, her first husband who had already divorced her three times,
expressed a desire to remarry her, so he asked the Messenger of God (pbuh)
whether he could. The latter, however, prohibited Rifāʿa from remarrying
her, saying, “You may not remarry her unless she consummates a marriage
with another man and then is divorced or widowed.”689
1662. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from al-Qāsim b.
Muḥammad, from ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that she was
asked whether a man who divorced his wife three times could remarry her
after she married another man who divorced her before consummating
the marriage. She said, “No, not unless another husband consummates a
marriage with her and then she is divorced or widowed.”
1663. According to Mālik, it reached him that al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad was
asked whether a man who had divorced his wife three times could remarry
her if, after her divorce, she married another man but was widowed before
they could consummate the marriage. Al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad said, “It is
not permissible for her first husband to remarry her in this case.”
1664. Mālik said, regarding a man who marries a woman solely for the
purpose of making it permissible for her to remarry her previous husband,
“He is not permitted to maintain the marriage unless he enters into a
new, valid contract with that woman. However, if they consummated the
marriage under the invalid marriage contract, she is nevertheless entitled
to her dower.”

689 The Quran permits a man to divorce his wife and remarry her twice, but upon the third
divorce, he may not remarry her again until she first marries and is either divorced or wid-
owed from another husband. Al-Baqara, 2:230.
480 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 8. Women Who May Not Be Married Simultaneously to the

Same Man
1665. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from
Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “No one may be
simultaneously married to a woman and her paternal aunt (ʿamma), or to a
woman and her maternal aunt (khāla).”
1666. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
would say, “It is prohibited for a woman to be married to a man who is at the
same time married to her paternal or maternal aunt, or for a man to have
intercourse with a handmaiden who is carrying another man’s child.”

Chapter 9. Regarding the Impermissibility of Marriage (Nikāḥ)

between a Man and His Mother-in-Law
1667. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “Zayd b. Thābit was asked
whether a man who married a woman and then divorced her before
consummating the marriage might then marry her mother. Zayd b. Thābit
said, ‘No; the prohibition against marriage to mothers-in-law is absolute,
without qualification. An exception to the prohibition is made only in the
case of stepdaughters (rabāʾib).’”690
1668. According to Mālik, multiple sources reported that when ʿAbd Allāh
b. Masʿūd was in Kufa, he was asked for his opinion about the legality of
a man’s marriage to his mother-in-law after his marriage to her daughter
had come to an end without the marriage ever having been consummated.
ʿAbd Allāh opined that in this case the marriage to the mother-in-law was
valid. But he later went to Medina and asked whether his ruling had been
correct. He was told that he had erred, and that the exception applied only to
stepdaughters. Ibn Masʿūd then returned to Kufa, and before even reaching
his home, he went directly to the man whom he had previously told that it
was permissible for him to marry his former mother-in-law and ordered
him to separate from her.
1669. Mālik said that if a man marries his mother-in-law and has
intercourse with her, “His wife691 becomes absolutely forbidden to him;
he must immediately separate from the both of them; and he may never

690 In other words, the marriage contract with the daughter renders her mother, the mother-in-
law, a perpetually prohibited marriage partner for the husband, whether or not the marriage
with the daughter is consummated. By contrast, the bride’s daughter (the husband’s step-
daughter) remains a licit marriage partner for the husband if he divorces the bride without
having consummated the marriage. Al-Nisāʾ, 4:23.
691 That is, his wife who is the daughter of the mother-in-law whom he has now also married.
Book 31 481

remarry either one. This is the rule only if he actually had intercourse with
the mother-in-law. If he did not, and merely contracted a marriage with
her, the daughter of the mother-in-law remains his lawful wife, but he must
separate from the mother-in-law.”
1670. Mālik said, “If a man marries his mother-in-law and has intercourse
with her, the mother-in-law is forever forbidden to him. So, too, is she
forever forbidden to his son and his father. Any sisters-in-law692 also
become forbidden to him, as does the mother-in-law’s daughter to whom
he is currently married.”
1671. Mālik said, “Fornication does not introduce any such bars to marriage,
because God, Blessed and Sublime is He, said, ‘your wives’ mothers.’693 He
made only the fact of marriage a criterion for barring marriage, without
mentioning fornication. Therefore, every marriage that is licit in form,
pursuant to which the man has intercourse with the wife, is treated as a
licit marriage for purposes of creating bars to marriage. This is what I have
heard, and the practice of the people among us is in accordance with that
(alladhī ʿalayhi amr al-nās ʿindanā).”

Chapter 10. A Man’s Marriage (Nikāḥ) to the Mother of a Woman with

Whom He Has Had Illicit Sexual Relations
1672. Mālik said, regarding a man who had illicit intercourse with a
woman and was then duly punished in accordance with the law, “He may
nevertheless marry her daughter, and so may his son, if he wishes. That is
because his intercourse with her was illicit. What God, Blessed and Sublime
is He, made a bar to marriage was sexual relations within a relationship
that, at a minimum, appears to be a valid marriage (shubhāt al-nikāḥ). God,
Blessed and Sublime is He, says, ‘And do not marry women whom your
fathers have married.’694 Accordingly, should a man marry a woman during
her waiting period (ʿidda), pursuant to a contract that appears to be licit,
and then has intercourse with her, his son may never marry her. That is
because his father married her and had intercourse with her under the
claim that his actions were lawful. Consequently, he cannot be punished for
that act, and any children born as a result would be his. Moreover, just as the
man’s son is now prohibited from ever marrying that woman, so, too, is the
father forever prohibited from marrying the woman’s daughter, because he
had intercourse with her mother within the bounds of what appeared to be
a valid marriage contract.”

692 That is, daughters of the mother-in-law.

693 Al-Nisāʾ, 4:23.
694 Al-Nisāʾ, 4:22.
482 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 11. Miscellaneous Reports regarding What Is Impermissible

in Regard to Marriage (Nikāḥ)
1673. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited marriage contracts that entail one
man agreeing to give his daughter in marriage to another man who, in turn,
gives his own daughter in marriage to the first man, with the result that no
dower (ṣadāq) is exchanged.695
1674. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported from his
father, from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān and Mujammiʿ, both sons of Yazīd b. Jāriya
al-Anṣārī, from Khansāʾ bt. Khidhām al-Anṣāriyya, that her father contracted
a marriage for her at a time when she was a matron (thayyib). She, however,
did not want that marriage, so she went and complained to the Messenger of
God (pbuh), who then invalidated the father’s contract of marriage (nikāḥ).
1675. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zubayr al-Makkī reported that ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb was presented with the case of a marriage whose only witnesses
were one man and one woman. He said, “This is a secret marriage, and I do
not permit it to stand. Had I been the first to rule on such a case, I would
have ordered the parties to be stoned to death for adultery.”
1676. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab,
from Sulaymān b. Yasār, that Ṭulayḥa al-Asadiyya was married to Rushayd
al-Thaqafī, and he divorced her. She then remarried during her waiting
period. ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb punished her and her new husband, giving each
of them several blows with a stick. He then separated them from one another,
saying, “Any woman who marries during her waiting period, as long as her
new husband has not taken her to the marital home, shall be divorced from
the new husband, and then she must complete the remaining portion of
her waiting period from her first husband, after which the second man is
treated the same as any prospective suitor. However, if the second man took
her to the marital home before the expiration of her waiting period, they
are separated from one another; she completes her waiting period from the
first husband; she completes her waiting period from the second husband;
and she and her second husband are forever prohibited from marrying each
other.” Mālik said, “Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab said, ‘She is entitled to her dower,
since the second man believed he contracted a lawful marriage with her.’”
1677. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) concerning a free
woman whose husband dies and who completes the widow’s waiting period
of four months and ten days is that she is not permitted to remarry if she

695 This type of marriage is referred to as shighār.

Book 31 483

entertains any doubts about her period and fears she might be pregnant.
She must not remarry until she is certain that she is not pregnant.”

Chapter 12. Marriage (Nikāḥ) to a Handmaiden When Already

Married to a Free Woman
1678. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās and
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar were both asked about a man who was married to a
free woman and then wanted to marry a handmaiden alongside her. They
both disapproved of the simultaneous marriage to a free woman and
a handmaiden.
1679. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
would say, “A man is not to marry a handmaiden alongside his free wife,
unless the free woman agrees to it. If she does, she is allotted two out of
every three nights.”696
1680. Mālik said, “A free man is not to marry a handmaiden when he has
sufficient means to marry a free woman, nor is he to marry a handmaiden
when he cannot afford to marry a free woman, unless he fears that he will
commit fornication. That is because God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says
in His Book, ‘If any of you lack the means to wed free believing women,
they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands
possess.’ God, Glorious and Exalted is He, also said, ‘That concession is
granted only to those of you who fear hardship (ʿanat).’697 ‘Hardship’ here
means fornication.”

Chapter 13. What Has Come Down regarding a Man Who Comes to
Own a Woman as a Handmaiden after Having Been Married to Her
and Divorcing Her
1681. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
that Zayd b. Thābit would say, regarding a man who divorces his wife, who
is a handmaiden at the time, three times and then subsequently purchases
her, that he may not have intercourse with her until she first marries
another man and is either divorced or widowed from him.

696 The basic rule in a polygamous marriage is that the husband is obligated to divide his nights
equally among his wives, which means that in the ordinary case, if he has two wives, he
spends every other night with each wife. In this case, the proposed rule treats the wife who
is a slave as entitled to half the rights of the free woman and thus as entitled to spend only
every third night with the husband.
697 Al-Nisāʾ, 4:25. Marriage of a free man to slave women was frowned upon since the children of
such a union would be enslaved, the background principle being that the child takes the sta-
tus of the mother. Accordingly, it was permitted only in exigent circumstances, such as when
a man lacked the means to marry a free woman and feared committing the sin of fornication.
484 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1682. According to Mālik, it reached him that both Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab

and Sulaymān b. Yasār were asked whether a slave whose master arranged
his marriage to one of the master’s handmaidens and who then divorced
her three times and then subsequently received her from his master as a
gift could lawfully have intercourse with the handmaiden by virtue of his
ownership of her. They both said, “No, not until she marries another man
and is either divorced or widowed from him.”
1683. According to Mālik, he asked Ibn Shihāb about a man who married a
handmaiden who was a chattel slave. He then purchased her, having already
divorced her once. Ibn Shihāb said, “She is lawful for him by virtue of his
ownership of her, but only because he did not divorce her three times. If
he divorces her two more times, then she will no longer be licit for him
by virtue of his ownership of her until she marries another man and is
divorced or widowed.”
1684. Mālik said that if a man marries a handmaiden, and she bears
him a child, and then he purchases her, she does not take the status of a
handmaiden who bore her master a child (umm walad) by virtue of that
child, because at the time of the child’s birth, she belonged to someone else.
She takes the status of a handmaiden who bore her master a child only
when she bears him a child while in his ownership after his purchase of
her. Mālik said, “If he purchased her while she was pregnant with his child,
however, and she delivers the child in his home, then, in our opinion, she
takes the status of a handmaiden who bore her master a child as a result of
that pregnancy, and God knows best.”

Chapter 14. What Has Come Down regarding the Prohibition against
a Master Having Intercourse with Two Sisters, or a Mother and Her
Daughter, by Virtue of His Ownership of Them
1685. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd, from his father, that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb was asked
whether a master who owned both a woman and her daughter could have
sexual intercourse with both, one after the other. ʿUmar said, “I do not like the
idea of intercourse with the two of them,” and he ordered him not to do that.
1686. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Qabīṣa b. Dhuʾayb that
a man asked ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān whether a master who owned two sisters
could have intercourse with both of them. ʿUthmān said, “One verse of the
Quran seems to permit it, and another seems to prohibit it.698 As for me, I

698 What ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān means is that verses in the Quran that permit intercourse with hand-
maidens do not mention any restriction with respect to sisters. On the other hand, the Quran
prohibits a man from marrying two sisters simultaneously.
Book 31 485

would not do that.” Qabīṣa said, “The man then left ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān and
met another Companion of the Messenger of God (pbuh), so he asked him
the same question. The Companion said, “If I had anything to say about it,
and I came across somebody doing that, I would punish him in an exemplary
fashion.” Ibn Shihāb said, “I think the Companion in question was ʿAlī b.
Abī Ṭālib.”
1687. According to Mālik, it reached him from al-Zubayr b. al-ʿAwwām that
he was of the same opinion. Mālik said, “If a man owns a handmaiden and
has intercourse with her, and then desires to have intercourse with her
sister, he may not do so until he renders intercourse with the first sister
prohibited to him through marriage (nikāḥ), manumission, entering into a
manumission contract with her, or the like, or contracts a marriage for her,
to his slave or to someone else’s slave.”

Chapter 15. The Prohibition against Intercourse with a Handmaiden

Who Belonged to One’s Father
1688. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb gifted a
handmaiden to his son and said to him, “Do not touch her, for I have seen
her nude.”699
1689. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Mujabbar said, “Sālim b.
ʿAbd Allāh gifted a handmaiden to his son but said to him, ‘Do not have
intercourse with her—for I myself was intent on doing so but failed in
my attempt.’”
1690. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Abū Nahshal b.
al-Aswad said to al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad, “I saw a handmaiden of mine
naked in the moonlight, and I sat with her as a man would sit with his wife,
but she told me that she was menstruating. I left, and after that I never drew
near her again. If I gift her to my son, may he have intercourse with her?”
Al-Qāsim forbade the son from having intercourse with the handmaiden.
1691. According to Mālik, Ibrāhīm b. Abī ʿAbla reported from ʿAbd al-Malik
b. Marwān that he gifted a handmaiden to one of his companions. He asked
about her sometime later, and the man said, “I have been thinking about
giving her as a gift to my son, so that he may enjoy her.” ʿAbd al-Malik said,
“Marwān was certainly a more pious man than you! He once gifted his
son a handmaiden and told him, ‘Do not draw near her, for I once saw her
bare leg.’”

699 “Touch” here stands for intercourse.

486 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 16. The Prohibition against Marrying (Nikāḥ) Handmaidens

of the People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitāb)
1692. Mālik said, “It is not licit to marry a Jewish or Christian handmaiden,
because God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says, ‘Chaste believing women and
chaste women of the people who were given the Book before you are lawful
to marry,’700 and these are free Jewish and Christian women. And God, Blessed
and Sublime is He, says, ‘If any of you lack the means to wed free believing
women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right
hands possess,’701 and these are the believing handmaidens. It is our opinion
that God has made licit marriage to handmaidens only if they are believers;
He did not make licit marriage to handmaidens of the People of the Book, be
they Jewish or Christian. Intercourse with a Jewish or Christian handmaiden,
however, is licit for her master by virtue of the right of ownership.”
1693. Mālik said, “Intercourse with a Zoroastrian handmaiden is not licit
by virtue of the right of ownership.”

Chapter 17. What Has Come Down regarding Chastity (Iḥṣān)702

1694. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
said, “The Quranic phrase ‘the chaste among the women’ refers to women
who have husbands, and it is a reference to the fact that God prohibited
adultery and fornication.”
1695. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that it reached him from
al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad that they would both say, “If a free man marries a
slave woman and consummates the marriage, she makes him, from a legal
perspective, ‘chaste.’”
1696. Mālik said, “Everyone that I encountered held the view that a free
man’s marriage to a handmaiden, if consummated, renders him ‘chaste.’”
1697. Mālik said, “A male slave renders a free woman ‘chaste’ if he marries
her and has intercourse with her pursuant to a marriage (nikāḥ). A male
slave, however, is not rendered ‘chaste’ as a result of his marriage to a
free woman unless he is manumitted while married to her and then has
intercourse with her. If he divorces her before he is manumitted, however,
he does not become ‘chaste’ until he marries after his manumission and
then consummates that marriage.”

700 Al-Māʾida, 5:5.

701 Al-Nisāʾ, 4:25.
702 The concern about the meaning of the word “chastity” stems from its function in determining
the punishment of those who engage in illicit sexual activity, a chaste person being subject to
a more severe punishment than one lacking such status.
Book 31 487

1698. Mālik said, “If a handmaiden is married to a free man, and he

divorces her before she is manumitted, his marriage to her does not render
her ‘chaste.’ She does not become ‘chaste’ until she marries after her
manumission, and then her husband has intercourse with her. That endows
her with the status of chastity.”
1699. Mālik said, “If a handmaiden is married to a free man, and she is
manumitted before he divorces her, he renders her ‘chaste,’ but only if he
has intercourse with her after her manumission.”
1700. Mālik said, “The consummated marriage of a free Muslim male to a free
Christian or Jewish woman or to a Muslim handmaiden renders him ‘chaste.’”

Chapter 18. Temporary Marriage (Nikāḥ al-Mutʿa)703

1701. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿAbd Allāh and
al-Ḥasan, the sons of Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, from their father, from
ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, that on the Day of Khaybar, the Messenger of God (pbuh)
prohibited temporary marriages (nikāḥ al-mutʿa) and eating the flesh of
domesticated donkeys.
1702. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr that
Khawla bt. Ḥakīm went to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb and told him that Rabīʿa b.
Umayya had entered into a temporary marriage with a woman of mixed
descent,704 and she became pregnant. Her words shook ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb,
and he came out dragging his cloak, saying, “This is the temporary marriage
that the Prophet (pbuh) forbade. Had I made its prohibition sufficiently
well known earlier,705 I would certainly have had them stoned.”

Chapter 19. The Marriage (Nikāḥ) of Slaves

1703. According to Mālik, he heard Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān say, “A
slave may marry four women.” Mālik said, “This is the best view I have
heard about that matter.”
1704. Mālik said, “The case of a slave’s marriage is different from that of a
man who marries a woman solely for the purpose of allowing her to remarry
her previous husband (muḥallil). This is because if his master consents to

703 A temporary marriage is one that includes the stipulation of a specific date on which the
marriage automatically dissolves. According to Sunnīs, this type of marriage is invalid. The
Shīʿa, however, consider it valid.
704 In other words, the woman involved in this marriage was the product of a union between an
Arab male and a non-Arab female. Such children were known as muwalladūn to distinguish
them from children born of Arab mothers.
705 See Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 3:335.
488 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

his marriage (nikāḥ), it is valid and the law recognizes it; however, if his
master does not consent to his marriage, the slave and his wife must be
separated. By contrast, in the case of a man who marries a divorced woman
solely for the purpose of allowing her to remarry her previous husband, the
couple is separated in all cases, if indeed the sole purpose of the marriage
was to allow her to remarry her previous husband.”706
1705. Mālik said that if a husband or a wife comes to own his or her spouse,
the ownership interest of each in his or her spouse, as applicable, results
in the automatic dissolution of the marriage. Such a dissolution, however,
is not deemed a divorce. Accordingly, if they subsequently remarry, the
separation is not counted as one of their three divorces.707
1706. Mālik said, “Should a wife who owns her husband manumit him
while she is in her waiting period from him, they may not return to one
another without a new marriage contract.”

Chapter 20. The Marriage (Nikāḥ) of a Non-Muslim Wife Who

Converts to Islam before Her Husband Does
1707. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that it reached him that
during the time of the Messenger of God (pbuh) there were women who
converted to Islam while still living in their native lands and who did not
immigrate to Medina, their husbands still being nonbelievers at the time.
One of these women was the daughter of al-Walīd b. Mughīra. She was
married to Ṣafwān b. Umayya. She became a Muslim on the day the Muslims
returned to Mecca in triumph. Her husband, Ṣafwān b. Umayya, fled that
very day as a result of Islam’s victory. The Messenger of God (pbuh) then
dispatched Ṣafwān’s paternal first cousin, Wahb b. ʿUmayr, in pursuit of
him. The Messenger of God (pbuh) gave Wahb his cloak to give to Ṣafwān
as a token of a grant of safe passage (amān). The Messenger of God (pbuh)

706 Mālik’s point here is that a slave’s marriage, even if it depends on the master’s consent for
its effectiveness, is valid on its face, whereas a marriage intended to remove the bar from the
woman’s remarriage to her previous husband is void ab initio.
707 This might happen, for example, if the two were both slaves when they first married. The
husband is then manumitted, and the enslaved spouse is given to him as a gift, or vice versa.
In such a case, because a person may not be married to his or her own slave (although it is
permissible for a free person to marry the slave of another), the marriage is dissolved. The
master is then given the opportunity to manumit the slave and, if he so chooses, to remarry
his former spouse. As free people, they may contract their own marriages, whereas as long
as they were slaves, their masters contracted their marriages on their behalf. Mālik thus does
not assume that they would wish to continue a marriage contracted under conditions of slav-
ery once they are free. At the same time, however, the dissolution of the marriage is not held
against them in the event that they in fact wish to be married as free persons. Accordingly,
Mālik does not count the dissolution as one of the three divorces that are incident to a freely
contracted marriage.
Book 31 489

called on Ṣafwān to embrace Islam and to join him in Medina. If that were
agreeable to him, the Messenger of God (pbuh) would accept him among
the ranks of the Muslims; otherwise, the Messenger of God (pbuh) would
grant him a two-month respite. When Ṣafwān came to the Messenger of
God (pbuh) bearing his cloak, he called out to the Messenger of God (pbuh),
crying over the heads of the people, “Muḥammad! This ambassador of
yours, Wahb b. ʿUmayr, came to me with your cloak, and he said that you
called on me to join you, and if that were agreeable to me, I could accept
it, and if not, you would grant me a two-month respite.” The Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, “Come down and join us, Abū Wahb!” He said, “By God, I
shall not join you until you clarify some things for me.” The Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, “Certainly! The respite I have granted you is now for four
months.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) then set out toward the Hawāzin708
at Ḥunayn.709 He dispatched a messenger to Ṣafwān, with instructions to
borrow from him arms and equipment. Ṣafwān asked, “Am I free to refuse?”
The messenger replied, “Of course you are free to refuse!” Ṣafwān therefore
agreed to lend out the arms and equipment that were in his possession, and
then he set out with the Messenger of God (pbuh) to the battle, even though
he was still a nonbeliever. Ṣafwān fought at Ḥunayn and the siege of Ṭāʾif710
while still a nonbeliever. Although his wife was a Muslim, the Messenger of
God (pbuh) never separated the two. Ṣafwān later embraced Islam, and his
marriage to his wife remained intact throughout.
1708. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb said, “No more than one month
elapsed between Ṣafwān’s wife’s embrace of Islam and his own. We are
not aware of any case involving a woman who immigrated to Medina for
the sake of God and His Messenger (pbuh) while her husband remained
a nonbeliever dwelling in the land of unbelief that did not conclude in a
divorce. The only exception to this rule was if the nonbelieving husband
embraced Islam, immigrated to Medina after his wife, and arrived before
her waiting period (ʿidda) had expired.”
1709. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Umm Ḥakīm bt.
al-Ḥārith b. Hishām was married to ʿIkrima b. Abī Jahl. She embraced Islam
on the day the Muslims returned to Mecca in triumph. Her husband ʿIkrima
fled that very day as a result of Islam’s victory, taking refuge in Yemen. Umm
Ḥakīm set out after him, finally catching up with him there, and she urged
him to embrace Islam, so he did. He went to the Messenger of God (pbuh)

708 A tribal federation in the Hijaz that continued to resist the Prophet (pbuh) even after Mecca fell.
709 A valley in the vicinity of Mecca where the Prophet (pbuh) and the Muslims met a large army
of the Hawāzin and its allies and, despite initial reversals, ended up securing a decisive vic-
tory against them.
710 A leading city of the Hijaz controlled by the tribe of Thaqīf.
490 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

in that same year. When the Messenger of God (pbuh) saw ʿIkrima, he
welcomed him warmly, going out to greet him without even first bothering
to put on his cloak. ʿIkrima shortly thereafter pledged his loyalty to him. The
marriage of ʿIkrima and Umm Ḥakīm continued without interruption.
1710. Mālik said, “When a man embraces Islam before his wife does, his
wife is asked whether she would like to convert as well. If she refuses,
divorce takes place between the two, because God, Blessed and Sublime
is He, says in His Book, ‘But hold not to the marriage bonds of unbelieving
women.’”711

Chapter 21. What Has Come Down regarding the Wedding Feast
(Walīma)
1711. According to Mālik, Ḥumayd al-Ṭawīl reported from Anas b. Mālik that
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf came to the Messenger of God (pbuh) with traces of
saffron on him. The Messenger of God (pbuh) asked him about that, so he
told him that he had just married. The Messenger of God (pbuh) asked him,
“How much of a dower did you give her?” ʿAbd al-Raḥmān answered, “The
weight of five dirhams in gold.”712 The Messenger of God then said, “Host a
wedding feast, even if it consists of only a single yearling (shāt)!”
1712. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “It reached me that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) hosted wedding feasts that were so modest that
neither bread nor meat was served.”
1713. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Anyone invited to a wedding feast ought
to attend.”
1714. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from al-Aʿraj that Abū
Hurayra would say, “The vilest food is that of a wedding feast to which the
rich are invited but from which the poor are excluded. Anyone who refuses
to attend a wedding feast has disobeyed God and His Messenger.”
1715. According to Mālik, Isḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa reported that he
heard Anas b. Mālik say, “A tailor once invited the Messenger of God (pbuh)
to partake in some food that he had prepared. I went with the Messenger
of God (pbuh) to share in that food. The tailor offered him some soup with
pumpkin in it, along with barley bread. I watched the Messenger of God

711 Al-Mumtaḥana, 50:10.

712 The Arabic text states that he gave her a date pit’s (nawāt) weight worth of gold. Commen-
tators suggest that this is the equivalent in weight of five dirhams. See Muḥammad b. ʿAbd
al-Ḥaqq al-Yafuranī, al-Iqtiḍāb fī gharīb al-Muwaṭṭaʾ wa-iʿrābihi ʿalā al-abwāb (Riyadh: Mak-
tabat al-ʿUbaykān, 2001), 2:114.
Book 31 491

(pbuh) pluck out and eat the chunks of pumpkin from the bowl. Ever since
that day, I have loved pumpkin.”

Chapter 22. Miscellaneous Reports about Marriage (Nikāḥ)

1716. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that the Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, “When someone marries a free woman or acquires a
handmaiden, he should take her by the forelock and make an invocation,
seeking God’s blessings. And when he purchases a camel, let him grab the
top of its hump and seek refuge with God from Satan.”
1717. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zubayr al-Makkī reported that a suitor
came to a man and mentioned that he desired to marry that man’s sister.
The man then told the suitor that she had committed fornication. Word of
that conversation reached ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb. He struck the man, or was
on the verge of doing so, saying to him, “What business is that of yours, such
that you would reveal it to the suitor?”
1718. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported that
al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad and ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr would say, regarding a man
who had four wives and divorced one of them three times, that he could,
if he wished, marry again without first waiting for the divorced wife to
complete her waiting period (ʿidda).713
1719. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported that
al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad and ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr gave that opinion to
al-Walīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān714 the year he came to Medina. Al-Qāsim
b. Muḥammad told Rabīʿa, however, that al-Walīd had divorced his wife on
three separate occasions, not all at once.
1720. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
said, “One cannot claim jest with respect to three things: marriage (nikāḥ),
divorce (ṭalāq), and manumission (ʿitq).”
1721. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Rāfiʿ b. Khadīj that he
married the daughter of Muḥammad b. Maslama al-Anṣārī. She remained
with him until she grew old. He then married a younger woman, and he
preferred her over his first wife. His first wife therefore asked him to divorce
her. He divorced her once, but then, when her waiting period had nearly
concluded, he revoked the divorce and resumed marital relations with her.
However, his favoritism for the younger wife remained, so she again asked

713 This is because he divorced her three times and thus may not take her back as a wife. Because
he cannot revoke the divorce during her waiting period, he is free to marry a fourth woman.
714 An Umayyad caliph who reigned from 86 to 96 of the Hijra (705–715 CE).
492 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

him for a divorce. He divorced her a second time, but again he revoked the
divorce and resumed marital relations with her. But still his favoritism for
the younger wife remained, so his first wife again asked for a divorce. This
time, however, he said, “As you wish, but only one divorce remains. If you
wish, you may stay and resign yourself to the fact that I prefer her to you; or
if you wish, I will divorce you a third and final time and separate from you
permanently.” She said, “No; I would rather stay, despite your preference for
her.” Accordingly, he remained married to her in that state of affairs. Rāfiʿ
did not believe that he had committed a sin by keeping his first wife, despite
his preference for the second.

The Book of Marriage (Nikāḥ) Has Been Completed,

with Praise to God, the Lord of the Worlds.
 Book 32
The Book of Divorce (Ṭalāq)

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family
and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.

Chapter 1. What Has Come Down regarding the Absolute Declaration

of Divorce (Batta)715
1722. According to Mālik, it reached him that a man said to ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿAbbās, “I divorced my wife one hundred times. Am I bound to do anything
else as a consequence?” Ibn ʿAbbās said to him, “Your wife was divorced
from you absolutely by virtue of the first three divorces you uttered; the
rest were mere blasphemy.”
1723. According to Mālik, it reached him that a man went to ʿAbd Allāh b.
Masʿūd and said, “I divorced my wife eight times.” Ibn Masʿūd said, “And
what were you told was the consequence?” The man said, “I was told that
she has now parted from me.” Ibn Masʿūd said, “Whoever said that to you
spoke truthfully. God has clarified the proper manner of divorce for whoever
wishes to enact one. As for someone who follows an ambiguous path, we
bind him to what he says. Do not make things ambiguous for yourselves
and then expect us to relieve you of your burden. The outcome of such
statements shall be in accordance with precisely what you say.”716
1724. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Abū Bakr b. Ḥazm
that ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz said, “How do people construe the absolute

715 Batta literally means “absolute.” In the context of divorce, it refers to an absolute declaration
of divorce after which the man may not remarry the woman until she has married and con-
summated a marriage with another man and then been divorced or widowed from him.
716 ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd is contrasting the clear procedure outlined in the Quran for a lawful
divorce whose rules are clear with unlawful expressions of divorce, such as those mentioned
in reports 1723 and 1724, whose consequences are unclear. According to ʿAbd Allāh b.
Masʿūd, in such circumstances the man should be bound by what he has said as a deterrent
against deviating from the clear rules provided by God to govern such situations.

493
494 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

declaration of divorce?” I (Abū Bakr) said to him, “Abān b. ʿUthmān deemed

it to count only as one divorce.” ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz then said, “Were
divorce to be final only after one thousand declarations of divorce, an
absolute declaration of divorce would have exhausted them all immediately.
Whoever uses an absolute declaration of divorce has struck the target lying
at the furthest limit.”
1725. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Marwān b. al-Ḥakam
would rule that when a man divorces his wife using an absolute declaration
of divorce, it constitutes a triple divorce. Mālik said, “Of all the views that
I have heard with respect to that issue, this view is the one I prefer most.”

Chapter 2. What Has Come Down regarding Khaliyya, Bariyya,717 and

Similar Expressions
1726. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb received
an inquiry from Iraq about a man who said to his wife, “Your rope is on
your back.”718 ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb wrote back to his governor, directing him
to order the man to meet ʿUmar in Mecca during the upcoming Pilgrimage
(ḥajj) season. While ʿUmar was circumambulating God’s House, the man
met him and greeted him. ʿUmar then asked him, “Who are you?” The man
said, “I am the one who was ordered to appear before you.” ʿUmar said to
him, “Tell me, by the Lord of this structure, what did you mean when you
said, ‘Your rope is on your back’?” The man said to ʿUmar, “Had you asked
me to swear in any place other than this one, I would not have spoken
truthfully. What I intended by that expression was to leave my wife.” ʿUmar
b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “In that case, you shall receive what you intended.”
1727. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭalib would say
about a man who said to his wife, “You are forbidden to me,” that this meant
three divorces had taken place. Mālik said, “This is the best view that I have
heard about that matter.”
1728. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say
about the expressions khaliyya and bariyya that each of them is tantamount
to three divorces.
1729. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from al-Qāsim b.
Muḥammad that a man was married to a certain tribe’s handmaiden. One

717 Both are euphemisms for divorce.

718 The Arabic expression is ḥabluki ʿalā ghāribik. In saying this, the man is comparing his wife
to a beast of burden, which is ordinarily kept under the direction of its owner by the owner
holding its rope. By saying that her rope is on her back, the speaker is saying that she is free
to go wherever she wishes and is no longer under his control as her husband.
Book 32 495

day, he said to her people, “Do with her as you wish.” Everyone understood
this to be tantamount to a divorce.
1730. According to Mālik, he heard Ibn Shihāb say, regarding a man
who says to his wife, “You owe me nothing, and I owe you nothing,” that
this is tantamount to three divorces and is the equivalent of an absolute
declaration of divorce (batta).
1731. Mālik said, regarding a man who says to his wife, “You are khaliyya,
or bariyya, or bāʾina,” “Each of these expressions is tantamount to three
divorces of the wife if he has brought her to the marital home. As for
the bride who has yet to enter the marital home, it is left to the man’s
conscience to specify whether he intended one or three divorces. If he says
he intended one divorce, he must swear an oath corroborating that, after
which he is merely one of the woman’s prospective suitors. This is because
if the husband has brought the woman to the marital home, nothing except
three divorces can release her from the bond of marriage. A single divorce,
however, is sufficient to release a bride from the bond of marriage if her
husband never brought her to the marital home. This is the best view that I
have heard about that matter.”

Chapter 3. What Kind of Delegation of Authority to Divorce

(Tamlīk)719 Is Effective in Dissolving the Marriage Bond
1732. According to Mālik, it reached him that a man went to ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar and said, “Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān! I delegated to my wife the power
to divorce herself, and then she did. What do you think is the result?” Ibn
ʿUmar said, “I believe that the matter is as she decided.” The man said,
“Don’t say that, Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān!” Ibn ʿUmar said, “Me? You are the one
who is responsible!”
1733. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
say, “When a man delegates to his wife authority to divorce herself, the
judge must give effect to her decision. The only exception to this is if the
husband denies having given her absolute authority of divorce and says, ‘I
intended to grant her the power to effect only one divorce.’ If he swears an
oath corroborating that claim, he is entitled to reclaim her as his wife, as
long as she is in her waiting period (ʿidda).”

719 This refers to a formula in which the husband delegates to his wife the power to divorce
herself from him.
496 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 4. Delegations of Authority to Divorce (Tamlīk) That Result

in Only One Divorce
1734. According to Mālik, Saʿīd b. Sulaymān b. Zayd b. Thābit reported
that Khārija b. Zayd b. Thābit informed him that he was sitting with Zayd
b. Thābit when Muḥammad b. Abī ʿAtīq came to him with tears in his eyes.
Zayd said to him, “What’s wrong with you?” He said, “I delegated to my wife
authority to divorce herself (tamlīk), so she did and left me.” Zayd said to
him, “And what made you do that?” He said, “Fate!” Zayd then said to him,
“You may reclaim her as your wife, if you wish, for that was only one divorce.
Your right to reclaim her is stronger than her right to leave you.”
1735. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported from his
father that a man from the tribe of Thaqīf delegated to his wife authority to
divorce herself. She then said, “You are utterly divorced!” He was silent, and
she repeated, “You are utterly divorced!” He then said, “Shut your mouth!”
She then repeated, “You are utterly divorced!” He again said, “Shut your
mouth!” They took their dispute to Marwān b. al-Ḥakam, who asked the man
to swear that he had delegated to her the power to effect only one divorce.
When the husband did so, Marwān ordered her to return to her husband.
Mālik said, “ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said, ‘This judgment satisfied al-Qāsim, and he
considered it to be the best view that he had heard about that matter.’ This is
the best view I have heard about that issue, and it is the view I prefer most.”

Chapter 5. Delegations of Authority to Divorce (Tamlīk) That Do Not

Dissolve the Marriage Bond
1736. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported from
his father, from ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, that she approached
the family of Qarība bt. Abī Umayya to arrange her marriage to ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakr. They agreed to give her to him in marriage. Her
family subsequently found reason to object to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, saying, “We
accepted this marriage only for the sake of ʿĀʾisha.” ʿĀʾisha then sent for
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān and informed him about his in-laws’ objections to him. He
therefore decided to give Qarība the choice of whether to stay with him or
to leave, and she chose to stay with her husband. That delegation was not
deemed a divorce (ṭalāq).720

720 What this report makes clear is that the mere decision by a husband to delegate to his wife the
power to effect a divorce does not constitute a divorce. Only when the wife actually exercises
the power delegated to her does a divorce take place. In this case, because Qarība declined to
exercise the power of divorce ʿAbd al-Raḥmān granted her, no divorce was deemed to have
taken place.
Book 32 497

1737. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported from his

father that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), arranged the marriage of
Ḥafṣa bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān to al-Mundhir b. al-Zubayr while ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
was away in the Levant. When ʿAbd al-Raḥmān returned, he said, “Is
something like this done to someone like me? Is the authority of someone
like me transgressed so lightly?” ʿĀʾisha therefore spoke to al-Mundhir b.
al-Zubayr, and he said, “I will place the matter in ʿAbd al-Raḥmān’s hands
to do as he wishes.” ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said, “I am not one who would repeal
something that you, ʿĀʾisha, have decided.” Ḥafṣa, therefore, stayed with
al-Mundhir, and that delegation was not deemed a divorce.
1738. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar and Abū
Hurayra were both asked about a man who delegated to his wife authority
to divorce herself, and she declined to do so. They both said, “Delegation of
that authority is not in itself a divorce.”
1739. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
said, “When a man delegates to his wife authority to divorce herself, and
she chooses to stay with him and not to leave him, that delegation is not
tantamount to a divorce.”
1740. Mālik said, regarding a woman to whom her husband has delegated
authority to divorce herself, “When her husband delegates to her authority
to divorce herself and then they go their separate ways, without her having
exercised that power in the least, nothing remains of the authority. It lasts
only for so long as they are present together in the place where it was given
to her.”721

Chapter 6. Oaths of Abstinence from Sexual Relations with One’s

Wife (Īlāʾ)
1741. According to Mālik, Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad reported from his father
that ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib would say, “When a man swears an oath of abstinence
from sexual relations with his wife, no immediate divorce (ṭalāq) takes
place. When four months have elapsed from the time he made his oath,
however, he is brought before a judge and is ordered either to divorce his
wife or to revoke his oath.” Mālik said, “That is the rule among us (dhālika
al-amr ʿindanā).”
1742. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“Should a man swear an oath to abstain from sexual relations with his wife,

721 In other words, when the husband delegates to the wife authority to divorce herself, she
must exercise that authority in the meeting in which he grants her that authority. Once the
meeting comes to an end and they separate, her authority to divorce herself lapses.
498 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

and should four months elapse from that date, he is brought before a judge,
at which time he must either divorce her or revoke his oath. Divorce does
not take effect immediately after four months have elapsed from the time of
his oath. He must first be brought before a judge.”
1743. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
and Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān would both say about a man who swears
an oath to abstain from sexual relations with his wife, “If four months have
elapsed from the time of the oath, one divorce takes place. He can, however,
retract it and reclaim her as his wife as long as she is still in her waiting
period (ʿidda).”
1744. According to Mālik, it reached him that in cases involving a man who
swore an oath to abstain from sexual relations with his wife, Marwān b.
al-Ḥakam would rule that if four months had elapsed from the time of the
oath, one divorce took place. The husband, however, could retract it and
reclaim her as his wife as long as she was still in her waiting period. Mālik
said, “Ibn Shihāb’s opinion was in accordance with that.”
1745. Mālik said, “If a man swears an oath to abstain from sexual relations
with his wife, four months pass, he is brought before a judge and divorces her
but then revokes the divorce and reclaims her as his wife, but he still refuses
to have sexual relations with her prior to the expiration of her waiting period,
he loses his right to reclaim her as his wife, unless he has an excuse for not
resuming sexual relations with his wife, such as illness, imprisonment, or a
similar reason. If he does have an excuse, she continues to be subject to his
right to reclaim her as his wife. If her waiting period has come to an end,
however, and he remarries her but again fails to have sexual relations with
her until another four months have passed, is again brought before a judge,
and refuses to revoke his oath, in this case divorce takes place immediately
upon the conclusion of the four months by virtue of the first oath of abstention
from sexual relations. This is because he has no right to reclaim her as his wife
the second time because he married her and then divorced her without ever
consummating the marriage. Accordingly, she has no obligation to observe a
waiting period for his benefit, and he has no right to reclaim her as his wife.”
1746. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man swears an oath to
abstain from sexual relations with his wife, is brought before a judge after
four months have passed, divorces her, and then reclaims her as his wife but
does not resume sexual relations with her for another four months, and she
is still in her waiting period from the first divorce:722 “He is not brought before

722 Mālik is here speaking of a woman with an irregular period that lasts more than a month.
In the ordinary case, the waiting period of a woman who is divorced as a consequence of a
Book 32 499

a judge a second time, and no additional divorce is deemed to have occurred.

If he manages to have sexual relations with her before her waiting period
expires, he is entitled to remain married to her; however, if her waiting period
comes to an end before he has sexual relations with her, he has no right to
reclaim her. This is the best view that I have heard about that issue.”
1747. Mālik said, regarding a man who swears an oath to abstain from
sexual relations with his wife and then divorces her, with the four-month
waiting period after the oath elapsing before the expiration of his wife’s
waiting period from the divorce, “If he was brought before a judge and did
not revoke his oath, two divorces are deemed to result. But if the waiting
period for the divorce ended before the four months of his oath elapsed, his
oath is not deemed to constitute a divorce. That is because the four-month
term whose expiration would have required that he be brought before a
judge ended at a time when she was no longer married to him.”
1748. Mālik said, “An oath in which a man swears to abstain from sexual
relations with his wife for a day or a month, even if he then actually abstains
for more than four months, is not the kind of oath that leads to divorce. The
rule that a man must be brought before a judge in the case of an oath to
abstain from sexual relations with his wife applies only when the term of
that oath is more than four months. I do not believe that a man who swears
an oath to abstain from sexual relations with his wife for four months or
less has made the kind of oath that can lead to a divorce. This is because
when the time comes for him to be brought before a judge, his oath has
come to an end. He is thus not subject to the judge’s jurisdiction.”
1749. Mālik said, “A man who swears an oath to abstain from sexual
relations with his wife until she has weaned her newborn child has not
sworn the kind of oath that could result in a divorce.”723

husband’s oath to abstain from sexual intercourse is shorter than the four-month waiting
period granted to the husband to retract the oath. In this case, however, because the woman’s
period is longer than a month, there is a a conflict between the husband’s right to reclaim her
as his wife and his obligation to divorce for failure to have intercourse with her for a period
of four months. Mālik resolves this conflict by giving greater priority to the husband’s right to
reclaim his wife until her waiting period expires by not treating the husband’s second failure
to have intercourse with his wife as resulting in a second divorce.
723 The reason such an oath is excluded from the general rule governing oaths to refrain from
sexual relations with a wife is the assumption that the husband swears the oath to prevent
the possibility that the newborn’s mother could become pregnant while still nursing the
infant, which would end her ability to breastfeed the newborn, thereby injuring the child.
Therefore, such an oath is understood to be motivated by the desire to preserve the health of
the newborn, not by a desire to harm the wife by depriving her of sexual relations.
500 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1750. Mālik said, “It reached me that ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib was asked about that
kind of oath,724 and he did not consider it to be the kind of oath that could
result in a divorce.”

Chapter 7. Oaths of Abstinence from Sexual Relations (Īlāʾ) Made

by Slaves
1751. According to Mālik, he asked Ibn Shihāb about slaves who swear oaths
to abstain from sexual relations with their wives. Ibn Shihāb said, “A rule
similar to that for free men applies to them. The slave is legally responsible
for his oath, but its term is only two months, after which he is brought before
a judge, at which point he must either divorce his wife or revoke his oath.”

Chapter 8. A Free Man Who Compares His Wife to the Back of His
Mother (Ẓihār)725
1752. According to Mālik, Saʿīd b. ʿAmr b. Sulaym al-Zuraqī reported that
he asked al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad about a man who swore an oath that if
he should marry such-and-such a woman, she would be divorced.726 Saʿīd
said, “Al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad said, ‘There was once a man who said that
such-and-such a woman, should he ever marry her, would be like his
mother’s back to him. ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb ordered him not to go near her,
if he did marry her, without first completing the penance required of a man
who compares his wife to his mother’s back.’”
1753. According to Mālik, it reached him that a man asked both al-Qāsim
b. Muḥammad and Sulaymān b. Yasār about a man who had compared a
woman to his mother’s back before marrying her. They said, “If he does
marry her, he may not go near her until he completes the penance that is
obligatory for a man who compares his wife to his mother’s back.”
1754. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father said,
regarding a man who, in one statement, compared all four of his wives to his
mother, that he was obliged to perform only one act of penance.

724 Mālik is here referring to the previous case, no. 1749.

725 A reference to the pre-Islamic practice of a man saying to his wife, “You are to me as my moth-
er’s back,” a euphemism for saying that sexual relations with her are forbidden to him, just
as sexual relations with his mother would be. The Quran condemned this practice, requiring
men who utter it to manumit a slave or, if they are unable to do so, either to fast for two con-
secutive months or to feed sixty indigent persons before they can resume marital relations
with their wives. Al-Mujādila, 58:2–4.
726 This is known as a conditional divorce, or a “suspended” divorce, in the sense that divorce
takes place only upon the fulfillment of an external condition that is specified in the oath. In
this case, the condition that would make the divorce effective is the very marriage itself. Such
an oath has the effect of precluding the woman from being a potential wife.
Book 32 501

1755. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported something

similar. Mālik said, “The rule among us is in accordance with that (ʿalā
dhālika al-amr ʿindanā). God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says regarding the
penance of a man who compares his wife to the back of his mother, ‘A slave
must be manumitted before they may touch one another. . . . But whoever
is unable to manumit a slave must fast two consecutive months before they
may touch one another. If he is unable to fast two consecutive months, he
must instead feed sixty indigent persons.’”727
1756. Mālik said, regarding a man who compares his wife to the back of his
mother on several different occasions, “He is obliged to perform only one
act of penance. Had he compared his wife to the back of his mother once,
then performed penance for it, and then done it again, however, he would
need to perform a second act of penance.”
1757. Mālik said, “Whoever compares his wife to the back of his mother and
then has sexual relations with her before performing penance is obliged to
perform only one act of penance. He must, however, refrain from further
sexual relations with her until he completes his penance, and he must ask
for God’s forgiveness. This is the best view that I have heard.”
1758. Mālik said, “The same rule applies if the husband compares his wife
to the back of any of person whom he is not permitted to marry, whether on
account of descent or of suckling.”728
1759. Mālik said, “Were a woman to compare her husband to a man whom
she is forbidden to marry, she would not be obliged to perform penance.”
1760. Mālik said, regarding the words of God, Blessed and Sublime is He,
“Those who compare their wives to the backs of their mothers but then wish
to revoke their words,”729 “I heard that this applies to a man who compares
his wife to his mother’s back but nevertheless resolves to remain married to
her and to continue to have sexual relations with her. If he has so resolved,
penance becomes obligatory for him. If he divorces her, however, and does
not resolve, after comparing her to his mother, to remain married to her
and to continue having sexual relations with her, he is under no obligation
to perform penance. But if he subsequently remarries her, he may not touch
her until he has performed the penance due of a man who compares his
wife to his mother.”

727 Al-Mujādila, 58:2–4.

728 The latter category refers to a foster sister who nursed from the same breast as the man or
the foster mother who nursed him. In Islamic law, children who nurse from the same woman
are deemed foster siblings and may not marry one another. The nursing woman is deemed
the nursing child’s foster mother and therefore ineligible for marriage with him.
729 Al-Mujādila, 58:3.
502 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1761. Mālik said, regarding a man who compares his handmaiden to his
mother, “If he subsequently wishes to have sexual relations with her, he is
under an obligation to perform the penance due of a man who compares his
wife to his mother.”
1762. Mālik said, “A man who has compared his wife to his mother’s back
is not deemed to have sworn an oath to refrain from sexual relations with
his wife (īlāʾ), unless he did so maliciously and has no intention of revoking
his statement.”
1763. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that he had heard
someone ask ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr about a man who said to his wife, “Any
woman I marry alongside you, as long as you live, shall be like my mother’s
back to me.” ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr said, “Manumitting a slave absolves him of
that oath.”

Chapter 9. Slaves Who Compare Their Wives to the Backs of Their

Mothers (Ẓihār)
1764. According to Mālik, he asked Ibn Shihāb about a slave who compares
his wife to his mother’s back. Ibn Shihāb said, “His case is similar to that
of a free man.” Mālik said, “He means that the rule applies to him just as it
applies to a free man.”
1765. Mālik said, “A slave is bound to perform penance when he compares
his wife to his mother’s back, and the slave’s fast of penance is two months.”
1766. Mālik said, regarding a slave who compares his wife to his mother’s
back, “He is not deemed to have sworn an oath to refrain from sexual
relations with his wife (īlāʾ). This is because he would not complete the
obligatory fast of penance before he would be required to divorce his wife
had he sworn an oath to refrain from sexual relations with her.”730

730 Mālik explains that when a slave swears an oath to refrain from sexual relations with his wife,
he has two months in which to either revoke the oath and resume sexual relations with her or
divorce her; but if he compares her to his mother’s back, he is prohibited from having sexual
relations with her until he completes the obligatory fast of penance. Therefore, it would be
impossible for him to comply with the rule governing oaths to refrain from sexual relations
with a wife and the rule of penance for comparing his wife to his mother’s back. By contrast,
a free man is given four months, not two, to revoke his oath to refrain from sexual relations
with his wife or to divorce her. Consequently, a free man can complete his obligatory pen-
ance by fasting two consecutive months and then still have two months to decide whether to
revoke his oath or divorce his wife.
Book 32 503

Chapter 10. What Has Come Down regarding an Option to Divorce

(Khiyār)
1767. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported from
al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad that ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, said,
“Three laws were made on account of Barīra.731 The first was that when
she was manumitted, she was given a choice whether to remain married
to her husband.732 The second was that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said
with respect to her manumission, ‘The right of patronage (walāʾ) belongs
to the one who manumits the slave.’ The third was when the Messenger
of God (pbuh) came home one day and found a pot of meat boiling. Bread
and condiments were brought to him out of the house’s provisions, but no
meat. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Didn’t I see a pot full of boiling
meat?’ They said, ‘Yes, indeed, Messenger of God, but that meat was already
intended to be given to Barīra as charity, and you don’t accept charity.’ The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘It is charity for her, but a gift to us.’”
1768. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
say, regarding a handmaiden who is manumitted while still married to a
slave, that she is given the choice to leave him. That option endures until
she allows him to have sexual relations with her.
1769. Mālik said, “If her husband has sexual relations with her, but she says
that she did not know that she had the right to leave him, her statement is
viewed with suspicion, and her claim of ignorance is not credited. Therefore,
her option to leave him lapses after she allows him to have sexual relations
with her.”733
1770. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr that
a freedwoman (mawlāt) of the tribe of Banū ʿAdī named Zabrāʾ informed
him that when she was still a handmaiden, she had been given in marriage
to another slave. Later, she was manumitted. She said, “Ḥafṣa, the wife of
the Prophet (pbuh), sent for me. She called me over and said, ‘Listen, I
will be giving you some important news, but I do not want you to act on it
hastily. You now have the authority to divorce yourself. You will continue to
enjoy this authority until you allow your husband to have sexual relations
with you. Once he does, however, your authority to divorce yourself will
lapse.’ I said, ‘In that case, it is divorce, then divorce, and then divorce.’” She
therefore divorced herself from him three times.

731 A freedwoman of ʿĀʾisha.

732 Prior to her manumission, she had been married to a slave named Mughīth.
733 If, on the other hand, she claims ignorance of the fact that she had been manumitted, she
retains the option to leave her slave husband, even if she had allowed him to have sexual
relations with her after her manumission. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 4:57.
504 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1771. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab said,

“If a man marries a woman, and he suffers from madness or a contagious
condition, she may stay with him or leave him, as she wishes.”
1772. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘If a handmaiden is married to a slave and
then is manumitted before the husband takes her to the marital home or
before they consummate the marriage, and she chooses to leave him, she
receives none of her dower. The divorce is deemed to constitute only one
divorce. That is the rule among us (dhālika al-amr ʿindanā).’”
1773. According to Mālik, he heard Ibn Shihāb say, “If a man gives his wife
the choice to stay with him or to leave him, and she chooses to stay with
him, it is not deemed to be a divorce.” Mālik said, “That is the best view that
I have heard.”
1774. Mālik said, regarding a woman whose husband gives her the choice
of staying with him or leaving him, “If she chooses to leave him, she is
deemed to have been divorced three times. If her husband were to say, ‘I
only gave you authority to exercise one divorce,’ he would be told that such
a limitation is not permissible. That is the best view that I have heard.”
1775. Mālik said, “If he gives her the right to choose whether to stay with
him or to leave him, and she says, ‘I accept one divorce,’ and he says, ‘I did
not intend that; rather, I only gave you the option to leave me absolutely and
irrevocably,’ but she insists on accepting only one divorce and continues
dwelling with him, that does not count as a divorce.”

Chapter 11. What Has Come Down regarding Divorce Effected by the
Wife’s Payment of Property to the Husband (Khulʿ)
1776. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān informed him from Ḥabība bt. Sahl al-Anṣārī that she was
married to Thābit b. Qays b. Shammās. One morning, the Messenger of God
(pbuh) set out to perform the Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ) only to find
Ḥabība bt. Sahl standing at his door in the darkness. The Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, “Who is there?” She said, “Messenger of God, I am Ḥabība bt.
Sahl.” He said, “What’s wrong?” She said, “Neither am I fit to be a wife for
Thābit b. Qays, nor is he fit to be a husband for me.” When her husband,
Thābit b. Qays, later showed up, the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Here
stands Ḥabība bt. Sahl, and she has already said her piece.” Ḥabība then
said, “Messenger of God, everything that he has given me is still with me.”
The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to Thābit b. Qays, “Take it all back from
her,” and so he did. She then returned to live with her family.
Book 32 505

1777. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from a freedwoman (mawlāt)

of Ṣafiyya bt. Abī ʿUbayd that she gave everything she owned to her
husband in exchange for a divorce. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar did not find that to
be objectionable.
1778. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a woman who gives her husband
property in exchange for a divorce, ‘If it later comes to be known that her
husband caused her injury, made her life miserable, and treated her unfairly,
the divorce is upheld and he must return her property to her. This is what
I would hear, and it is what is in accordance with the rule of our people
(alladhī ʿalayhi amr al-nās ʿindanā).’”
1779. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable in a woman giving
to her husband more than he gave her in order to remove herself from
the marriage.”

Chapter 12. The Divorce (Ṭalāq) of a Woman Who Has Given Property
to Her Husband in Exchange for a Divorce (Mukhtaliʿa)
1780. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that Rubayyiʿ bt. Muʿawwidh b. ʿAfrāʾ
and her paternal aunt (ʿamma) went to ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, and she informed
him that she had removed herself from her marriage by giving her husband
some property during the term of ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān. News of this had reached
ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān, and he had not objected. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “Her
waiting period (ʿidda) is that of a woman whose husband has divorced her.”
1781. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, Sulaymān
b. Yasār, and Ibn Shihāb all said that the waiting period of a woman who
gives her husband property in exchange for a divorce is the same as that of
a woman whose husband has divorced her: three menstrual cycles.
1782. Mālik said, regarding a woman who gives her husband property in
exchange for a divorce, that she may not return to him until a new marriage
has been contracted. If he contracts a second marriage with her prior to
the expiration of her waiting period but divorces her before having sexual
relations with her, she is not obliged to observe a second waiting period
in respect of the second marriage. She must, however, complete the first
waiting period, resuming it from the date on which it was interrupted.
Mālik said, “This is the best view I have heard about that matter.”
1783. Mālik said, “If a woman gives her husband some property in
exchange for a divorce, and he divorces her several times in one continuous
phrase, those multiple divorces bind him. If, however, he is silent after the
first expression of divorce, whatever subsequent expressions of divorce he
makes are of no effect.”
506 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 13. What Has Come Down regarding Mutual Imprecation

(Liʿān)734
1784. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Sahl b. Saʿd al-Sāʿidī
informed him that ʿUwaymir al-ʿAjlānī had gone to ʿĀṣim b. ʿAdī al-Anṣārī
and said to him, “ʿĀṣim, what do you think a man should do if he finds
a male stranger alone with his wife? Should he kill him, only for you to
have him put to death as punishment? What should he do? ʿĀṣim, do ask
the Messenger of God (pbuh) on my behalf about this situation.” ʿĀṣim
then asked the Messenger of God (pbuh) the question that ʿUwaymir had
raised. However, the Messenger of God (pbuh) abhorred ʿĀṣim’s question,
finding fault in it. Eventually, ʿĀṣim could no longer bear the criticisms of
the Messenger of God (pbuh), so he ceased asking for an answer. When
ʿĀṣim returned home, ʿUwaymir again went to see him and said, “ʿĀṣim,
what did the Messenger of God (pbuh) tell you?” ʿĀṣim said to ʿUwaymir,
“You have not brought any good to me. The Messenger of God (pbuh)
abhorred the question that you asked me to ask him.” ʿUwaymir said,
“By God, I shall not desist until I ask him myself about it!” Therefore, he
set off to see the Messenger of God (pbuh) and found him sitting among
the people, whereupon he said, “Messenger of God, what do you think
a man who finds a male stranger alone with his wife should do? Should
he kill him, only for you to have him put to death as punishment? What
should he do as an alternative?” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “A rule
concerning you and your companion has already been revealed. Go fetch
her.” Sahl said, “They imprecated one another in front of the Messenger of
God (pbuh). The people and I were present as this happened, and when
they finished their mutual imprecations, ʿUwaymir said, ‘Messenger of
God, were I to remain married to her, I would surely appear to be a liar.’
Therefore, he divorced her three times without any prompting from the
Messenger of God (pbuh).” Mālik said, “Ibn Shihāb said, ‘That subsequently
became the basis for the ordinance governing mutual imprecation (sunnat
al-mutalāʿinīn).’”735
1785. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that
during the time of the Messenger of God (pbuh), a man imprecated his wife

734 Liʿān or mulāʿana is the procedure to be followed when a husband accuses his wife of adul-
tery but lacks the four eyewitnesses the Quran requires to prove the act (al-Nūr, 24:4). Its
name derives from the requirement that the spouses call down God’s curse on themselves if
they are lying. The Quran’s rules on mutual imprecation involve the husband swearing four
times that he witnessed his wife commit an act of adultery, followed by a fifth oath that he
should be damned if he is lying. The wife defends herself by swearing four times that her
husband is a liar and a fifth oath that she should suffer God’s anger if he is truthful. Al-Nūr,
24:6–9.
735 What he means is that whenever a husband and a wife engage in mutual imprecation, a triple
divorce automatically takes place.
Book 32 507

and denied paternity of the child she was bearing. The Messenger of God
(pbuh) separated them and affiliated the child only to the woman.
1786. Mālik said, “God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says, ‘And the husband
who accuses his wife of adultery but has no witnesses other than himself
may prove his claim by testifying four times in God’s name that he is truthful
in his accusation and then the fifth time that he solemnly invokes God’s
curse on himself if he is a liar. But she may avert punishment if she testifies
four times in God’s name that he is a liar and then the fifth time that she
solemnly calls down God’s wrath on herself if he is truthful.’”736
1787. Mālik said, “The ordinance among us (al-sunna ʿindanā) decrees that
a couple who engage in mutual imprecation may never marry one another
again. If the husband retracts his accusation, he is punished for slander
and the child is affiliated to him, but he is still forever prohibited from
remarrying his wife. The ordinance among us about which there is neither
doubt nor dissent is in accordance with this (ʿalā hādhā al-sunna ʿindanā
allatī lā shakka fīhā wa-lā ikhtilāf).”
1788. Mālik said, “If a man leaves his wife pursuant to an absolute divorce,
one for which he has no right of revocation, and she is found to be pregnant,
and he then denies paternity of the child she is carrying while she claims
that he is the father, and her claim is plausible, as long as a length of time
has not passed that would raise doubts about her claim, and so it cannot
be known whether the child is his, he must imprecate her if he wishes his
denial of paternity to be effective. That is the rule among us (dhālika al-amr
ʿindanā), and it is what I have heard.”
1789. Mālik said, “If a man divorces his wife three times, knowing she is
pregnant, but then accuses her of having committed adultery, claiming that
he saw her commit adultery with his own eyes before he divorced her, he is
punished for slander and is not permitted to imprecate her.737 If he denies
having had knowledge of her pregnancy after divorcing her three times,
however, he is permitted to imprecate her. This is what I have heard.”
1790. Mālik said, “A slave is in the same position as a free man regarding
accusations of adultery and imprecation; the rules that apply to a free
man apply to him, except that the punishment for slander is not applied to
anyone who accuses a handmaiden of adultery.”

736 Al-Nūr, 24:6–9.

737 This is because only a husband has the right to initiate imprecation. By divorcing her without
initiating charges against her even though, by his own admission, he knew that she had com-
mitted adultery, he essentially waived his right to imprecate her. On the other hand, if he was
ignorant of her pregnancy at the time he divorced her, he may imprecate her in order to deny
paternity of her child.
508 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1791. Mālik said, “Muslim handmaidens and free Christian and Jewish
women may imprecate their free Muslim husbands if the husband has
married one of these women and consummated the marriage with her. This
is because God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says in His Book, ‘And those who
accuse their wives,’738 and they are wives. The rule among us is in accordance
with this (ʿalā hādhā al-amr ʿindanā).”
1792. Mālik said, “If a slave marries a free Muslim woman, a Muslim
handmaiden, or a free Christian or Jewish woman, he may imprecate her.”
1793. Mālik said, “If a man imprecates his wife but then retracts his
accusation and contradicts himself after having sworn one or two of the
oaths, but not all of them, he is punished for slander but is not separated
from his wife as long as he did not swear the fifth oath of imprecation.”
1794. Mālik said, “If a man divorces his wife, and after three months pass
the woman says, ‘I am pregnant,’ but the husband wishes to deny paternity,
he must imprecate her.”
1795. Mālik said, regarding a handmaiden who is a chattel slave (ama mamlū-
ka) and whose husband imprecates her and then buys her, “He may not have
sexual relations with her, even though he owns her. That is because it has long
been the established ordinance (al-sunna maḍat) that two persons who have
engaged in mutual imprecation may never be intimate with one another again.”
1796. Mālik said, “If a man imprecates his wife before he brings her to the
marital home, she is entitled to only half of her dower (ṣadāq).”

Chapter 14. The Estate (Mīrāth) of a Child Born to a Couple Who

Separated by Mutual Imprecation (Mulāʿana)
1797. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr would say,
regarding a child born to a couple who separated by mutual imprecation or
an illegitimate child (walad al-zinā), that when such a child dies, the child’s
mother takes out of the child’s estate the share due to her as specified in
God’s Book, and the child’s maternal half-brothers take the shares specified
for them. If she is a freedwoman (mawlāt), the rest of the estate goes to her
patrons. If she is an Arab woman, she takes what is hers from the estate
by right, and his maternal half-brothers take their rights, and whatever
remains of the estate goes to the public treasury of the Muslims. Mālik
said, “A similar opinion has reached me from Sulaymān b. Yasār. This is the
opinion that I found the people of knowledge in our town following (ʿalā
dhālika adraktu raʾy ahl al-ʿilm bi-baladinā).”

738 Al-Nūr, 24:6.

Book 32 509

Chapter 15. The Divorce of a Virgin (Bikr) Bride

1798. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Muḥammad b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. Thawbān that Muḥammad b. Iyās b. al-Bukayr said, “A man
divorced his wife three times before bringing her to the marital home. After
doing so, he changed his mind and wished to marry her, so he went looking
for a legal opinion that would permit him to do so. I went with him to ask
on his behalf. He asked ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās and Abū Hurayra about his
situation, and they both said, ‘We do not think that you may marry her until
she first marries another husband.’ He said, ‘But my divorce of her should
only count as one.’739 Ibn Abbās said, ‘You threw away the good fortune that
was yours.’”
1799. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Bukayr b. ʿAbd Allāh
b. al-Ashajj, from al-Nuʿmān Abū ʿAyyāsh al-Anṣārī, that ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār said,
“A man came to ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣī and asked about a man who
divorced his wife three times before consummating the marriage with her.
I interjected, ‘All that’s needed to divorce a virgin (bikr) is one divorce.’ ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣī then said to me, ‘You’re good for nothing but telling
tales! One divorce separates her from her husband, but three divorces make
her prohibited to him until she marries another husband.’”
1800. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Bukayr b. ʿAbd Allāh
b. al-Ashajj informed him from Muʿāwiya b. Abī ʿAyyāsh al-Anṣārī that he
was sitting with ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr and ʿĀṣim b. ʿUmar. Muʿāwiya said,
“Muḥammad b. Iyās b. al-Bukayr appeared before them and said, ‘A bedouin
man divorced his wife three times before bringing her to the marital home.
What do you two think about that?’ ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr said, ‘We have
no opinion on this question. Why don’t you go find ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās and
Abū Hurayra and ask them. Come back and let us know what they said. I
just left them now with ʿĀʾisha.’ Muḥammad therefore left in search of them.
When he found them, he posed his question to them. Ibn ʿAbbās said to Abū
Hurayra, ‘Give him an answer, Abū Hurayra! He certainly posed a tough one.’
Abū Hurayra said, ‘One divorce separates her from her husband, but three
render her forbidden to him until she marries another husband.’ Ibn ʿAbbās
said the same thing.” Mālik said, “The rule among us is in accordance with
that (ʿalā dhālika al-amr ʿindanā).”

739 Bājī reports two possible meanings the man could have intended when he said he divorced
her only once. The first is that although he divorced her three times, he intended only one
divorce. The second is that although he divorced her three times, the utterances should be
deemed to constitute only one divorce because the wife never entered the marital home. This
latter interpretation is held by other jurists. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 4:83.
510 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1801. Mālik said, “When a man marries a matron (thayyib) but does not
bring her to the marital home, the same rules that apply to a virgin bride
apply to her: one divorce separates her from her husband, and three render
her prohibited to him until she marries another husband.”

Chapter 16. The Divorce (Ṭalāq) of a Man on His Deathbed (Marīḍ)

1802. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Ṭalḥa b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAwf
(Ibn Shihāb said, “And he knew more about this case than they did,”) and from
Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf divorced
his wife with an absolute declaration of divorce (batta) while he was on his
deathbed, but ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān nevertheless permitted her to inherit from
him, even though her waiting period (ʿidda) had expired before he died.740
1803. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Faḍl reported from al-Aʿraj that
ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān permitted Ibn Mukmil’s former wives to inherit from him.
He had divorced them while he was on his deathbed.
1804. According to Mālik, he heard Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān say, “It
reached me that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf’s wife asked him to divorce her.
He said to her, ‘When your next period comes to an end, come ask me for a
divorce.’ She did not, however, menstruate again until he became seriously
ill. After her period finally came and ended, she went and asked him for a
divorce. He then divorced her either three times or once, but in either case
no other divorces remained that he could have exercised against her, so
whatever kind of divorce it was, it was her third and therefore final divorce
from him. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf was seriously ill at the time and died later
from that illness, and ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān permitted his former wife to inherit
from him, even though her waiting period expired before he died.”
1805. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā
b. Ḥabbān said, “My grandfather Ḥabbān had two wives, one a Hāshimite
and the other Medinese. He divorced the Medinese wife while she was
breastfeeding. A year later he died, and she had not yet menstruated. She
said, ‘I am entitled to inherit from him,’ but the Hāshimite wife disagreed. The
two took their dispute to ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān, who decided that the Medinese
wife was entitled to inherit. The Hāshimite wife rebuked ʿUthmān, so he
said, ‘Don’t blame me—this is the doing of your first cousin. He advised us
to rule in this manner.’ He meant ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib.”

740 According to Mālikīs, if a man divorces his wife while he is terminally ill, his ex-wife is never-
theless entitled to her determinate share of his estate, even if her waiting period has expired
and she has remarried, to counter the possibility that the decedent divorced her in order to
deprive her of her share in his estate.
Book 32 511

1806. According to Mālik, he heard Ibn Shihāb say, “If a man divorces his wife
three times while he is on his deathbed, she nonetheless inherits from him.”
1807. Mālik said, “If he divorces her while he is on his deathbed, but before
bringing her to the marital home, she receives half of her dower (ṣadāq)
and is entitled to her share of the estate, but she need not observe a waiting
period. If, however, he has brought her to the marital home and then
divorces her, she is entitled to the entirety of her dower and her share of
the estate. The virgin bride (bikr) and the matron (thayyib) are treated the
same in our view.”

Chapter 17. What Has Come Down regarding Parting Gifts (Mutʿa)
upon Divorce (Ṭalāq)
1808. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf
divorced one of his wives, so he gave her a handmaiden as a parting gift.
1809. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
say, “Every divorced woman is entitled to a parting gift, except one who is
divorced after her dower has been specified but before her marriage has
been consummated. In such circumstances, her receipt of one-half of the
specified dower ought to suffice her.”
1810. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb said, “Every divorced woman is
entitled to a parting gift.” Mālik said, “Something similar to that reached me
from al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad.”
1811. Mālik said, “There is no fixed amount for the parting gift in our
opinion, neither a minimum nor a maximum.”

Chapter 18. What Has Come Down regarding a Slave’s Divorce (Ṭalāq)
1812. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from Sulaymān b. Yasār
that Nufayʿ, who was either a party to a manumission contract (mukātab)
with Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), or one of her chattel
slaves, was married to a free woman. He divorced her twice and then
wanted to reclaim her as his wife. However, the wives of the Prophet (pbuh)
ordered him to ask ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān whether he could do so. He ran into
him at the stairs of the mosque, and ʿUthmān was holding Zayd b. Thābit’s
hand. Nufayʿ asked them both whether he could reclaim her as his wife.
Before he could finish speaking, they both interrupted him and said, “She is
prohibited to you; she is prohibited to you.”
1813. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that Nufayʿ, who was a party to a manumission contract with Umm Salama,
512 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), divorced his free wife twice, so he asked
ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān’s opinion as to whether he could reclaim her as his wife.
ʿUthmān said, “No; she is prohibited to you.”
1814. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Rabbih b. Saʿīd reported from Muḥammad b.
Ibrāhīm b. al-Ḥārith al-Taymī that Nufayʿ, who was a party to a manumission
contract with Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), sought out Zayd
b. Thābit’s opinion. He said, “I divorced a free woman twice. May I reclaim
her as my wife?” Zayd b. Thābit said, “No; she is prohibited to you.”
1815. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“If a slave divorces a woman twice, whether she is free or a slave, she becomes
prohibited to him until she marries another husband. The waiting period
(ʿidda) for a free wife is three menstrual periods, and for a slave woman two.”
1816. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“If a person gives his slave permission to marry, the right of divorce belongs
to the slave, and no one else may exercise his power to divorce. There is no
harm, however, in a master divesting his slave of the slave’s handmaiden, or
divesting the master’s handmaiden of her own handmaiden.”

Chapter 19. What Has Come Down regarding the Maintenance of a

Handmaiden Who Is Divorced While She Is Pregnant
1817. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Neither a free man nor a slave who divorces
a handmaiden who is a chattel slave (mamlūka), nor a slave who divorces a
free woman irrevocably, is obligated to provide maintenance for her even if
she is pregnant, so long as he has no right to reclaim her as his wife.’”
1818. Mālik said, “A free man is not obliged to pay for a wet nurse to suckle
his son if his son is a slave belonging to another tribe; nor is a slave obliged
to maintain a child out of his own property unless his master is also the
owner of that child. If the slave’s child is not the master’s property, the slave
may not use his own property to maintain the child except with his master’s
prior permission.”

Chapter 20. What Has Come Down regarding the Waiting Period
(ʿIdda) of a Woman Whose Husband Has Gone Missing
1819. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “Any woman whose husband has gone missing,
and his whereabouts are unknown, shall wait four years, whereupon she
observes a waiting period of four months and ten days, at the conclusion of
which she may lawfully remarry.”
Book 32 513

1820. Mālik said, “If she marries after completing her waiting period, her
former husband, if he turns up, has no claim to her, whether or not her
new husband has taken her to the marital home. That is the rule among
us (dhālika al-amr ʿindanā). If her first husband reaches her before she
remarries, however, he has a greater claim to her.”
1821. Mālik said, “In my experience, the people rejected the position that
some people attributed to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, namely, ‘If her first husband
returns after she has remarried, he may either recover the dower he gave
her or reclaim his wife.’”
1822. Mālik said, “It reached me that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, regarding
a scenario in which a man divorced his wife while he was away from her
on a journey and then decided to revoke the divorce and reclaim her as
his wife, but she was aware only of the divorce and not of its revocation
and therefore remarried, that her first husband, the one who divorced
her, has no claim to her, whether or not her second husband has taken
her to the marital home.” Mālik said, “Of all the views that I have heard
on this matter and on the matter of the missing husband, this is the one I
prefer most.”

Chapter 21. What Has Come Down regarding the Meaning of Aqrāʾ,741
the Waiting Period (ʿIdda) after Divorce (Ṭalāq), and Divorcing a
Menstruating Woman
1823. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that during the time of the Prophet
(pbuh), ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar divorced his wife while she was menstruating.
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb asked the Messenger of God (pbuh) about that. The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Tell him to revoke his divorce and reclaim
her as his wife. He should then keep her until her period comes to an end
and she bathes, and until she has another period, it comes to an end, and
she bathes. Then he may remain married to her or divorce her, as he wishes;
however, if he wishes to divorce her, he may not have sexual relations with

741 Aqrāʾ (also qurūʾ) is the plural of qurʾ, used in the Quran to designate the length of a divorced
woman’s waiting period (ʿidda). Al-Baqara, [Link] “Divorced women shall wait three qurūʾ”
(before the divorce is final and they may remarry). Qurʾ belongs to a class of words in the
Arabic language known as aḍdād, “opposites,” because they bear two meanings that are
opposites of one another, in this case menstruation (ḥayḍ) and the cessation of menstruation
(ṭuhr). This fact has practical consequences in the law of divorce, where the Mālikīs believe
that qurʾ refers to the onset of the monthly period whereas the Ḥanafīs hold that it refers the
end of the period. Accordingly, under Mālikī jurisprudence, a divorced woman may remarry
once her third period after her divorce begins, whereas under Ḥanafī jurisprudence, she
must wait until the conclusion of her third period after her divorce.
514 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

her prior to divorcing her.742 That is the waiting period (ʿidda) that God has
ordered to be observed with respect to divorced women.”
1824. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr, from
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that Ḥafṣa bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī
Bakr al-Ṣiddīq left the marital home when the blood of her third period after
her divorce began to flow. Ibn Shihāb said, “This incident was later brought
to ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān’s attention, and she said, ‘ʿUrwa spoke the truth.
Some people took her to task regarding what she did, saying, “God, Blessed
and Sublime is He, says in His Book, ‘three periods’ (qurūʾ).”’743 ʿĀʾisha said,
‘You have all spoken the truth. Do you all know what “periods” (aqrāʾ) are?
They are nothing other than the cessation of bleeding after menstruation.’”
1825. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb said, “I heard Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān say, ‘I have never encountered any of our jurists contesting this,’
meaning that this was ʿĀʾisha’s opinion.”744
1826. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ and Zayd b. Aslam reported from Sulaymān
b. Yasār that al-Aḥwaṣ died in the Levant when the blood of his wife’s third
period began to flow. He had just divorced her, so Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān
wrote to Zayd b. Thābit to ask him whether her waiting period had come to
an end. Zayd wrote back to him, “Once her blood began to flow for the third
time after her divorce, she became free of any obligations toward him and
he became free of any obligations toward her. She does not inherit from
him, nor he from her.”
1827. According to Mālik, it reached him that al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad,
Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh, Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Sulaymān b. Yasār, and Ibn
Shihāb would all say, “Once the divorced woman’s blood flows for the third
time after her divorce, she is separated from her husband, they no longer
inherit from one another, and he no longer has the right to reclaim her as
his wife.”
1828. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“If a man divorces his wife, she becomes free of any obligations toward him
and he of any toward her once her blood flows for the third time after her
divorce.” Mālik said, “That is the rule among us (dhālika al-amr ʿindanā).”

742 By having sexual relations with her the husband would be exercising his right to reclaim her
as his wife, in which case he would need to repeat the entire process in order to divorce her.
743 Al-Baqara, 2:228.
744 The meaning of this text is ambiguous. Read in isolation, it could suggest that all the early
jurists of Medina agreed with ʿĀʾisha’s interpretation of the meaning of “period.” However, a
later hadith in this chapter, no. 1827, suggests that they accepted the view of Ḥafṣa as set out
in hadith no. 1824, namely, that “period” refers to the onset of bleeding, not its conclusion.
Book 32 515

1829. According to Mālik, al-Fuḍayl b. ʿUbayd Allāh, the freedman (mawlā)

of al-Mahrī, reported that al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad and Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh
would say, “When a woman is divorced, once her blood flows for the third
time after her divorce, she has separated from her husband, and she
may remarry.”
1830. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, Ibn
Shihāb, and Sulaymān b. Yasār would all say, “The waiting period for a woman
who gave her husband property in exchange for a divorce (mukhtaliʿa) is
three periods.”
1831. According to Mālik, he heard Ibn Shihāb say, “A divorced woman’s
waiting period is measured by her periods, even if a long time elapses
between each one.”
1832. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from a Medinese man that
his wife asked him to divorce her, so he said, “When your period begins, let me
know.” When it began, she let him know, and he said, “Let me know when it
ends.” When the bleeding ceased and she bathed, she told him, so he divorced
her. Mālik said, “This is the best view I have heard about that issue.”

Chapter 22. What Has Come Down regarding the Divorced Woman’s
Observance of the Waiting Period (ʿIdda) in Her House, If She Was
Divorced There
1833. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he heard both
al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad and Sulaymān b. Yasār mention that Yaḥyā b.
Saʿīd b. al-ʿĀṣī had divorced ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Ḥakam’s daughter using
an absolute declaration of divorce (batta) and then sent her away from
the marital home. ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, sent a message to
Marwān b. al-Ḥakam, who was then the governor of Medina, saying, “Fear
God, and return the woman to her home.” According to Sulaymān’s report,
Marwān said to her, “ʿAbd al-Raḥmān has the upper hand over me in this
case.” According to al-Qāsim’s report, however, Marwān said to her, “Haven’t
you heard of the case of Fāṭima bt. Qays?” ʿĀʾisha said, “Fāṭima’s case is not
relevant!” Marwān said, “If ill manners and insults are what you believe
explains Fāṭima’s case, then there is more than enough ill will between
those two to satisfy you.”745

745 According to al-Qāsim, Marwān justified his nonintervention in the dispute with reference to
a precedent involving Fāṭima bt. Qays, but ʿĀʾisha dismissed that case as exceptional and not
to be relied on. Marwān replied to ʿĀʾisha by arguing that Fāṭima’s case was in fact on point,
insofar as she did not observe the waiting period in the marital home on account of the very
poor relations she had with her husband’s family. He pointed out that things were in fact
516 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1834. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that the daughter of Saʿīd b.

Zayd b. ʿAmr b. Nufayl was married to ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr b. ʿUthmān. He
irrevocably divorced her, and she left the marital home before her waiting
period expired. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar criticized her action.
1835. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar divorced
a wife of his. She lived in the house of Ḥafṣa, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh),
which lay on ʿAbd Allāh’s usual path to the mosque. He therefore began to
take another route to the mosque, one that went behind the houses, so as
to avoid asking for her permission to pass. He continued to do so until he
reclaimed her as his wife.
1836. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
was asked who is liable for the rent of a woman who lives in a rented house
at the time her husband divorces her. Saʿīd said, “Her husband.” Someone
interjected, “What if her husband lacks sufficient resources?” He said, “Then
she must pay the rent.” The questioner said, “What if she lacks sufficient
resources?” He said, “Then the governor must pay the rent.”

Chapter 23. What Has Come Down regarding the Maintenance

(Nafaqa) Due to a Divorced Woman
1837. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Yazīd, the freedman (mawlā) of
al-Aswad b. Sufyān, reported from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf,
from Fāṭima bt. Qays, that Abū ʿAmr b. Ḥafṣ divorced her using an absolute
declaration of divorce (batta) while he was away in the Levant. He dispatched
his agent to her with some barley, but she spurned it. He746 said, “By God,
we owe you nothing.” She went to the Prophet (pbuh) and told him what
had happened. He said, “Your husband is not obliged to provide you with
maintenance (nafaqa).” He then ordered her to observe her waiting period
(ʿidda) in Umm Sharīk’s house. Later, upon reflection, he said, “This is a
woman whom my companions visit frequently. Finish your waiting period
at ʿAbd Allāh b. Umm Maktūm’s house, for he is blind. There you will have
privacy, and you can undress without embarrassment. When your waiting
period is complete and you may remarry, let me know.” She said, “When I
had completed my waiting period, I mentioned to the Prophet (pbuh) that
both Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān and Abū Jahm b. Hishām sought my hand. The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Abū Jahm’s staff is always on his shoulder,747

worse between ʿAbd al-Raḥmān’s daughter and her husband than they had been between
Fāṭima and her husband’s family. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 6:158.
746 The antecedent of the pronoun is ambiguous, but the context dictates that it must be the
agent of Fāṭima’s husband.
747 That is, he travels frequently.
Book 32 517

and Muʿāwiya is a penniless pauper. Why not marry Usāma b. Zayd instead?’”
She said, “But I dislike him.” But the Prophet (pbuh) again said, “Marry Usāma
b. Zayd.” She said, “So I married him, and God provided much good in that
marriage, and I was very fortunate to have been with him.”
1838. According to Mālik, he heard Ibn Shihāb say, “A woman who has
been divorced three times should not leave her house until she completes
her waiting period and is free to remarry. She is not, however, entitled to
maintenance from her husband during her waiting period unless she is
pregnant, in which case she continues to receive maintenance until she
gives birth.” Mālik said, “That is the rule among us (dhālika al-amr ʿindanā).”

Chapter 24. What Has Come Down regarding the Waiting Period
(ʿIdda) for a Handmaiden Whose Husband Divorces Her
1839. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
regarding a slave’s divorce of a wife who is herself a slave at the time of the
divorce (ṭalāq) and who is manumitted before her waiting period expires is
that her waiting period remains that of a handmaiden and does not become
that of a free woman. The fact that she has been manumitted does not change
the length of her waiting period. Whether or not her husband is entitled to
reclaim her as his wife, her waiting period does not change.’”
1840. Mālik said, “The same principle applies to a mandatory criminal
punishment (ḥadd)748 imposed on a slave who is manumitted after
being convicted of a crime but before the punishment is carried out: his
punishment is that of a slave, not that of a free person.”
1841. Mālik said, “A free man may divorce his wife who is a handmaiden up
to three times, but her waiting period is only two periods. A slave married to
a free woman may divorce her no more than twice, and her waiting period
is three periods.”
1842. Mālik said, “If a man is married to a handmaiden and then purchases
and manumits her, she must observe the waiting period of a handmaiden
as long as he has not had intercourse with her after purchasing her. If he
has intercourse with her between purchasing her and manumitting her,
however, she need only wait for the beginning of her period.”749

748 Ḥudūd, sing. ḥadd, are a set of criminal acts that, according to classical Islamic law, carry
mandatory punishments when properly proven. They include the crimes of theft (sariqa),
brigandage (ḥirāba), fornication and adultery (zinā), slander (qadhf), wine-drinking (shurb
al-khamr), rebellion (baghy), and apostasy (ridda).
749 This latter procedure is known as istibrāʾ, and it is not the same as the scripturally mandated
waiting period that applies to a divorced wife. In this case, the husband’s marriage to the
slave woman is automatically dissolved when he purchases her, because a man cannot own
518 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 25. Miscellaneous Matters regarding the Waiting Period

(ʿIdda) after Divorce (Ṭalāq)
1843. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd and Yazīd b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Qusayṭ
al-Laythī reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab said, “ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said,
‘Any woman who is divorced and completes one or two menstrual cycles
before her menstruation ceases must wait nine months. If it becomes clear
that she is pregnant, delivery of the child brings her waiting period to an
end. If she is not pregnant, her waiting period is an additional three months
after the end of the initial nine months, at the conclusion of which she
may remarry.’”
1844. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
would say, “The right to initiate divorce is particular to men, and the
obligation to observe the waiting period (ʿidda) is particular to women.”
1845. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
said, “The waiting period of a woman whose bleeding is irregular and
continuous is one year.”
1846. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
regarding a divorced woman who stops menstruating when her husband
divorces her is that she waits nine months. If she does not menstruate during
that period of time, she observes a waiting period of three months. If she
menstruates a second time before the end of the three-month period, she
reverts to a waiting period determined by menstruation, not the passage of
months. If another nine months elapse before she menstruates a third time,
she observes a waiting period of three months. If she menstruates a third
time, she has completed the waiting period as determined by menstruation,
but if the nine months elapsed without menstruation, she must observe
another three-month waiting period, and only then may she remarry. At
any time before the expiration of the waiting period, however, her husband
may reclaim her as his wife, unless he has already divorced her irrevocably.’”
1847. Mālik said, “The long-established ordinance among us (al-sunna
ʿindanā) is that when a man divorces his wife but retains the right to
reclaim her, then exercises his right to reclaim her before she completes
her waiting period, and then divorces her again, she does not resume her
waiting period from where she left off, even if he did not have intercourse
with her. Rather, she must start anew, beginning a new waiting period from

his wife. By having intercourse with her before he manumits her, he is exercising his prerog-
ative as master to have intercourse with her. When he later manumits her, therefore, her only
obligation is that of a handmaiden whose master has had intercourse with her, namely, to
wait for the beginning of her period to ensure that she is not pregnant.
Book 32 519

the day he divorced her the second time. By reclaiming her even though he
had no desire for her, he wronged himself and erred.”
1848. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
regarding a non-Muslim woman who embraces Islam when her husband is
a nonbeliever and whose husband then converts to Islam is that he remains
her husband as long as she is still in her waiting period. Once her waiting
period has concluded, however, he has no claim to her. If he remarries her
after the conclusion of her waiting period, that initial separation is not to be
counted as a divorce; rather, it is treated as something that Islam nullified
without a divorce.’”750

Chapter 26. What Has Come Down regarding the Two Arbitrators751
1849. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib said that the
two arbitrators whom God, Blessed and Sublime is He, mentioned in the
verse, “If you fear a rift between the two of them, appoint two arbitrators, one
from his people and the other from hers. If the couple desire reconciliation,
God will bring them together, for God is knowledgeable and well-acquainted
with all things,”752 may divorce the couple or keep them together.
1850. Mālik said, “That is the best view I have heard expressed by the people
of knowledge; namely, the decision of the two arbitrators as to whether the
man and the woman should be divorced or remain together is binding.”

Chapter 27. A Man’s Oath (Yamīn) of Divorce (Ṭalāq) before Marriage

1851. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿUmar, ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd, Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh, al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad,
Ibn Shihāb, and Sulaymān b. Yasār all said, “If a man swears to divorce a
woman before he marries her but then marries her anyway in violation of
his oath, the oath of divorce binds him.”
1852. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd would
say that if someone says, “Every woman I ever marry I hereby divorce upon
my marriage to her,” without designating a specific tribe or woman, his

750 In other words, the dissolution of a marriage because of the non-Muslim wife’s conversion
to Islam followed by the failure of her husband to convert to Islam within her waiting period
(ʿidda) is deemed the legal equivalent of an annulment (faskh), not of a divorce (ṭalāq).
The difference is relevant in the event that the now ex-husband later converts to Islam and
remarries his former wife. If he does so, he will be permitted to divorce her three times, not
merely twice.
751 The Quran provides for the appointment of two arbitrators if the husband and wife are fight-
ing and marital breakdown is feared. Al-Nisāʾ, 4:35.
752 Al-Nisāʾ, 4:35.
520 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

statement is of no legal consequence. Mālik said, “That is the best view I

have heard regarding that issue.”
1853. Mālik said, regarding a man who says to his wife, “You are divorced,”
or declares, “Every woman I ever marry I hereby divorce upon my marriage
to her,” or “All my property shall go to charity,” if he fails to do something
that he specifies in his oath—and then does not fulfill the oath, “His wives
are indeed divorced, just as he said. As for his statement ‘Every woman I
ever marry I hereby divorce upon my marriage to her,’ if he did not name a
specific woman, tribe, or region or a similar qualification, the statement is
of no legal consequence, and he may marry any woman he wishes. As for
his property, however, he need only give away one-third of it, not all of it.”

Chapter 28. The Length of Time Given to a Man to Consummate His

Marriage with His Wife
1854. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
would say, “Whoever marries a woman and is unable to consummate the
marriage immediately is given one year to do so. If he does so within that
period of time, he may remain with his wife, but if he fails to do so, they will
be separated.”
1855. According to Mālik, he asked Ibn Shihāb, “From what date is the
deadline to consummate the marriage counted? Is it from the day he brings
her to the marital home, or the day she sues him before the judge or the
governor?” He said, “No, it is certainly counted from the day she sues him
before the responsible public official (sulṭān).”
1856. Mālik said, “As for someone who has consummated the marriage
with his wife and then loses interest in her, I have not heard anything about
a deadline being set for him, nor are they to be separated for that reason.”

Chapter 29. Miscellaneous Matters Related to Divorce (Ṭalāq)

1857. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb said, “It reached me that the Messenger
of God (pbuh) said to a man from the tribe of Thaqīf who had ten wives
when he embraced Islam, ‘Retain four of them, and leave the rest.’”
1858. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb said, “I heard each of Saʿīd b.
al-Musayyab, Ḥumayd b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf, ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd, and Sulaymān b. Yasār say that he heard Abū Hurayra
say that he heard ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb say, ‘As for a woman whose husband
divorces her once or twice and then leaves her be until her waiting period
comes to an end and it becomes licit for her to remarry, and who then marries
Book 32 521

another man, who predeceases her or divorces her, and who then remarries
her first husband—such a woman stays with this husband in accordance
with the number of divorces that remain from her prior marriage to him.’”
Mālik said, “That is in accordance with the long-established ordinance
among us about which there is no dissent (wa-ʿalā dhālika al-sunna ʿindanā
allatī lā ikhtilāfa fīhā).”
1859. According to Mālik, Thābit al-Aḥnaf reported that he contracted
a marriage with a former handmaiden of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Zayd b.
al-Khaṭṭāb who had borne ʿAbd al-Raḥmān a child (umm walad). Thābit
said, “ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Zayd b. al-Khaṭṭāb called for me, so
I went to see him. I went in and was surprised to see a whip and two iron
cuffs placed before me and two of his slaves sitting next to him. He said,
‘Divorce her or, by the One by whom oaths are sworn, I shall do to you
such-and-such.’ Terrified, I said, ‘Divorce it is, one thousand times!’ I then
left his house and caught up with ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar on the road to Mecca.
I told him what had happened, and he became extremely angry. He said,
‘That is not a divorce, and she is not forbidden to you, so return to your
wife.’ I was not at ease until I went to ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr, who at the
time was the governor of Mecca, and told him what had happened and what
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar had told me. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr said to me, ‘Indeed,
she is not forbidden to you, so return to your wife.’ He then wrote to Jābir b.
al-Aswad al-Zuhrī, who was then the governor of Medina, ordering him to
punish ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān and to tell him not to come between
me and my wife. I then went to Medina, and Ṣafiyya, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar’s
wife, prepared my bride for the marriage and brought her to my home, with
the knowledge of ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar. I then invited ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar to
the wedding feast on my wedding day, and he came.”
1860. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār said, “I heard ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿUmar recite, ‘Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them at the
beginning—qubul—of their waiting periods.”753 Mālik said, “He meant that
a man should divorce his wife only once, after her period has ended.”754
1861. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father said,
“It was previously the case that a man could divorce his wife and reclaim
her before her waiting period (ʿidda) expired even if he had divorced her
a thousand times. Then a man decided to be spiteful toward his wife, so

753 Al-Ṭalāq, 65:1.

754 According to this report, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar inserted the word qubul (“beginning”) immedi-
ately before ʿiddatihinna (“their waiting periods”) in the Quranic verse he was reciting as a
clarification of the verse’s meaning; the word is not actually part of the verse. Mālik’s com-
ment related to that specific word.
522 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

he divorced her, and when she had nearly concluded her waiting period,
he exercised his right to reclaim her, and then divorced her again, saying,
‘No, by God! Neither shall I return you to my house, nor shall I ever let you
become eligible for remarriage.’ So God, Blessed and Sublime is He, revealed
‘Divorce is only twice, and after that, he either retains her equitably or
releases her with generosity.’755 Thereafter, the new rule regarding divorce
applied both to men who had previously divorced their wives and to those
who had not.”
1862. According to Mālik, Thawr b. Zayd al-Dīlī reported that a man would
divorce his wife and then reclaim her, even though he had no desire for her,
nor a desire to live with her, only to lengthen her waiting period and to vex
her. God, Blessed and Sublime is He, therefore revealed “Do not retain them
to vex them so that you may transgress their rights; whoever does so has
wronged his own soul.”756 God admonished such men with that verse.
1863. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab and
Sulaymān b. Yasār were asked about the effectiveness of a drunken man’s
divorce. They each said, “A drunken man’s divorce binds him, and if he kills
someone while drunk, he is subject to retaliation.” Mālik said, “That is the
rule among us (dhālika al-amr ʿindanā).”
1864. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab would
say, “If a man is unable to maintain his wife, they are to be separated.” Mālik
said, “That is what I found the people of knowledge in our town following
(ʿalā dhālika adraktu ahl al-ʿīlm bi-baladinā).”

Chapter 30. The Waiting Period (ʿIdda) of a Widow

1865. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Rabbih b. Saʿīd b. Qays reported that Abū
Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said, “ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās and Abū Hurayra were
asked about the waiting period of a pregnant woman whose husband dies,
leaving her a widow. Ibn ʿAbbās said, ‘The lengthier of the two periods.’
Abū Hurayra, however, said, ‘Once she gives birth, she may remarry.’” Abū
Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān then went to Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet
(pbuh), and asked her that very same question, and she said, “Subayʿa
al-Aslamiyya gave birth two weeks after her husband’s death, and two men
approached her with proposals of marriage. One was a young man and the
other was middle-aged. She was clearly inclined toward the young man, so
the middle-aged man said, ‘You may not yet marry.’ Her family was away at
the time, and he entertained a hope that when they returned, they would

755 Al-Baqara, 2:229.

756 Al-Baqara, 2:231.
Book 32 523

prefer him and prevail on her to accept him rather than the younger suitor.
But she went to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and told him of her situation.
He said, ‘You are free to marry now, so marry whomever you wish.’”
1866. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that he
was asked about a woman whose husband dies while she is pregnant. ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “Once she gives birth, she may remarry.” A Medinese
man who was present with him informed him that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb had
said, “Once she has delivered, even if her husband’s corpse is still warm on
his deathbed, unburied, she is eligible to remarry.”
1867. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
al-Miswar b. Makhrama informed him that Subayʿa al-Aslamiyya gave birth
a few nights after her husband died. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to
her, “You are free to marry, so marry whomever you wish.”
1868. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Sulaymān b.
Yasār that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās and Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf
disagreed about a married woman who gives birth a few nights after her
husband’s death. Abū Salama said, “Once she gives birth, she may remarry.”
Ibn ʿAbbās said, “She may remarry only at the expiration of the longer of
the two terms: the end of her pregnancy or the waiting period of a widow.”
Then Abū Hurayra came and said, “I agree with my nephew” (that is, Abū
Salama), so they sent Kurayb, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās,
to Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), to ask her about this
issue. He came back to them and told them that she had said that Subayʿa
al-Aslamiyya had given birth a few nights after the death of her husband.
Subayʿa mentioned her situation to the Messenger of God (pbuh), who said
to her, “You may remarry, so marry whomever you wish.” Mālik said, “This
is the rule that the people of knowledge in our town have always followed
(al-amr alladhī lam yazal ʿalayhi ahl al-ʿilm bi-baladinā).”

Chapter 31. The Widow’s Seclusion in the Marital Home Until She
Can Remarry
1869. According to Mālik, Saʿīd b. Isḥāq b. Kaʿb b. ʿUjra reported from his
paternal aunt, Zaynab bt. Kaʿb b. ʿUjra, that al-Furayʿa bt. Mālik b. Sinān, the
sister of Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī, informed her that al-Furayʿa had gone to the
Messenger of God (pbuh) to ask him for permission to return to her people,
the Banū Khudra, a Medinese tribe. Her husband had set out in search of
some of his slaves who had run away, and when he caught up with them
near al-Qadūm,757 they killed him. Al-Furayʾa said, “I asked the Messenger

757 A place six mīls from Medina. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 3:338.
524 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

of God (pbuh) for permission to return to my people, the Banū Khudra. My

husband did not leave me in a house that he owned, nor did he leave me
maintenance (nafaqa). The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Yes.’ Therefore
I set out to leave, but when I had reached the courtyard of his house, the
Messenger of God (pbuh) called out to me, or had me summoned, and
asked, ‘What did you say?’ I repeated the story that I had previously told
him concerning my husband. He now said, ‘Stay in the marital home until
the prescribed term comes to an end.’ Accordingly, I observed the entirety of
my waiting period (ʿidda) of four months and ten days there. When ʿUthmān
b. ʿAffān became caliph, he once sent for me and asked me about where a
widow should observe her waiting period. I told him what had happened in
my case, and he followed it and ruled in accordance with it.”
1870. According to Mālik, Ḥumayd b. Qays al-Makkī reported from ʿAmr
b. Shuʿayb, from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb would send
widows who had come from the desert back to their homes, prohibiting
them from performing the Pilgrimage (ḥajj) until their waiting periods had
come to an end.
1871. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that it reached him that
al-Sāʾib b. Khabbāb died, and his wife went to ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar and told
him about her husband’s death. She also mentioned to him that they owned
some farmland at Qanāt758 and asked him whether it would be appropriate
for her to stay the night there. However, he prohibited her from doing so.
As a result, she would leave Medina before dawn and arrive at their farm
in the morning, remaining there through the day. She would then return to
Medina when night fell and spend the night in the marital home.
1872. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father would
say, regarding a bedouin woman whose husband died, that she was free
to travel and camp wherever her people travel and pitch their tents. Mālik
said, “That is the rule among us (dhālika al-amr ʿindanā).”
1873. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“Neither a widow nor a woman who has been divorced three times should
spend the night anywhere other than the marital home until her waiting
period expires.”

758 A district on the outskirts of Medina.

Book 32 525

Chapter 32. The Waiting Period (ʿIdda) of a Handmaiden Who Has

Borne Her Master a Child (Umm Walad) When Her Master Dies
1874. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “I heard al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad
say, ‘Yazīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik separated some men from their wives. Their
wives had previously been handmaidens who had borne children for their
now deceased masters (umm walad). Their current husbands married them
after the former handmaidens had waited one or two menstrual periods
after their masters’ deaths. Yazīd, however, separated them from their
husbands until they completed the waiting period (ʿidda) of a widow, four
months and ten days.’ Al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad then said, ‘Glory be to God!
God says in His Book, “And those of you who die and leave wives behind,”759
but these handmaidens are not wives.’”
1875. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “The
waiting period for a handmaiden who has borne her master a child is one
menstrual period after her master dies.”
1876. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that al-Qāsim b.
Muḥammad would say, “The waiting period for a handmaiden who has
borne her master a child is one menstrual period after her master dies.”
Mālik said, “That is the rule among us (dhālika al-amr ʿindanā).” Mālik
said, “If she is a woman who does not menstruate, her waiting period is
three months.”

Chapter 33. The Waiting Period (ʿIdda) of a Handmaiden When Her

Husband or Master Dies
1877. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab and
Sulaymān b. Yasār would both say, “The waiting period of a handmaiden
whose husband dies is two months and five nights.” Mālik said, “A similar
opinion has been attributed to Ibn Shihāb.”
1878. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a slave divorces his wife,
who is herself a handmaiden, but does not do so irrevocably, so he retains
the right to reclaim her as his wife, and then he dies while she is still
observing her waiting period from the divorce (ṭalāq): “She observes the
waiting period that applies to a handmaiden whose husband has died, two
months and five nights. If, however, she is manumitted before her waiting
period expires, but she chooses not to leave him, and then he dies during
her waiting period from the divorce, she must complete the waiting period
that applies to a free woman who has been widowed, namely, four months

759 Al-Baqara, 2:234.

526 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

and ten days. This is because the widow’s waiting period came into effect
after her manumission. Accordingly, her waiting period is now that of a free
woman. That is the rule among us (dhālika al-amr ʿindanā).”

Chapter 34. What Has Come Down regarding Withdrawal before

Ejaculation (ʿAzl)
1879. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported from
Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā b. Ḥabbān that Ibn Muḥayrīz said, “I entered the
Prophet’s Mosque and saw Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī. I sat next to him and
asked him about withdrawal before ejaculation (ʿazl). Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī
said, ‘We were with the Messenger of God (pbuh) on a military campaign
against the Banū al-Muṣṭaliq,760 and we managed to seize some Arab female
captives. We longed for women at the time, and our long deprivation from
them had become unbearable for us. At the same time, however, we also
wished to ransom them. So we resolved that were we to have intercourse
with them, we would practice withdrawal in order to avoid impregnating
the captives. But we wondered: Can we engage in withdrawal before asking
the permission of the Messenger of God (pbuh), given that he is with us?
Therefore, we asked him for his opinion, and he said, “It will make no
difference whether you do so or not. Every soul from now until the Day of
Judgment that is meant to be, shall certainly be.”’”
1880. According to Mālik, Abū al-Naḍr, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿUmar b.
ʿUbayd Allāh, reported from ʿĀmir b. Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ, from his father,
that he would practice withdrawal.
1881. According to Mālik, Abū al-Naḍr, the freedman of ʿUmar b. ʿUbayd
Allāh, reported from Ibn Aflaḥ, the freedman of Abū Ayyūb, from a
handmaiden of Abū Ayyūb who bore him a child (umm walad), that he
would practice withdrawal.
1882. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that he
did not practice withdrawal and that he disapproved of it.
1883. According to Mālik, Ḍamra b. Saʿīd al-Māzinī reported from al-Ḥajjāj
b. ʿAmr b. Ghaziyya that he was sitting with Zayd b. Thābit when Ibn Qahd,
a man from Yemen, came to him and said, “Abū Saʿīd, I have handmaidens,
and I am more enamored with them than with any of my wives. I would
not, however, be at all happy if any of them became pregnant, so may I
practice withdrawal?” Zayd b. Thābit turned to al-Ḥajjāj and said, “What
is your opinion, Ḥajjāj?” Al-Ḥajjāj said, “I then said, ‘May God forgive you,

760 This raid took place in year 6 of the Hijra (627 CE).
Book 32 527

Zayd, for we sit with you only to learn, not to answer people’s questions.’
Zayd then said, ‘Give him your legal opinion.’ I therefore said to Ibn Qahd,
‘They are your fields, so if you wish, water them, and if you wish, leave
them dry.’” Al-Ḥajjāj said, “I used to hear that from Zayd.” Zayd said, “He has
spoken truthfully.”
1884. According to Mālik, Ḥumayd b. Qays al-Makkī reported that a man
known as Dhafīf said, “Ibn ʿAbbās was asked about withdrawal, so he
summoned a handmaiden of his and said, ‘Tell them.’ The question appeared
to embarrass her, however, so he said, ‘That settles it. I myself practice it,’
meaning that he practiced withdrawal.”
1885. Mālik said, “A man may practice withdrawal with a free wife only with
her permission, but practicing it without the permission of his handmaiden
is unobjectionable.”
1886. Mālik said, “Whoever is married to a handmaiden, however, may not
practice withdrawal without her people’s permission.”

Chapter 35. What Has Come Down regarding Mourning a Dead

Husband (Iḥdād)
1887. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b.
Ḥazm reported from Ḥumayd b. Nāfiʿ that Zaynab bt. Abī Salama informed
him of the following three reports. Zaynab said, “I called on Umm Ḥabība,
the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), to pay my condolences when her father, Abū
Sufyān b. Ḥarb, died. Umm Ḥabība called for a yellow-colored perfume, or
some other kind of perfume. After it was brought to her, she rubbed it on a
handmaiden and then wiped the sides of her face with what was left. She
then said, ‘By God, I have no need for perfume, but I heard the Messenger
of God (pbuh) say, “No woman who believes in God and the Last Day may
mourn a dead person for more than three nights, except for her husband,
whom she may mourn for four months and ten days.”’” Zaynab said, “Then
I called on Zaynab bt. Jaḥsh, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), to offer my
condolences when her brother died. She called for some perfume and put
some on. She then said, ‘By God, I have no need for perfume, but I heard the
Messenger of God (pbuh) say, “No woman who believes in God and the Last
Day may mourn a dead person for more than three nights, except for her
husband, whom she may mourn for four months and ten days.”’”
1888. Zaynab761 said, “I also heard my mother, Umm Salama, the wife of
the Prophet (pbuh), say, ‘A woman came to the Prophet (pbuh) and said,

761 This is the third of the three reports that Zaynab said she knew of.
528 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

“Messenger of God, my daughter has been widowed, and her eyes are
aching. Can she apply kohl to them?” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
“No!” two or three times. He was saying no to everything she asked. He then
said, “Mourning is only for four months and ten days. During the Days of
Ignorance prior to Islam (jāhiliyya), a widow would only cast off a piece
of dung on the one-year anniversary of her husband’s death.”’” Ḥumayd b.
Nāfiʿ said, “I then asked Zaynab, ‘What is the significance of the widow’s
throwing away a piece of dung on the one-year anniversary of her husband’s
death?’ Zaynab said, ‘In the Days of Ignorance before Islam, when a husband
died, his widow would enter a miserable hut (ḥifsh), don her worst clothes,
and apply neither perfume nor anything else until one year had elapsed.
Then she would be brought an animal—a donkey, a sheep, or a bird—and
she would rub it (taftaḍḍu). Rarely would these animals survive. She would
then leave the hut and be given a piece of dung that she would cast away. She
could then resume the use of perfume or any other form of bodily grooming
as she wished.’” Mālik said, “A ḥifsh is a small, dirty tent, and taftaḍḍu means
using something to rub her skin, like a charm (nushra).”
1889. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from Ṣafiyya bt. Abī ʿUbayd, from
ʿĀʾisha and Ḥafṣa, two of the wives of the Prophet (pbuh), that the Messenger
of God (pbuh) said, “It is not permissible for a woman who believes in God
and the Last Day to mourn the deceased for more than three nights, except
for her husband.”762
1890. According to Mālik, it reached him that Umm Salama, the wife of
the Prophet (pbuh), told a woman who was in mourning for her husband
and whose eyes were swollen and in pain, “Apply medicinal kohl to them at
night, and wipe it off during the day.”
1891. According to Mālik, it reached him that Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh and
Sulaymān b. Yasār would both say, regarding a widow in mourning for her
husband, “If she fears that the inflammation of her eyes will damage her
vision or that she has been afflicted with an infection, she should use kohl
and treat herself with medicine or kohl, even if it contains perfume.” Mālik
said, “If there is a necessity, God’s law is ease.”763
1892. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that Ṣafiyya bt. Abī ʿUbayd
suffered from an infection in her eyes while she was in mourning for her

762 The Prophet’s (pbuh) intention was to prohibit the mourning rites of the Days of Ignorance
before Islam, not to prohibit grieving the loss of a loved one, as is clear from the content of
the reports in this chapter.
763 In other words, if the mourning woman is ill, she may use materials that would otherwise
be prohibited to her under the rules of mourning because her illness justifies a dispensation
(rukhṣa) to depart from the ordinarily applicable rules.
Book 32 529

husband, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, but she did not apply kohl until her eyes
burned from pain.
1893. Mālik said, “A widow may anoint herself with olive oil, sesame oil,
and the like on the condition that it contains no perfume.”
1894. Mālik said, “A widow mourning her dead husband is not to wear
jewelry, rings, anklets, or the like. She is not to wear any colourful, striped
garment, unless it is coarse. She is not to wear any cloth that is dyed, unless
it is dyed in black. Finally, she is not to comb her hair, except with lotus-tree
leaves or the like, and then only if doing so does not dye or otherwise
beautify her hair.”
1895. According to Mālik, it reached him that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) called on Umm Salama while she was in mourning for her deceased
husband, Abū Salama, and she had applied an ointment to her eyes. He said,
“What is this, Umm Salama?” She said, “It is only an ointment, Messenger of
God.” He said, “Apply it only at night, and remove it during the day.”
1896. Mālik said, “A young girl who is widowed but has not yet had a
menstrual period mourns her deceased husband in the same manner as
an adult woman does. She must also refrain from doing everything that an
adult woman in mourning avoids.”
1897. Mālik said, “A handmaiden who is widowed mourns her deceased
husband for two months and five nights, like the length of her waiting
period (ʿidda).”
1898. Mālik said, “A handmaiden who has borne her master a child (umm
walad) need not mourn him when he dies, nor must a handmaiden mourn
her deceased master. Mourning is only an obligation for wives.”
1899. According to Mālik, it reached him that Umm Salama, the wife of the
Prophet (pbuh), would say, “A mourning woman may comb her hair with
lotus tree leaves and oil, so long as it is not scented.”

The Book of Divorce (Ṭalāq) Has Been Completed,

with Praise to God, the Lord of the Worlds.
 Book 33
The Book of Breastfeeding (Raḍāʿa)

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family
and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.

Chapter 1. Breastfeeding (Raḍāʿa) of the Young

1900. Yaḥyā related to me from Mālik, from ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr, from
ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, that ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers,
informed her that the Messenger of God (pbuh) was once with her when
she heard a man’s voice requesting permission to enter Ḥafṣa’s room.
ʿĀʾisha said, “Messenger of God, a man requests permission to enter your
house.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “It must be so-and-so,” referring
to a paternal uncle of Ḥafṣa by breastfeeding (raḍāʿa). ʿĀʾisha then said,
“Messenger of God, had so-and-so been alive,” referring to her own paternal
uncle by breastfeeding, “would he have been allowed to come and go freely
to visit me?” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Yes; breastfeeding makes
taboo what birth makes taboo.”764
1901. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, said, “My paternal uncle by breastfeeding
came and requested permission to see me. I did not permit him to do so
before I could ask the Messenger of God (pbuh). The Messenger of God
(pbuh) came, so I asked him. He said, ‘He is your paternal uncle, so allow
him to enter.’ I then said, ‘Messenger of God, it was a woman who breastfed
me, not a man!’ He said, ‘Nevertheless, he is in the position of your paternal
uncle. Let him in, so he can see you.’ This event took place after seclusion765

764 That is, just as people are prohibited from marrying certain close relations sharing common
descent, breastfeeding creates bars to marriage between the breastfed child and the breast-
feeding woman and, by extension, her close relatives.
765 The Quran imposed a special norm of seclusion on the wives of the Prophet (pbuh) in
al-Aḥzāb, 33:33, and an absolute prohibition on their remarriage after his death in al-Aḥzāb,
33:53.

531
532 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

had been imposed on us.” ʿĀʾisha later explained, “Whatever is taboo by

birth is also taboo by breastfeeding.”
1902. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr that
ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, informed him that Aflaḥ, the brother of
Abū al-Quʿays, who was her paternal uncle by breastfeeding, once came and
requested permission to see her after the obligation of seclusion had been
revealed. She said, “I did not grant him permission to see me, and when the
Messenger of God (pbuh) came, I told him what had happened. He ordered
me, however, to allow Aflaḥ to see me.”
1903. According to Mālik, Thawr b. Zayd al-Dīlī reported that ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿAbbās would say, “Any breastmilk that is swallowed within the first
two years of a newborn’s life, even if it is only one swallow, makes taboo
whatever birth makes taboo.”
1904. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿAmr b. al-Sharīd
that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās was asked about a man who was married to two
women, one of whom breastfed a slave-boy, while the other breastfed a
handmaiden; could the boy marry the girl? He said, “No; they share the
same father through breastfeeding.”
1905. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would say,
“The prohibitions of breastfeeding affect only someone who was breastfed
in infancy; a non-infant who breastfeeds is not subject to those taboos.”
1906. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh informed
him that when he, Sālim, had been an infant and still breastfed, ʿĀʾisha, the
Mother of the Believers, had sent him to her sister, Umm Kulthūm bt. Abī
Bakr, saying to her, “Breastfeed him ten times so that he may come and go
freely in my house.” Sālim said, “Umm Kulthūm breastfed me three times,
but then she became ill and could not complete the ten feedings. As a result,
I could not come and go freely in ʿĀʾisha’s presence, because Umm Kulthūm
had not finished the requisite number of feedings.”
1907. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that Ṣafiyya bt. Abī ʿUbayd informed
him that Ḥafṣa, the Mother of the Believers, sent ʿĀṣim b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Saʿd
to her sister, Fāṭima bt. ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, when he was an infant, telling
her to breastfeed him ten times so that he could come and go freely in her
presence when he became an adult. Fāṭima did as Ṣafiyya instructed, and as
a result, he went freely to her when he became an adult.
1908. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported that his
father informed him that ʿĀʾisha permitted men to come and go freely in her
presence only if her sisters or paternal nieces had breastfed them. She did
not give such permission to men whom her sisters-in-law had breastfed.
Book 33 533

1909. According to Mālik, Ibrāhīm b. ʿUqba reported that he asked Saʿīd b.

al-Musayyab about breastfeeding, and Saʿīd said, “Any breastfeeding that
takes place during the first two years of an infant’s life, even if it involves only
one drop of breastmilk, is sufficient to produce the same taboo that birth
produces. Whatever breastmilk is ingested thereafter, however, is just food
that the child eats.” Ibrāhīm b. ʿUqba said, “I then asked ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr
for his opinion. His opinion was similar to that of Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab.”
1910. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “I heard Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
say, ‘Only the breastfeeding of an infant still in his cradle has the effect of
producing the same taboo that birth produces. Breastfeeding thereafter
does not nourish the child or cause him to grow.’”
1911. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb would say, “Breastfeeding, whether in
a large amount or a small one, produces the same taboo that birth produces,
on both the male and the female side.”766
1912. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘Breastfeeding, whether in a small
amount or a large one, during the first two years of an infant’s life produces
the same taboo that birth produces. Any breastfeeding that occurs
thereafter, whether much or little, does not produce the same taboo that
birth produces; it is merely food.’”

Chapter 2. What Has Come Down regarding Breastfeeding (Raḍāʿa)

an Adult
1913. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that he was asked about
breastfeeding an adult. Ibn Shihāb said, “ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr informed me that
Abū Ḥudhayfa b. ʿUtba b. Rabīʿa, who was a Companion of the Messenger of
God (pbuh) and who fought at the Battle of Badr, had adopted Sālim, the one
who is now known as Sālim the freedman (mawlā) of Abū Ḥudhayfa, just as
the Messenger of God (pbuh) had adopted Zayd b. Ḥāritha. Abū Ḥudhayfa,
deeming Sālim his son, had arranged to have him marry his niece, Fāṭima bt.
al-Walīd b. ʿUtba b. Rabīʿa. She was one of the first Muslim women of Mecca
to emigrate to Medina, and one of the most suitable unmarried women of
the Quraysh. When God, Blessed and Sublime is He, revealed in His Book
the verses concerning Zayd b. Ḥāritha, including the verse ‘Call them by
their real fathers’ names; that is more just in God’s sight. But if you do not
know their real fathers’ names, they are your brothers in faith and your
freedmen,’767 all adopted males, such as Sālim and Zayd, took the names
of their real fathers. If no one knew who such a man’s father was, he was

766 In other words, just as the nursing woman becomes the foster mother of the infant, the nurs-
ing woman’s husband becomes the infant’s foster father, and his brothers become the infant’s
foster paternal uncles.
767 Al-Aḥzāb, 33:5.
534 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

known as the freedman of the person who had manumitted him. Sahla bt.
Suhayl, Abū Ḥudhayfa’s wife, of the clan of Banū ʿĀmir b. Luʾayy, then went
to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and said, ‘Messenger of God, we always
thought of Sālim as a son. He would come and go in my presence while I was
dressed only in the clothing I wear in private. We have only one room in our
house. What do you think we should do?’ According to what has reached
us, the Messenger of God (pbuh) told her, ‘Breastfeed him five times, and
you will be in the same position as his birth mother as a result.’ She did so,
and consequently considered him her foster son. ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the
Believers, relied on that as a precedent for any man whom she wanted to
allow to come and go freely in her presence. Accordingly, she would tell her
sister, Umm Kulthūm bt. Abī Bakr al-Ṣiddīq, and her daughters to breastfeed
anyone whom she desired to admit freely to her presence. The other wives
of the Prophet (pbuh), however, would not permit anyone who had been
breastfed as an adult to come and go freely in their presence. They said,
‘No, by God, we believe that the advice the Messenger of God (pbuh) gave
Sahla bt. Suhayl was merely a special dispensation for her to breastfeed
Sālim, one that does not apply to anyone else. No one, by God, shall come
and go freely in our presence by such means.’ These were the views that the
wives of the Prophet (pbuh) had regarding the effects of breastfeeding an
adult male.”
1914. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār said, “A man came to ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿUmar while I was with him in the chamber of justice (dār al-qaḍāʾ) to ask
him about the legal consequences of breastfeeding an adult. ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar said, ‘A man once came to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb and said, “I have a
handmaiden with whom I would have sexual relations. My wife sought her
out and forced the handmaiden to drink her breastmilk. The next time I saw
my wife, she said, ‘Keep your distance from her, for by God, I have breastfed
her.’” ʿUmar said, “You may punish your wife, if you wish, and resume having
sexual relations with the handmaiden. The only breastfeeding that produces
a taboo is breastfeeding that takes place during infancy.”’”
1915. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that a man told Abū
Mūsā al-Ashʿarī, “I accidentally sucked some of my wife’s breastmilk and
swallowed it.” Abū Mūsā said, “I can only conclude that it is now forbidden
for you to keep her as a wife.” ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd said, “Take care in the
opinions you give this man,” so Abū Mūsā said, “What is your opinion, then?”
ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd said, “The only breastfeeding that produces a taboo is
that which takes place during an infant’s first two years of life.” Abū Mūsā
said, “People, you should not ask me about anything as long as this learned
man is among you.”
Book 33 535

Chapter 3. Miscellaneous Matters regarding Breastfeeding (Raḍāʿa)

1916. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported from Sulaymān b.
Yasār and from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr, from ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers,
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “What is taboo by virtue of birth is
taboo by virtue of breastfeeding.”
1917. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Nawfal said
that ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr informed him, from ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the
Believers, that Judāma bt. Wahb al-Asadiyya informed ʿĀʾisha that she
heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) say, “I was of a mind to prohibit ghīla,
but I remembered that the Romans and Persians have no such restrictions,
and their children are fine.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Ghīla is when a man has
sexual relations with his wife while she is breastfeeding.’”768
1918. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b.
Ḥazm reported from ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the
Prophet (pbuh), said, “Originally, the Quran provided that ten definitive
instances of breastfeeding were required to produce the taboo that birth
produces. That was later abrogated and reduced to five definitive instances
of breastfeeding. At the time the Prophet (pbuh) died, this was still being
recited as part of the Quran.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The practice (ʿamal)
is not in accord with this.’”

The Book of Breastfeeding (Raḍāʿa) Is Complete.

Praise Belongs to God, the Lord of the Worlds.

768 The basis for the belief that this would harm the nursing child is that the nursing mother
might become pregnant and consequently cease lactating, and the newborn would then not
receive adequate nourishment from the mother.
 Book 34
The Book of Sales (Buyūʿ)

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family
and Grant Them Tranquility.

Chapter 1. What Has Come Down regarding Nonrefundable Deposits

(Bayʿ al-ʿUrbān769)770
1919. According to Mālik, a source that he deemed reliable reported from
ʿAmr b. Shuʿayb, from his father, from his grandfather, that the Messenger of
God (pbuh) prohibited sales involving nonrefundable deposits. Mālik said,
“In our view, and God knows best, such a sale takes place when a man buys
a slave or a handmaiden, or hires a pack animal, and then tells the seller or
the lessor, as the case may be, ‘I’ll give you a dinar, or dirham, or something
more or less than that, on the condition that if I complete the purchase or
decide to rent the animal, what I previously gave you is included in the final
purchase price or final rent. However, if I do not complete the purchase
of the merchandise or end up leasing the animal, whatever I gave you
previously is yours to keep, with no obligation on your part to return it.”
1920. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that there is
no objection to trading an Arabic-speaking slave who has commercial
experience for several Abyssinian slaves or several slaves of any other
race who are not his equal in fluency, commercial expertise, judgment, and
skill. There is no objection if someone trades on credit one slave for two
or more slaves whose attributes differ from those of first slave, provided
that the date of delivery is specified and the slaves clearly differ in their
qualities. If they resemble one another, however, to the extent that they are

769 Also known as ʿarbūn and arbūn.

770 This is the correct chapter heading. The published edition of the RME, however, contains the
erroneous chapter title “Breastfeeding (Raḍāʿa) of the Young.”

537
538 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

near-substitutes for one another, it is prohibited to trade one slave for two
on credit, even if the slaves are of different races.”
1921. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable in selling what you are to
receive from that prior transaction before you take full possession of it, as
long as you paid its price in cash and the purchaser is not the same person
who originally sold you that merchandise.”
1922. Mālik said, “If someone sells a pregnant female, whether a
handmaiden or livestock, he may not retain ownership of the mother’s
fetus, because that would result in a sale with material uncertainty in the
consideration (gharar). In these circumstances, one cannot know whether
the fetus is male or female, handsome or ugly, deformed or fully formed, or
alive or dead, but all of these are factors that affect its price.”
1923. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man who buys a male
slave or a handmaiden for one hundred dinars on credit, and then the seller
regrets the sale and asks the purchaser to cancel the transaction for ten
dinars, payable in cash or on credit, and agrees in exchange to waive the
one hundred dinars that the purchaser owes the seller: “There is nothing
objectionable in that. Such a transaction is not permissible, however, if the
purchaser is the one who regrets the sale and asks the seller to rescind it,
offering to pay the seller ten dinars either in cash or on credit, due after
the date specified in the original sale. The reason this latter transaction is
prohibited is that it is as if the seller is selling to the purchaser the one
hundred dinars that the purchaser already owes him, but in advance of its
maturity date, for a handmaiden and ten dinars in cash, or on credit after
the originally specified date. This transaction therefore implicitly involves
the sale of gold for gold on credit terms, which is prohibited.”771
1924. Mālik said, regarding someone who sells to another man a
handmaiden for one hundred dinars on credit and then repurchases her
at a higher price, also on credit but after the expiry of the original credit

771 The difference between the cases is the following. In the first case, the seller is effectively
repurchasing the slave that he sold to the purchaser with a mark-up, in this case of ten dinars.
Such a resale raises no legal problems. In the second case, however, because the purchaser
owes the seller one hundred dinars and is now offering the seller ten dinars and the return of
the slave in exchange for cancellation of the debt, it is as though the purchaser is purchasing
the debt he owes for the price of the slave and ten dinars. This entails the deferred exchange
of gold (the one hundred dinars) for gold (the ten dinars), which is not permitted. Another
possible analysis of the second transaction, and the one adopted by Bājī, is that it involves
a sale combined with a loan, pursuant to which the purchaser agrees to prepay ten dinars
of the original debt and sells the slave back to the seller in exchange for cancellation of the
original hundred-dinar obligation. Mālikīs do not consider a sale combined with a loan valid.
Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 4:164.
Book 34 539

term: “This is an impermissible transaction. An illustration of this rule is

the case of a man who sells a handmaiden on credit and then repurchases
her on credit after the expiry of the original credit term. For example, he
sells her for thirty dinars, due in one month, and then repurchases her for
sixty dinars, due in one year or in half a year. The result is that the very
goods that he originally sold, in this case the handmaiden, are restored to
him. Meanwhile, the second party (the original purchaser) gives the first
party (the original seller) thirty dinars, payable in thirty days, against an
obligation by the first party to pay sixty dinars to the second party in one
year or half a year. This is, in effect, a credit sale of thirty dinars for sixty
dinars, which is not permissible.”

Chapter 2. The Property of a Chattel Slave (Mamlūk)

1925. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “If a man sells a chattel slave, and the slave himself
owns some property, the property remains the seller’s, unless the purchaser
stipulates its inclusion in the contract of sale.”
1926. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ
ʿalayhi ʿindanā) is that if the purchaser stipulates the inclusion of the
chattel slave’s property in the contract of sale, the slave’s property goes
to the purchaser, whether it be cash, debt, or goods, known or unknown,
even if it turns out that the value of the slave’s property exceeds his sale
price, whether he was purchased for cash, debt, or goods. This is because
the master is not liable to pay the alms-tax in respect of the slave’s property.
If the slave owns a handmaiden, his ownership of her permits him to have
sexual relations with her. If the slave is manumitted or becomes a party to a
manumission contract, his personal property remains with him. If he goes
bankrupt, his creditors are entitled to seize his property, and his master is
not answerable for any portion of his debts.”

Chapter 3. The Seller’s Liability (ʿUhda) for Defects

1927. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b.
Ḥazm reported that Abān b. ʿUthmān and Hishām b. Ismāʿīl made regular
reference in their Friday sermons to the seller’s liability for defects in male
and female slaves appearing within three days of their purchase, and for
defects appearing within one year thereof.772

772 Both Abān and Hishām served as governors of Medina. Bājī understands this report as indi-
cating that both of them were keen on communicating these rules clearly to the public by
mentioning them regularly in their Friday sermons. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 4:172–73.
540 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1928. Mālik said, “The seller is responsible for any defects that appear in
a slave, male or female, for a period of three days after the purchase of the
slave. The seller is also responsible for a period of one year from the date
of the slave’s sale for the specific defects of insanity (junūn), elephantiasis
(judhām), and leprosy (baraṣ).773 Once a year has passed, the seller is free of
liability for anything that subsequently happens to the slave.”
1929. Mālik said, “Anyone who sells a male or female slave, whether the
seller be an heir or a non-heir,774 on the condition that he not be held liable
for any defects whatsoever is in fact absolved of liability for any defects
that subsequently appear in the slave, unless the seller knew of the defect
and concealed it. If he knew of the defect and concealed it, the contractual
waiver of liability is not effective, and the sale is rescinded. In our opinion,
the seller’s liability for defects exists only in the case of the sale of slaves.”775

Chapter 4. Defects (ʿAyb) in Slaves

1930. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh
that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar sold a slave-boy of his for 800 dirhams, with a
disclaimer of liability for any defects. After the sale, the boy showed signs of
illness, and the purchaser said to ʿAbd Allāh, “The boy has a disease that you
did not disclose to me.” They took their dispute to ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān, and the
man said, “He sold me a slave-boy with a disease that he failed to disclose to
me.” ʿAbd Allāh, however, said, “I sold the boy with a disclaimer of liability.”
ʿUthmān ruled that ʿAbd Allāh had to swear an oath that at the time of the
sale he had no knowledge that the slave suffered from any disease. ʿAbd
Allāh refused to swear the oath. As a result, the sale was rescinded, and
the slave was returned to him. The slave subsequently recovered, and ʿAbd
Allāh then sold him for 1,500 dirhams.

773 Elephantiasis leads to the loss of limbs, whereas leprosy does not. Mohammed Ghaly, Islam
and Disability: Perspectives in Theology and Jurisprudence (London: Routledge, 2010), 17.
774 An heir who is selling an inherited slave bears no personal liability for any post-sale defects
that arise in the slave, whether within three days or one year. Any such liability is instead
borne collectively by all the heirs. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 4:179.
775 Mālik divides sales into three categories with respect to the seller’s liability for defects. The
first consists of sales of items that are subject to the three-day and one-year warranties;
these apply exclusively to slaves. The second involves the sale of anything that the seller
could have damaged through mishandling or fraud. Mālik provides no determinate time
period for the warranty in sales of this category; rather, the purchaser is entitled to bring an
action to rescind such a sale upon discovery of the defect. The third kind of sale is a caveat
emptor sale in which the seller disclaims all warranties unless it can be shown that he knew
of the existence of a defect and concealed it. The view Mālik expresses in this report refers
exclusively to the first category of sales.
Book 34 541

1931. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ

ʿalayhi ʿindanā) is that if someone purchases a handmaiden and then she
becomes pregnant, or he purchases a slave whom he then manumits, or any
other condition arises in the slave subsequent to the purchase that makes
his return impossible, but reliable evidence is introduced proving that a
defect existed when the slave was still in the seller’s possession, or that
fact comes to be known either because the seller admits it or through other
means, the purchaser is entitled to have the fair market value of the male or
female slave on the purchase date determined by appraisal, taking the defect
into account. The purchaser is then given a partial refund of his purchase
price in proportion to the difference between the fair market value of the
slave in the absence of the defect and his fair market value as is.”776
1932. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us is that if a man buys a
slave and then finds a defect in him that would ordinarily permit him to
rescind the sale, return the slave to the seller, and receive a full refund of
the purchase price, but after the purchaser took possession of the slave a
second, substantial defect—such as the loss of a limb or an eye or something
similar—arose, the purchaser of the slave is entitled to choose the more
favorable of the following two options. If he wishes, he may receive a refund
of the slave’s purchase price in an amount proportional to the reduction
in the slave’s value arising out of the initial defect, calculated as of the day
he purchased the slave. Alternatively, if he wishes, he may reimburse the
seller for the diminution in the slave’s value arising out of the second defect,
return the slave to to the seller, and receive a full refund of the purchase
price.777 If, however, the slave dies while in the purchaser’s possession, the
slave’s fair market value on the date of purchase, taking the defect into
account, is determined. Then the purchase price is taken into account.778 If,
for example, the fair market value of the slave, assuming him to have been
free of the defect, was one hundred dinars as of the purchase date, and his

776 Because the condition of the slave has materially changed after the purchase, whether
because of pregnancy, manumission, or some other reason, the purchaser cannot simply
return the slave to the seller and receive a refund of the purchase price. Consequently, his
remedy is limited to a proportional refund. If, for example, the defect results in a 20 percent
reduction in the slave’s fair market value, the purchaser is entitled to a refund of 20 percent
of the purchase price.
777 In other words, if the purchaser chooses to return the defective slave, the seller can deduct
from the refunded purchase price the diminution in the slave’s value caused by the sub-
sequent defect in the slave. Therefore, if the slave’s original purchse price had been one
hundred dinars, but the second defect, which arose while the slave was in the purchaser’s
possession, caused a diminution of ten dinars in the slave’s value, the seller need refund to
the purchaser only ninety dinars, if the purchaser exercises his option to rescind the sale.
778 Mālik presumably takes the contract price as definitive of the slave’s fair market value as of
the date of purchase in the absence of the undisclosed defect.
542 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

fair market value with the defect as of the purchase date was eighty dinars,
the purchaser is entitled to a refund of the difference between the two. The
slave’s value is calculated as of the date the slave was purchased.”
1933. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us is that if someone
discovers a defect in his handmaiden after having sexual intercourse with
her and then returns her to the seller, he must reimburse the seller for the
reduction in her fair market value if she was a virgin (bikr). If, however, she
was a matron (thayyib), he bears no liability to the seller arising out of his
intercourse with her, insofar as he bore the risk of loss for anything that
happened to her while she was in his possession.”779
1934. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us is that a person who
sells a male or female slave or an animal, whether the seller is an heir or
anyone else, and disclaims liability for any defects in the sold item is not
liable for any defect that subsequently appears in the sold item, unless he
knew of the defect and concealed it. If he knew of the defect and concealed
it, his disclaimer of liability is ineffective, the sale is rescinded, and the sold
item is returned to him.”
1935. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which one handmaiden is
exchanged for two others, and then a defect that permits the return of one
of the two is discovered, “First, the fair market value of the one handmaiden
who was exchanged for the two is determined, and then the sale price (in
this case, her appraised value) is taken into account. Then the fair market
value of the two handmaidens is determined, on the assumption that the
defective handmaiden was free of the defect. In other words, they are both
appraised on the assumption that they are healthy and free of defects.
Then the purchase price of each of the two handmaidens is determined by
allocating the appraised value of the one handmaiden who was exchanged
for the two between the two other handmaidens in proportion to their
respective values, each of the two taking her share of that joint value, the
more valuable of the two in proportion to her higher value, and the less
valuable one in proportion to her value.780 Then the fair market value of the
handmaiden with the defect is taken into account, and the purchaser, upon
returning her to the seller, receives a partial refund of the purchase price

779 In other words, because the purchaser’s possession of the handmaiden was lawful, and
because anything that happened to her until she was returned to the seller was at the pur-
chaser’s risk, he was entitled to have intercourse with her.
780 In other words, if the fair market value of the one handmaiden was appraised at one hundred
dinars, and the fair market value of the two handmaidens, on the assumption that they were
free of defects, was appraised at fifty and twenty-five dinars, respectively, the first of the two
is worth twice as much as the second. Accordingly, the deemed price of the first of the two
handmaidens would be sixty-seven dinars and that of the second thirty-three dinars.
Book 34 543

in proportion to that handmaiden’s share of the total value, whether that

share is great or small. The fair market value of the two handmaidens is
determined as of the date the purchaser took possession of them.”
1936. Mālik said, regarding a man who buys a slave and hires him out
to others, charging either a high or a low price for the slave’s labor, and
then finds a defect in the slave that would rescind the sale, “The purchaser
returns the slave to the seller on account of that defect, but the purchaser
retains whatever he collected from hiring out the slave to others or
whatever the slave produced while in his possession. That is the rule that the
community in our town has followed (al-amr alladhī kānat ʿalayhi al-jamāʿa
bi-baladinā).781 This is because were someone to purchase a slave who then
builds him a house, the house’s fair market value would be several times
greater than that of the slave himself. If the purchaser were then to discover
a defect in the slave that results in the rescission of the sale, and he elected
to return the slave to the seller, the purchaser would not be obliged to pay
the seller for the work that the slave did for him while the slave was in his
possession. For the same reason, the purchaser in this case is entitled to
retain any amount he collected from hiring out the slave to others, because
the purchaser bore the risk of the slave’s loss while the slave was in his
possession. That is the rule among us (dhālika al-amr ʿindanā).”
1937. Mālik said, “The rule in our view regarding a man who buys a group
of slaves in a single transaction and then discovers that one of them was
stolen or has a defect is that the condition of the stolen or defective slave is
taken into account. If that slave is the best of the lot or the most valuable of
them, or if the lot of them was purchased in order to obtain that particular
slave, and he is the one that everyone recognizes as the best of the lot were
it not for that defect, the entire deal may be rescinded. If, on the other hand,
the slave that is discovered to be stolen or defective represents only a trifling
portion of the group’s collective value and is not considered the best of the
lot, and the deal was not concluded in order to acquire that particular slave,
nor is he the one that everyone recognizes as the best of the lot, then that
particular slave, whether stolen or defective, may be returned to the seller,
and the purchaser is given a refund in an amount equal to the ratio of that
slave’s fair market value to the overall purchase price paid for the slaves.”782

781 This is the first and only time Mālik uses this expression in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.
782 In other words, in the second hypothetical case, if the purchase price of the entire group of
slaves was 1,000 dinars, and the defective slave was appraised at one hundred dinars, the
purchaser would be entitled to a refund of 10 percent of the purchase price.
544 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 5. Regarding the Sale of a Handmaiden and Stipulations

Related to Her Sale
1938. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd told him that ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd purchased
a handmaiden from his wife, Zaynab al-Thaqafiyya. She stipulated in the
contract that if he planned to sell her to a third party, she would have the
right to purchase her from him for the price offered by the third party. ʿAbd
Allāh asked ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb about the effect of such a condition. ʿUmar
said, “You may not have sexual relations with her as long as another person
benefits from a condition attached to her.”783
1939. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
say, “A man may not have intercourse with a handmaiden unless he has an
unfettered right to sell her, gift her to another, keep her, or do whatever he
wishes with her.”
1940. Mālik said, regarding someone who purchases a handmaiden on
the condition that he will neither sell nor gift her to a third party or under
another, similar condition, “The purchaser in this case is not permitted to
have intercourse with her. That is because he is permitted neither to sell
nor to gift her. If he is unable to exercise either of those rights with respect
to her, his ownership of her is incomplete. This is because the contract has
excluded him from the exercise of certain ownership rights, which are now
under the control of others. If a contract of sale includes such a condition, it
is invalid, and the sale is void.”784

Chapter 6. The Prohibition against a Master Having Intercourse with

a Married Handmaiden
1941. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿĀmir gifted to ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān a married handmaiden whom he
had purchased in Basra. ʿUthmān said, “I will not touch her unless her
husband divorces her.” Ibn ʿĀmir reached a settlement with her husband,
who then divorced her.

783 In ʿUmar’s opinion, the right of first refusal that ʿAbd Allāh granted his wife when he pur-
chased the handmaiden from her had the effect of giving the wife a claim to the handmaiden.
As a result, the handmaiden was not completely under his ownership, and therefore sexual
relations with her were not permissible.
784 According to Mālik’s analysis of this case, the contract of sale is void because it fails, by its
terms, to give the purchaser essential rights related to the ownership of the item purchased.
Therefore, the purchaser does not, as a legal matter, fully own the handmaiden, and he conse-
quently has no right to have sexual relations with her. Rather, he holds the handmaiden with
the obligation to return her to the seller and receive a refund of the purchase price.
Book 34 545

1942. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf purchased a handmaiden
and then discovered that she was married, so he returned her to the seller.

Chapter 7. What Has Come Down regarding Ownership of Dates That

Mature after the Orchard Has Been Sold
1943. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from Ibn ʿUmar that the Messenger
of God (pbuh) said, “If someone sells date palms after they have been
pollinated, their fruit belongs to the seller, unless the purchaser stipulates
their inclusion in the sale.”

Chapter 8. The Prohibition against Selling Dates before They Mature

1944. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from Ibn ʿUmar that the Messenger
of God (pbuh) prohibited the sale of dates before they had matured,
prohibiting the seller from offering to sell them and the purchaser from
offering to purchase them.
1945. According to Mālik, Ḥumayd al-Ṭawīl reported from Anas b. Mālik
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited the sale of dates before they
“brighten” (tuzhī). He was asked, “What does ‘brighten’ mean?” He said,
“When they turn red.”
1946. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Suppose God prevents the dates
from maturing. In that case, on what basis could the seller justify taking his
brother’s property?”
1947. According to Mālik, Abū al-Rijāl Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
b. Ḥāritha reported from his mother, ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited the sale of dates until they were safe
from blight.
1948. Mālik said, “Selling dates before they mature is a kind of material
uncertainty in the consideration (gharar) that renders the contract void.”
1949. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from Khārija b. Zayd
b. Thābit, from Zayd b. Thābit, that he would not sell his dates until the
Pleiades were visible.785
1950. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) regarding the sale
of melons, cucumbers, watermelons, and carrots is that once they have
begun to mature, their sale is permissible and binding. After they are sold,

785 The Pleiades are the constellation of stars known as the “seven sisters” in English and as
thurayyā in Arabic, and they were visible at the end of May.
546 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

whatever subsequent growth occurs in these crops belongs to the purchaser

until their season concludes and they die. There is no predetermined limit
to the length of their seasons; it is generally known to people by experience.
Sometimes, however, they are stricken by blight that reduces the output of
the crops before the customary time. Therefore, if a blight strikes a third or
more of the crop as a result of a calamity (jāʾiḥa), the purchase price should
be reduced by that amount.”

Chapter 9. Trading Fresh Dates for Dried Dates (Bayʿ al-ʿAriyya)

1951. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, from
Zayd b. Thābit, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) granted the owner of date
palms a dispensation (rukhṣa) permitting him to trade his unharvested fresh
dates, to be delivered to the purchaser at harvest time, for the purchaser’s
dried dates, delivered immediately, on the basis of the estimated quantity
of his future crop.786
1952. According to Mālik, Dāwūd b. al-Ḥuṣayn reported from Abū Sufyān,
the freedman (mawlā) of Ibn Abī Aḥmad, from Abū Hurayra, that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) granted a dispensation to trade fresh dates, using
an estimate of their quantity, for dried dates in an amount less than five
awsuq (or “five awsuq”).787 Dāwūd was not certain, so he said, “Five, or less
than five, awsuq.”
1953. Mālik said, “Unharvested dates are exchanged for their equivalent in
dried dates on the basis of an estimate of their quantity. Their quantity is
carefully estimated while they are still hanging on the date palm’s branches
without any attempt to weigh them. This was permitted because it was
deemed to be the equivalent of a contract for the repurchase of goods
(tawliya), the rescission of a contract for the benefit of the purchaser (iqāla),
and a kind of partnership (shirk). Had it been deemed the equivalent of
other kinds of sales, no one would have agreed to treat another person as
his partner in a trade involving food until that other person had first taken
possession of the food; nor would a seller ever have relieved a purchaser
of his obligations under a contract involving the sale of food until the

786 Ordinarily, such a transaction would be invalid for two reasons. The first is that it violates the
rules of ribā that prohibit the deferred trade of food (ribā al-nasīʾa or ribā al-nasāʾ). The sec-
ond is that it involves material uncertainty in the consideration (gharar), insofar as the quan-
tity of the fresh dates being traded is not known with certainty at the time of the trade but is
instead only estimated. Moreover, the generally applicable rule is that it is not permissible to
exchange dates for dates, except in like quantities. Accordingly, it is generally prohibited to
trade fresh dates for dried ones, because it is impossible to confirm whether their quantities
are equal since fresh dates shrink when dried.
787 Approximately 122 kilograms.
Book 34 547

purchaser had first taken possession of such food; nor would a seller ever
have agreed to repurchase the goods of a contract from a purchaser until
the purchaser had first taken possession of such goods.”788

Chapter 10. A Calamity (Jāʾiḥa) That Affects an Unharvested Crop of

Dates (Thimār) or Grains (Zarʿ) after Their Sale
1954. According to Mālik, Abū al-Rijāl Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
reported that he heard his mother, ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, say, “In the
time of the Messenger of God (pbuh), a man once purchased the dates of
an orchard prior to their harvest. He cared for them, staying in the orchard
with them until it became obvious to him that the crop had withered while
still on the branch. Accordingly, he asked the orchard’s owner to give him a
discount on the purchase price or to cancel the sale entirely, but the owner
swore that he would not. The purchaser’s mother went to the Messenger
of God (pbuh) and told him what had happened. The Messenger of God
(pbuh) then said, ‘Indeed, the seller swore a wicked oath.’ The orchard’s
owner came to learn of that conversation, so he went to the Messenger of
God (pbuh) and said, ‘Messenger of God, I will give it789 to him.’”
1955. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ruled
that a seller must grant the purchaser a reduction in the contract price in
the case of a calamity that befalls the sold crop between the time of sale and
the time of harvest. Mālik said, “The rule among us is in accordance with
that (ʿalā dhālika al-amr ʿindanā).”
1956. Mālik said, “The definition of a calamity that requires the seller to give
the purchaser a discount on the contract price is destruction of one-third
or more of the sold crop. Any damage to the crop that is less than one-third
does not count as a calamity.”

Chapter 11. What a Seller May Exclude in a Contract Involving the

Sale of Fresh Dates (Thamar)
1957. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported that
al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad would sell his orchard’s crop of fresh dates but
exclude some of them from the sale.
1958. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr reported that his grand-
father Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b. Ḥazm sold the crop of fresh dates from one of

788 Mālik is analogizing the dispensation permitting the trade of unharvested fresh dates for
dried dates to other exceptional contracts by virtue of the common factor that the motive in
each case is to do a favor to the counterparty rather than to secure commercial gain.
789 That is, either a reduction in the purchase price or a cancellation of the contract.
548 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

his orchards, the one known by the name al-Afrāq, for 4,000 dirhams, but
he excluded from the sale the equivalent of 800 dirhams’ worth of dried
dates (tamr).790
1959. According to Mālik, Abū al-Rijāl Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b.
Hāritha reported that his mother, ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, would sell her
crops of fresh dates but exclude some from the contract.
1960. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ
ʿalayhi ʿindanā) is that if a man sells his crop of fresh dates from his orchard,
he can exclude up to one-third of the crop, but no more, and there is no
objection to excluding less than one-third of his crop from the sale.”
1961. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable in a man selling his crop
of fresh dates from his orchard but excluding from the contract the dates of
one or more palm trees, which he chooses and specifies to the purchaser.
That is because the orchard’s owner is excluding from the contract only
that which was originally part of his own orchard, and the exclusion is thus
nothing more than the orchard’s owner holding something back from his
own orchard and retaining it for himself. In fact, he never sold that thing;
rather, he sold only the unexcluded portion of his orchard’s crop.”

Chapter 12. What Is Prohibited with Respect to the Sale of Dried

Dates (Tamr)
1962. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār said,
“The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘When trading dried dates for dried
dates, exchange like for like.’ Someone said to the Messenger of God (pbuh),
‘Your representative in Khaybar takes one measure (ṣāʿ)791 of dates for two.’
The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Summon him to appear before me.’ The
representative was summoned and brought before the Messenger of God
(pbuh), who asked him, ‘Do you take one measure of dates for two?” He
said, ‘Messenger of God, they will not trade me high-quality dates (janīb)
for low-quality dates (jamʿ) in equivalent amounts.’ The Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, ‘Sell the low-quality dates for coins, and then use the coins to
purchase the high-quality dates.’”
1963. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd b. Suhayl b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b.
ʿAwf reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī and Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) appointed a man to serve as
his representative in Khaybar. The representative once brought the Prophet

790 The Arabic term for dried dates is tamr, whereas fresh dates are called thamar (pl. thimār).
791 A measure used by the Medinese at the time of the Prophet (pbuh). Modern scholars have
estimated it to be the equivalent of two kilograms. Jumuʿa, al-Makāyīl, 37.
Book 34 549

(pbuh) some high-quality dried dates. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to
him, “Are all the dried dates of Khaybar of such high quality?” The governor
said, “By God, Messenger of God, no; but we purchase one measure of this
kind for two measures of lower-quality dates, and two measures of this
kind for three measures of that.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Don’t
do that. You should instead sell the low-quality dates for coins, and then use
the coins to purchase the high-quality dates.”
1964. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Yazīd reported that Zayd, also known
as Abū ʿAyyāsh, told him that he asked Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ about trading
hulled barley (bayḍāʾ) for pearl barley (sult). Saʿd asked him, “Which of the
two is larger (afḍal)?”792 Zayd said, “The hulled barley.” Saʿd prohibited him
from engaging in that trade. Saʿd said, “I heard the Messenger of God (pbuh)
say, when he was queried about trading fresh dates for dried ones, ‘Don’t
fresh dates shrink when they are dried?’ They answered yes, so he forbade
that trade.”

Chapter 13. Trading Indeterminate Amounts (Muzābana) and

Sharecropping (Muḥāqala)
1965. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited the exchange of indeterminate
amounts (muzābana), meaning the trade of fresh dates (thamar) for a
determinate amount of dried dates (tamr) by measure, and the trade of
grapes on the vine for a determinate amount of raisins.793
1966. According to Mālik, Dāwud b. al-Ḥuṣayn reported from Abū Sufyān,
the freedman (mawlā) of Ibn Abī Aḥmad, from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī, that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited indeterminate trades and
sharecropping (muḥāqala). “Indeterminate trades” means exchanging
dried dates for fresh dates that are still hanging on the branches of palm
trees, and “sharecropping” means leasing land in exchange for threshed
wheat (ḥinṭa).
1967. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited indeterminate trades and
sharecropping, “indeterminate trades” referring to trading fresh dates for

792 Bājī concludes that afḍal in this context refers not to the quality of the items being considered
but rather to their quantity, as evidenced by the hadith that Saʿd uses to justify his response
to Zayd. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 4:242.
793 The reason these two trades are indeterminate is that fresh dates and grapes shrink when
they are dried, and it is thus impossible to know whether they are the equivalent in quan-
tity of the dried dates and raisins that are given in exchange for the fresh dates and grapes,
respectively.
550 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

dried dates and “sharecropping” referring to the purchase of unharvested

wheat (zarʿ) for threshed wheat and to the lease of land for threshed wheat.
Ibn Shihāb said, “I asked Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab about leasing land in exchange
for gold or silver. He said, ‘There is nothing objectionable in that.’”
1968. Mālik said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited indeterminate
trades. This prohibition is understood as covering the sale of anything that
is indeterminate, that is, whose volume, weight, or number is unknown, for
something whose measure, weight, or number is known. An example of such
a trade is when one man says to another who owns food, such as threshed
wheat or dried dates, that is heaped up in mounds for sale, or piles of goods,
such as camel fodder, date pits, clover, safflower, cotton, flax, or silk, whose
quantities, whether measured by volume, weight, or number, are unknown,
‘Measure out these goods of yours, or get someone to do so on your behalf,’
or ‘Weigh what can be weighed,’ or ‘Count what can be counted.’ He then
says, ‘Even if the total amount in the pile falls short of such-and-such
volume, weight, or number, I shall nevertheless accept the deal as final,
provided that anything in excess of that specified amount shall be mine.
I bear the risk of what falls short of the specified amount, and I keep what
exceeds it.’ That is not a sale, but rather a kind of bet (mukhāṭara) involving
material uncertainty (gharar) and gambling (qimār). This is because he is
not agreeing to purchase any specific thing from the seller in exchange for
a specific price that he will pay him; rather, he guarantees to him the price
of a determinate volume, weight, or number on the condition that he can
keep any amount in the pile in excess of that. If, however, the goods happen
to amount to less than specified, the seller takes the purchaser’s property
without giving him adequate consideration in exchange. Nor can the seller
be deemed to receive that excess property as a gift, cheerfully given to him
by the purchaser. Accordingly, this transaction resembles gambling, and
anything similar to it is subject to the same objection.”
1969. Mālik said, “The same principle applies to the case of someone
telling another who has cloth for sale, ‘I will take this cloth of yours and
make from it and give you back such-and-such a number of hooded cloaks,
each measuring such-and-such. If the cloth is insufficient to produce that
number of hooded cloaks, I will make up the difference in order to give
you the entirety of what I promised you. If, however, the cloth yields a
number of hooded cloaks that exceeds the stipulated number, I get to keep
the extras.’ Alternatively, he says to the seller, ‘I will take this cloth of yours
and make from it and give you back so many tunics, each one measuring
such-and-such. If the cloth is insufficient to produce that number of tunics,
I will make up the difference. If, however, the cloth yields tunics in excess
Book 34 551

of that number, I get to keep the extras.’ Alternatively, he says to a man who
has cattle hides or camel hides for sale, ‘I will take these leather hides of
yours and make from them sandals similar to this one’ (which he shows to
the seller), ‘and if it turns out that I deliver to you fewer than one hundred
pairs of sandals from your leather, I will make up the difference, but if
the leather is sufficient to produce more than one hundred pairs, I get to
keep the excess pairs.’ A similar case is when a man says to another who
has moringa seeds for sale, ‘I will press your seeds, and if the oil I extract
falls short of such-and-such an amount, I will give you the difference, but
whatever is in excess of that I get to keep.’ All of these cases, and any that
are like them or resemble them, amount to indeterminate trades, which are
neither lawful nor binding. The same principle applies when a man says to
another who has camel fodder, date pits, cotton, flax, herbs, or safflower, ‘I
will purchase this camel fodder from you for such-and-such a number of
measures (ṣāʿ) of similar camel fodder, these date pits for such-and-such
a number of measures of similar date pits,’ or a similar offer with regard
to the man’s safflower, cotton, flax, or herbs. All of these trades would be
examples of what we have called ‘indeterminate trades.’”

Chapter 14. Miscellaneous Matters Related to the Sale of Fresh Dates

(Thamar)
1970. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘There is nothing objectionable in purchasing
fresh dates growing on specific palm trees or in a specific orchard or
purchasing milk that is in the udder of specific sheep (ghanam) if the
purchaser takes possession immediately after paying the purchase price.
This case is the equivalent of the purchase of some oil, one or two dinars’
worth, out of a closed container. The purchaser gives the seller his gold and
asks him to pour him the amount that he has purchased. There is nothing
objectionable in that. If the container cracks, however, and the oil spills
before the seller can measure out the oil, the purchaser is entitled to nothing
other than a refund of his gold, and the transaction is canceled. There is
nothing objectionable in having a standing order for the cash purchase of
items that are offered for sale in the market on a daily basis, such as milk
after it has been expressed from the animal’s udder, or freshly harvested
dates, the purchaser receiving his order daily. However, if the purchaser has
given the seller his money but the supply runs out before the purchaser
receives his full order, the seller must refund the purchaser an amount
of money proportional to the unfilled part of the order. Alternatively, if
the purchaser can come to a mutual agreement with the seller, he may
take other goods instead, provided that the purchaser stays with the
seller until he takes possession of what is owed to him. An agreement in
552 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

which they agree on what the seller will give the purchaser in lieu of the
original obligation but the purchaser departs before taking possession of
that second obligation would be prohibited. This is because the second
transaction would now involve settling a current debt with a future debt,
and the settlement of a current debt with a future debt has been prohibited.
Therefore, if the second transaction is not settled promptly, it is forbidden.
No deferral or postponement is allowed in the second transaction.794 This is
because a credit term is permissible only if the item sold on credit is subject
to a reasonably precise description and the delivery date is specified. The
seller in a credit sale is obliged only to deliver the goods that are generically
described in the contract to the purchaser. He is not under an obligation to
deliver specific goods that have been previously identified, as is the case in
a cash transaction. Therefore, in the case of a credit sale, the parties do not
specify which orchard or animal is the source of the dates or milk that the
seller must deliver to the purchaser.’”
1971. Mālik was asked about a man who purchases another man’s date
orchard. That orchard has various kinds of date palms, including ʿajwa,
kabīs, ʿidhq, and others.795 The purchaser wishes to exclude from the sale
the fruit of one or several of the palm trees of his choice. Mālik said in
response, “That is not valid, because if the purchaser does so, he omits from
the purchase the fruit of a palm tree whose yield is, for example, fifteen
measures (sāʿ) in exchange for the fruit of another tree of a different variety
whose yield is, say, ten measures. If, on the other hand, he includes in the
purchase the fruit of the tree whose yield is fifteen measures in exchange
for omitting the fruit of the tree that yields ten measures, it is as though
he has exchanged one kind of dates for another kind of dates in unequal
amounts. This is similar to the case of someone who offers to give another
man who has heaps of three different varieties of dried dates offered for
sale—fifteen measures of one variety, ten measures of the second, and
twelve measures of the third—one dinar in exchange for permitting him to
choose whichever of the three heaps he wishes. This kind of a transaction
is therefore not valid.”796

794 In this case, the parties had originally entered into a cash transaction, and when the seller
ran out of goods, he and the purchaser agreed to substitute alternative goods for the origi-
nal goods. If it turns out that the seller does not have those alternative goods on hand, the
two parties cannot agree to have the seller deliver the goods the next day. Either they must
choose substitute goods that the seller has on hand, or the seller must immediately refund
the purchaser’s money.
795 These are different varieties of high-quality dates.
796 Unlike in the previous case, in which the seller was reserving a portion of his orchard’s
fruit for himself, in this case the purchaser is seeking to exclude the fruit of certain trees
in the orchard from the sale. Mālik concludes that this is not permissible because it implic-
itly results in an exchange of dates in unequal measures and because there is material
Book 34 553

1972. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about the rights of a purchaser who
purchases from an orchard’s owner some fresh dates for one dinar in
advance of their harvest, should the crop be damaged before delivery.”
Mālik said, “The purchaser makes an accounting with the orchard’s owner
of the fresh dates that were delivered to him and receives a refund from
the seller in proportion to the undelivered amount. If the purchaser,
for example, took possession of two-thirds of a dinar’s worth of fresh
dates, he receives a refund of one-third of a dinar. If he took possession
of three-quarters of a dinar’s worth of fresh dates, he receives a refund of
a quarter dinar. Alternatively, the purchaser and the seller may come to a
mutual agreement whereby the purchaser can choose to receive his refund
out of the seller’s inventory of dried dates or any other goods the seller
has for sale if the purchaser is willing to accept such alternative goods in
lieu of his refund. If he does choose to accept dried dates or other goods
in lieu of his refund, this second transaction must be settled immediately
and not deferred. This is the equivalent of the case of someone who rents
out a specific camel of his to someone for use on a journey; or hires out to
another a specific slave-boy of his who is a tailor, carpenter, or another kind
of worker to perform one or another task; or rents out his house. In each
of these cases, he receives payment in advance for hiring out the slave-boy,
renting out the house, or renting out the camel. Then something happens to
the camel, the slave-boy, or the house, such as death or something else that
makes performance of the contract impossible. In such a case, the owner of
the camel, the slave-boy, or the house must refund the unused portion of
the rent of the camel, the wage of the slave-boy, or the rent of the house to
the purchaser of these services once the owner has determined how much
of the contract the lessee has consumed. If the lessee has received half of
the benefits for which he has paid, he receives a refund of one-half. Whether
he was able to receive little or much of the contract’s benefit, the lessee
receives a refund from the owner in an amount equal to the unperformed
portion of the contract. In all of these cases, however, if payment is made in
advance for the use of a specific thing, the contract is valid only if the one
paying in advance takes immediate possession of the item (the slave, the
camel, or the home) being rented or hired out from its owner or, in the case
of a purchase, if the purchaser immediately begins to take possession of the
fresh dates from the orchard’s owner. The exchange should be immediate
in such cases, and neither deferral of performance nor inclusion of a future
date of performance is acceptable. An example of an invalid transaction

indeterminacy in the consideration (gharar), as suggested by his analogy to the case of a

person offering money to a fruit seller in exchange for the right to purchase whichever heap
of fruit he wishes.
554 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

is when one man says to another, ‘I will now pay for this camel of yours,
known as “such-and-such,” and then ride it to the Pilgrimage (ḥajj),’ but
does so at a time when the Pilgrimage season is still several months away, or
when a man says something similar to that with respect to a slave or a home.
Indeed, were he to enter into such a transaction, it would be as if he were
paying the other man money in advance on the condition that if that camel
is present and healthy at the time specified, he is entitled to hire it out at the
previously determined price; however, if something, such as death, were to
happen to it between the time of the advance and the time of performance,
he receives a refund. What had been a prepayment to the lessor effectively
becomes a loan. What makes a difference in these two cases is immediate
possession by the person making the payment. Whoever takes possession
of what he has hired or rented has resolved the material uncertainty in
the consideration (gharar) present in the previous transaction and is not
involving himself in a prohibited loan (salaf); instead, he is receiving a
determinate consideration. Indeed, an example of this principle is someone
purchasing a male or female slave, taking immediate possession of him or
her, and paying for the slave in cash. If, in this case, a defect appears in the
slave during the one-year term in which the seller remains liable for defects,
the purchaser receives a refund of the purchase price from the seller and
returns the slave to the seller. There is nothing objectionable in that. This
has long been the established ordinance (bi-hādhā maḍat al-sunna) with
respect to the seller’s liability for defects in slaves that arise subsequent to
their sale. By contrast, whoever hires out a particular slave or rents out a
particular camel with performance in each case being deferred to the future
has entered into an invalid transaction. The lessee neither takes possession
of what he has rented or hired nor provides advance payment against a
generic debt that is enforceable as such against his counterparty.”797

797 The problem with this transaction, as Mālik sees it, is that the obligation is specific to a deter-
minate thing, that is, a specific slave, camel, or house, which may or may not be still in exis-
tence at the time of the contract’s performance and may or may not be still fit to perform the
function intended by the person making the advance payment. Accordingly, the loan does
not, technically speaking, result in a debt (dayn), since a debt, in Islamic law, must be generic
in nature. Rather, the contract generates a specific obligation (ʿayn), which can be satisfied
only through delivery of that particular camel, slave, or home. The non-generic nature of the
obligation entails the risk that the item may perish prior to the time of performance, and this,
in turn, renders it vulnerable to material indeterminacy in the consideration, making the
contract invalid. Alternatively, the proposed transaction can be viewed as a loan in exchange
for an option granted to the lender. But this is also invalid, because loans, in Islamic law, must
be wholly for the benefit of the borrower, with no benefit accruing to the lender. In this case,
however, the lender receives the benefit of renting out the camel or the home or hiring the
slave in the future, at a price determined today.
Book 34 555

Chapter 15. The Sale of Fruit (Fākiha)

1973. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr
al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā) is that anyone who purchases fruit (fākiha),
whether fresh or dried, may not resell it until he has taken possession of
it. Nor may fresh or dried fruit be traded one for another, except hand to
hand.798 Fruit capable of being dried, stored, and consumed later may not be
exchanged for fruit of the same kind, except hand to hand and like for like. If
they are two different kinds of fruit, however, there is nothing objectionable
in exchanging two measures of one kind for one measure of another, provided
that the exchange is hand to hand. But if such an exchange is settled in the
future, it is invalid. Fruit and vegetables that cannot be dried and stored but
must be consumed while fresh, such as melons and their like, cucumbers,
watermelons, carrots, lemons, bananas, pomegranates, and the like, and
fruit that, when dried, are no longer “fruit” are not like the fruit that can be
stored and remain “fruit.” I believe it to be a trivial thing to exchange one
measure of one kind of such fruit for two measures of another, provided
that the exchange is hand to hand. As long as settlement is not deferred to
the future in any way, such exchanges are unobjectionable.’”

Chapter 16. Exchanging Gold for Silver, Whether Bullion (ʿAyn) or

Unprocessed (Tibr)
1974. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “The Messenger of God
(pbuh) ordered the two Saʿds799 to sell a gold or silver vessel that had been
captured in battle. They sold it at a ratio of three measures of the vessel for
four measures of its like in bullion or, possibly, four measures of the vessel
for three measures of its like in bullion. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said
to them, ‘You have taken an excess, so you must rescind the sale.’”
1975. According to Mālik, Mūsā b. Abī Tamīm reported from Abū al-Ḥubāb
Saʿīd b. Yasār, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “A
dinar of gold for a dinar of gold, and a dirham of silver for a dirham of silver,
with no excess between the two.”
1976. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “No one should exchange gold for gold
except in like quantities, even if the difference between them is small; no
one should exchange silver for silver except in like quantities, even if the
difference between them is small; and no one should exchange either gold
or silver at hand for gold or silver that is absent, that is, to be delivered later.”

798 In other words, both parties perform their obligations under the contract immediately, with
no deferral of performance permitted to either party.
799 Saʿd b. ʿUbāda and Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ.
556 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1977. According to Mālik, Ḥumayd b. Qays al-Makkī reported that Mujāhid

said, “I was with ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar when a goldsmith came and said, ‘Abū
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān! I fashion gold into jewelry and the like, and then sell what
I make at a price that is greater than its weight in gold, the excess being
compensation for my hands’ labor.’ ʿAbd Allāh ordered him to refrain from
doing so. The goldsmith continued to press ʿAbd Allāh on this point, yet
ʿAbd Allāh refused to change his opinion. Finally, he arrived at the gate of
the mosque, or at an animal that he wished to mount and ride. ʿAbd Allāh
said to the man, ‘A gold dinar for a gold dinar and a silver dirham for a silver
dirham, with no difference between the two. This is the covenant of our
Prophet (pbuh) with us, and our covenant with you.’”
1978. According to Mālik, it reached him from his grandfather, Mālik b. Abī
ʿĀmir, that ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to
me, ‘No one should exchange one gold dinar for two, nor one silver dirham
for two.’”
1979. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār that
Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān once sold a gold or silver drinking vessel for more
than its equivalent weight in gold or silver. Abū al-Dardāʾ said to him, “I
heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibit such exchanges, except in
like quantities.” Muʿāwiya said to him, “I don’t see anything objectionable
in that.” Abū al-Dardāʾ said, “Who here will defend Muʿāwiya against me?
Here I am, informing him that the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited
such an exchange, and there he is, telling me what his opinion is! I shall not
dwell with you here in this land peacefully and quietly!” After saying this,
Abū al-Dardāʾ set off to Medina to see ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb and informed
him about his dispute with Muʿāwiya. ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb issued an edict
to Muʿāwiya that said, “No one should exchange gold for gold or silver for
silver except for its like and in equal quantities.”
1980. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “No one should exchange gold for gold except for
a like quantity, even if the difference between them is small. No one should
exchange silver for silver except for a like quantity, even if the difference
between them is small. No one should exchange silver for gold if one of the
two is not at hand and the other is present. Even if he asks you only to return
home to fetch what he owes you, do not permit him to defer payment. I fear
that if you do so, the exchange will be unlawful (ramāʾ).” Ramāʾ is a kind of
unlawful gain (ribā).
1981. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported from ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿUmar that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “No one should exchange gold for
Book 34 557

gold except in like quantities, even if the difference between them is small.
No one should exchange silver for silver except in like quantities, even if
the difference between them is small. No one should exchange either gold
or silver that is at hand for gold or silver that is not. Even if he asks you
only to return home to fetch what he owes you, do not permit him to defer
payment. I fear that if you do so, the exchange will be unlawful (ramāʾ).”
Ramāʾ is a kind of unlawful gain (ribā).
1982. According to Mālik, it reached him that al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad said,
“ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, ‘One gold dinar for one gold dinar, one silver dirham
for one silver dirham, one measure of food for one measure of food, and no
deferred obligation in exchange for something delivered immediately.”
1983. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported that he heard Saʿīd b.
al-Musayyab say, “The rules of unlawful gain (ribā) apply only to exchanges
involving gold or silver, or to items that are weighed or measured by volume
and that are eaten or drunk.”
1984. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he heard Saʿīd b.
al-Musayyab say, “Clipping gold and silver coins is a form of ‘corruption in
the land.’”800
1985. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable in purchasing gold with
silver or purchasing silver with gold by estimate, without first weighing it, if
it is unprocessed or wrought into jewelry. No one, however, should estimate
the number of silver coins or gold dinars being purchased without first
inspecting and counting them. If someone purchases coins by estimate, he
is only seeking to profit from the uncertainty present in the exchange that
results from a failure to count the coins and from purchasing them through
estimation. That is not the kind of exchange that Muslims recognize as
valid. As for unprocessed gold and jewelry that are sold by weight, there
is nothing objectionable in selling these by estimate, provided they are
sold in the same way that wheat and dried dates and similar foodstuffs
are sold by estimate, even though the volume or weight of such things may
be measured out. There is nothing objectionable in using estimation to
conclude exchanges of that sort.”
1986. Mālik said, “Whoever purchases a copy of the Quran, a sword, or a
ring using gold dinars or silver dirhams, and the purchased item contains
some gold or silver, he must determine the value of the item purchased. If
the purchased item contains gold and was purchased with gold dinars, and

800 A reference to the Quranic phrase al-fasād fī al-arḍ, which appears numerous times in the
Quran and signifies antisocial behavior.
558 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

if one-third or less of the item’s value is attributable to the gold it contains,

the transaction is permissible and there is nothing objectionable in it,
provided that it is concluded hand to hand, with no deferral of payment. If
the purchased item contains silver and was purchased with silver dirhams,
and if one-third or less of the item’s value is attributable to the silver it
contains, the transaction is permissible and there is nothing objectionable
in it, provided that it is concluded hand to hand. That has always been
lawful in the opinion of the people among us (wa-lam yazal dhālika min
amr al-nās ʿindanā).”

Chapter 17. What Has Come Down regarding the Exchange (Ṣarf)
of Currency
1987. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Mālik b. Aws b.
al-Ḥadathān al-Naṣrī that he wanted to exchange one hundred gold dinars
for silver coins. Mālik b. Aws said, “Ṭalḥa b. ʿUbayd Allāh called me over
and we bargained until we agreed on a price. He took my gold coins and
inspected them by flipping them back and forth in his hand. He then said,
‘Wait until my treasurer comes from al-Ghāba.’ ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb had
overheard our conversation, so he said, ‘By God, don’t part ways with him
until you receive what he owes you. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
“The exchange of gold for silver results in an unlawful gain (ribā) unless it
is concluded hand to hand. The exchange of wheat for wheat results in an
unlawful gain unless it is concluded hand to hand. The exchange of dried
dates for dried dates results in an unlawful gain unless it is concluded hand
to hand. The exchange of barley for barley results in an unlawful gain unless
it is concluded hand to hand.”’”
1988. Mālik said, “If a man exchanges a gold dinar for several silver
dirhams and then discovers that one of the silver dirhams he received was
counterfeit, so he wants to return it, the transaction must be rescinded.
He should return the silver dirhams and retrieve his gold dinar. What is
prohibited in these exchanges can be understood from the words of God’s
Messenger (pbuh), who said, ‘The exchange of gold for silver results in an
unlawful gain unless it is concluded hand to hand,’ and the words of ʿUmar
b. al Khaṭṭāb, who said, ‘Even if he asks you only to return home to fetch
what he owes you, do not permit him to defer payment.’ When he later
attempts to return the counterfeit silver dirham that he received from
the original exchange and to take a legitimate one in its place, his claim
becomes the equivalent of a debt or a deferred payment, and for this reason,
the transaction becomes prohibited. Therefore, the original exchange must
be rescinded in its entirety. ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb intended by his words that
Book 34 559

there be no present exchanges of gold and silver or present exchanges

involving food if payment is to be made later in gold, silver, or food. No delay
or deferral is permitted in any exchange involving any of these items, be
they of one kind or of different kinds.”

Chapter 18. Exchanging Gold for Gold and Silver for Silver by Weight
(Murāṭala)
1989. According to Mālik, Yazīd b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Quṣayṭ reported that he
saw Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab exchange gold for gold by weight. He would place
his gold in one hand of the scale, while his counterparty would place his
own gold in the other. When the tongue of the scales was balanced, each
took and gave.
1990. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) about exchanging
gold for gold and silver for silver by weight is that there is nothing
objectionable in taking eleven gold dinars for ten, provided that the
exchange is concluded immediately and the two sets of exchanged coins
are equal in weight, even if the number of coins is different. The same rule
applies to the exchange of silver dirhams.”
1991. Mālik said, “If someone exchanges gold for gold or silver for silver
by weight and there is, for example, a difference of 3.35 grams (one
mithqāl)801 between the two, and the party with the smaller amount of
gold offers to give the other party the value of the difference in silver, for
example, or perhaps in some other good, the second party should reject the
offer. The offer is repugnant and a pretext (dharīʿa) for the procurement
of an unlawful gain (ribā). The reason is that were it permitted for him to
purchase the excess 3.35 grams by paying its value in silver as if he had
purchased it independently, it would be permitted for him to engage in that
transaction intentionally in order to render the original exchange with his
counterparty licit. However, if the other party had sold him only the excess
3.35 grams of gold independently, without anything else, he would not have
received one-tenth of the price that he would receive for it if he sells it along
with the rest of the gold in order to make the transaction licit. Accordingly,
it is a pretext intended to render an illicit transaction—something that is
prohibited—licit.”802

801 Muḥammad Ṣubḥī b. Ḥasan Ḥallāq, al-Īḍāḥāt al-ʿaṣriyya lil-maqāyīs wa’l-makāyīl wa’l-awzān
wa’l-nuqūd al-sharʿiyya (Sanaa: Maktabat al-Jīl al-Jadīd, 2007), 204.
802 Similarly, it is illicit to exchange, for example, one-half of a high-quality gold dinar for one
dinar of low-quality gold. The parties wishing to make such a trade might circumvent the
prohibition by having the person with the low-quality dinar include some additional good in
the trade in exchange for two high-quality dinars. In this case, it appears that the parties have
agreed to exchange one poor-quality dinar for one high-quality dinar, and some other good
560 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

1992. Mālik said, regarding a man who wishes to exchange gold for gold
by weight and so offers to give his counterparty genuine gold coins of
ancient vintage along with an amount of low-quality, unminted gold (tibr)
in exchange for clipped gold coins of Kufan origin, such Kufan coins being
held in disregard by the people and the two quantities of gold being equal
in weight, “That exchange is impermissible. The reason it is prohibited is
that the owner of the high-quality gold uses the superior quality of his gold
coins as a way to sell the poor-quality, unminted gold that he throws into
the sale. Were it not for the superior quality of the first man’s gold over that
of his counterparty, the counterparty would never agree to exchange the
poor-quality, unminted gold by weight for his Kufan gold. This case is the
equivalent of the case of a man who wanted to purchase three measures
(ṣāʿ), approximately six kilograms, of high-quality dried dates (ʿajwa)
for two measures and one quarter-measure (mudd), approximately four
and a half kilograms, of kabīs dates.803 He was told, however, that such an
exchange was not permissible.804 So he instead proposed to exchange two
measures of kabīs dates and one measure of low-quality ḥashaf dates for
the three measures of ʿajwa dates in order to make the exchange licit.805 But
that is also not permissible, because the owner of the high-quality ʿajwa
dates would never agree to give him one measure of ʿajwa for one measure
of poor-quality ḥashaf without the inclusion of the high-quality kabīs dates
in the exchange. Another example is if someone says to another person, ‘Sell
me three measures of white wheat for two and a half measures of Levantine
wheat.’ In response, the other person says, ‘This exchange is permissible
only in like quantities,’ so he proposes instead to exchange two measures
of Levantine wheat and one of barley, intending thereby to make the
transaction between them licit. That is not permissible, however, because
he would never have been willing to exchange one measure of white wheat
for one measure of barley, had that trade been offered independently. He

for the other high-quality dinar. The economic reality of the transaction, however, is that
they have exchanged the low-quality dinar for one-half of one of the high-quality dinars—the
prohibited transaction—and the other good for one and a half high-quality dinars. For this
reason, the Mālikīs do not allow a contract for the exchange of gold and silver to include the
sale of any additional item. Abū Ḥanīfa, however, did permit such sales to take place along-
side contracts for the exchange of currency. Therefore, he permitted the sale of one hun-
dred gold dinars in a bag for two hundred gold dinars, reasoning that half of the sale price
applied to the hundred dinars in the bag and the other half was the price of the bag itself.
Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 4:277.
803 Two full measures (ṣāʿ) and one small measure (mudd), the latter being approximately 500
grams.
804 This transaction would not be permissible because dates may be exchanged only in like
quantities.
805 It now appears to be a licit exchange because the dates are being exchanged in equal
quantities.
Book 34 561

agreed to make that offer to him only on account of the superior quality
of the Levantine wheat over the white wheat. That exchange is therefore
not permissible, and it is similar to the case of the unminted gold that we
described previously.”
1993. Mālik said, “In exchanges involving gold, silver, and food, the
legitimate exchange of which depends on the exchange of like quantities,
it is not permissible to include with a high-quality, marketable commodity
an item that is of poor quality and lacks a ready market and that is included
only to make the exchange licit and to make lawful through that exchange
something that was proscribed. It is impermissible because inclusion of an
undesirable item alongside the sale of a desirable item leads to the violation
of an established rule. The party proposing the inclusion of the poor-quality
item does so only in the hope that he will be able to realize the superior value
of the high-quality good he is offering for sale. Accordingly, he offers his
counterparty something that, had he offered it on its own, his counterparty
would never have accepted nor given any heed to. It is in fact the case that
the counterparty agrees to accept the low-quality good only because he
also takes the item that is superior to his own. Therefore, no transaction
involving gold, silver, or food should include any additional commodity that
meets this description, namely, of being a low-quality product that lacks a
ready market. If someone who owns low-quality food genuinely wishes to
sell it for something else, he should offer it for sale independently, without
including it in the sale of anything else. There is nothing objectionable in its
sale in that fashion.”

Chapter 19. Credit Sales Involving Food (ʿĪna) and Similar Exchanges
1994. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “No one should resell food that he has
purchased before he has taken full possession of it.”
1995. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported from ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Anyone who purchases food
should not resell it until he has taken possession of it.”
1996. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said,
“During the time of the Messenger of God (pbuh), we would purchase food,
and then the Prophet would send someone to tell us that before we could
sell it, we needed to transport it away from the place where we purchased
it and sell it somewhere else.”
1997. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that Ḥakīm b. Ḥizām purchased
some food intended for the public, following an order from ʿUmar b.
562 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

al-Khaṭṭāb. Ḥakīm sold the food before he had taken full possession of it.
Word of this reached ʿUmar, who rescinded the sale and said, “Do not resell
food that you have purchased before you have taken full possession of it.”
1998. According to Mālik, it reached him that during the time that Marwān
b. al-Ḥakam was the governor of Medina, certificates (ṣukūk) were issued
entitling the holders to receive specified quantities of food from the stocks
stored in the market of al-Jār.806 The people set about trading these certificates
among themselves, even though they had not yet taken possession of the food
represented by the certificates. Zayd b. Thābit and one of the Companions of
the Messenger of God (pbuh) went to see Marwān b. al-Ḥakam to complain
about this. They said, “Have you permitted the people to obtain unlawful
gains (ribā), Marwān?” He said, “I seek God’s protection! What do you have in
mind?” They said, “These certificates that you have issued to the people: they
have made a market out of them, buying and selling them among themselves.
They resell them before taking full possession of the underlying food.”
Marwān then dispatched the guard, ordering them to find the certificates,
to seize any that were in the possession of persons other than their original
recipients, and to return them to their designated recipients.
1999. According to Mālik, it reached him that a man wished to purchase
food from another man on credit. The would-be seller took the would-be
purchaser to the market and began to show him heaps of food, saying,
“Which of these would you like me to sell you?” The would-be buyer said,
“Are you selling me something not already in your possession?” The two of
them then went to ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar and described to him their situation.
ʿAbd Allāh said to the would-be purchaser, “Do not purchase from him
something that is not currently in his possession,” and to the would-be seller,
“Do not offer to sell something that is not currently in your possession.”
2000. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he heard Jamīl b.
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Muʾadhdhin say to Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, “I purchase
whatever I can of the certificates that are issued to the people in respect of
their stipends. These certificates entitle their holders to receive specified
quantities of food from the stocks stored in the market of al-Jār. I then seek
to sell a determinate amount and kind of food for cash against my obligation
to deliver that kind of food to the purchaser on a determinate date in the
future.” Saʿīd said to him, “Do you intend to settle your obligations to your
counterparties out of the food that you expect to receive through your
prior purchase of the certificates?” He said, “Yes.” Saʿīd then ordered him to
refrain from this practice.

806 According to the editors of the RME, this was a port located on the coast of the Hijaz where
food would be collected prior to its distribution.
Book 34 563

2001. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule about which there is no dissent
(al-amr al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīh) is that whoever
purchases food, whether wheat, barley, pearl barley, sorghum, pearl millet,
or any of the various kinds of pulses, or anything similar to pulses on which
the alms-tax is due, or any kind of condiment, including oil, clarified butter
(ghee), honey, vinegar, cheese, milk, sesame oil, or similar condiments, may
not resell it until he has taken full possession of it.”

Chapter 20. Credit Sales Involving Food That Are Prohibited

2002. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported that he heard both Saʿīd
b. al-Musayyab and Sulaymān b. Yasār prohibit the sale of wheat today for
gold payable later and the subsequent purchase by the seller using the gold
owed to him of dried dates (tamr) until the seller has first taken possession
of the gold due to him pursuant to the first transaction.807
2003. According to Mālik, Kathīr b. Farqad reported that he asked Abū Bakr
b. Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b. Ḥazm about someone who sells food today for gold
payable later and then, using the gold owed to him, buys dried dates before
taking possession of the gold. Abū Bakr disapproved of that practice and
prohibited it.
2004. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported something similar to that.
Mālik said, “Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, Sulaymān b. Yasār, Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad
b. ʿAmr b. Ḥazm, and Ibn Shihāb only prohibited the sale of wheat today for
gold payable at a later date followed by the purchase of dried dates by the
seller of the wheat before taking possession of the gold owed to him if the
seller purchases the dates from the purchaser of the wheat. There is nothing
objectionable, however, in his using the gold he is owed from the sale of
the wheat, even before he takes possession of the gold, to purchase dried
dates from someone other than the purchaser of the wheat. In that case, he
assigns to the man from whom he buys the dried dates his claim against the
purchaser of the wheat as payment for the dried dates. I asked several men
of knowledge about this, and none of them found it objectionable.”

Chapter 21. Advance Payment for Food

2005. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said,
“There is nothing objectionable in someone advancing to another the
purchase price of food that will be delivered in the future, as long as the
food has been described with sufficient precision, the price and the date of

807 Without possession of the gold, this transaction would amount to the sale of food for food on
credit, and it is prohibited for that reason.
564 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

delivery are determinate, and the price was not advanced for the purchase
of a specific harvest of grains on their stalks or dates on their trees before
each has matured and is ready for sale.”
2006. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) regarding a
contract involving advance payment for food at a determinate price and for
a determinate date is that if, at the time of delivery, the purchaser discovers
that the seller does not have a sufficient supply of food to fulfill his obligation
and consequently agrees to relieve the seller of his obligation by canceling
the sale, he may take back from the seller only the money that he advanced
him, or the very thing that he advanced him in consideration for the food if
he paid in kind and not in money. He is not to purchase anything else from
the seller in exchange for the item that he advanced until he has received his
refund from him. The reason is that if he accepts something other than that
which he gave the seller, or if he substitutes for it something other than the
food that he contracted to purchase from the seller, the transaction would
amount to selling food before taking full possession of it. However, the
Messenger of God (pbuh) forbade the sale of food before one has taken full
possession of it. It is impermissible for a purchaser who regrets a transaction
to tell the seller, ‘Relieve me of this contract, and I will give you some time
to refund what I paid you.’ The people of knowledge prohibit this, because
when the seller’s obligation to deliver the food became due, the purchaser
effectively agreed to defer the seller’s obligation in exchange for the seller’s
agreement to cancel the contract. That is a sale of food on credit before
one has taken full possession of it.808 This is illustrated by the following
example. When the delivery of the food is due, the purchaser decides he
no longer wants it. Instead, he decides to take one dinar, payable in the
future. However, this is not a cancellation of the sale. Something qualifies
as a cancellation only if neither the purchaser nor the seller obtains an
additional benefit. If, however, the second transaction entails an increased
benefit, such as the inclusion of a term to defer payment (nasīʾa), or any
other term that gives one of them an advantage over the other, or anything
from which one of them benefits but the other does not, the new agreement
is not a cancellation. If they agree to such terms, the cancellation instead
becomes a second contract of sale. An exception was recognized in the case
of cancellation, partnership, and resale to the seller (tawliya) as long as no

808 This is because the purchaser was owed a determinate amount of food, such as one hundred
bushels of wheat. Instead of taking possession of it, however, he entered into a new contract
whose terms were the mirror image of the original contract: he would effectively resell the
hundred bushels of wheat to the original seller in exchange for future payment of the original
price he paid. But as Mālik points out, the purchaser has not taken possession of the bushels
of wheat, so he is not permitted to resell it.
Book 34 565

increase or decrease in, or deferral of performance of, the original terms of

the agreement is introduced. If any such increase, decrease, or deferral is
introduced, the deal becomes a second sale, in which case it is lawful only
to the extent that its terms conform to those of a lawful contract, and it is
prohibited to the extent that its terms are considered unlawful. If someone
pays in advance for some Levantine wheat, there is nothing objectionable
in his accepting as payment Egyptian wheat, provided that the date of
delivery has expired. The same rule applies to anyone who pays in advance
for any of the various kinds of food. There is nothing objectionable in his
accepting a kind of food that is superior or inferior to the one specified
in the contract once the date of delivery has expired. This is illustrated by
the following example. If a man pays in advance for Egyptian wheat, there
is nothing objectionable in his accepting either barley or Levantine wheat
instead. If he pays in advance for high-quality dates (ʿajwa), there is nothing
objectionable in his accepting lower-quality dates. If he pays in advance for
red raisins, there is nothing objectionable in his accepting black ones. In
each of these cases, the conditions are that the exchange takes place after
the date of delivery has expired and that the amount taken is the equivalent
of the amount for which the purchaser paid in advance.”

Chapter 22. Exchanging Food for Food in Like Quantities

2007. According to Mālik, it reached him that Sulaymān b. Yasār said, “Saʿd
b. Abī Waqqāṣ ran out of fodder for his donkey, so he said to his slave-boy,
‘Get some of our wheat and trade it for barley, but don’t accept in exchange
anything other than the same amount.’”
2008. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that Sulaymān b. Yasār informed
him that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Aswad b. ʿAbd Yaghūth ran out of fodder for
his animal, so he said to his slave-boy, “Get some of our wheat and trade it for
barley, but don’t accept in exchange anything other than the same amount.”
2009. According to Mālik, a similar report reached him from al-Qāsim
b. Muḥammad, from Ibn Muʿayqīb al-Dawsī. Mālik said, “That is the rule
among us (dhālika al-amr ʿindanā).”
2010. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ
ʿalayhi ʿindanā) is that wheat is not exchanged for wheat, nor dried dates for
dried dates, nor dried dates for raisins, nor wheat for raisins, nor one kind of
food for any other kind of food, unless the exchange is settled immediately.
If performance is deferred in any such transaction, the transaction is invalid
and prohibited. The same rule applies to all condiments: they may not be
exchanged, one for another, unless the exchange is settled immediately.”
566 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2011. Mālik said, “Neither food nor condiments, if they are of the same
kind, may be exchanged at a ratio of two to one. One measure of wheat may
not be exchanged for two measures of wheat, nor one measure of dates
for two measures of dates, nor one measure of raisins for two measures
of raisins, nor any other similar grains or condiments, if they are of the
same type, even if the exchange is hand to hand. This is the same rule that
applies to the exchange of silver for silver and gold for gold. No inequality
in the amounts of the exchanged items is permitted in such exchanges.
They are permitted only if equivalent amounts are exchanged and the
exchange is settled hand to hand. If, on the other hand, there is a clear
difference between the exchanged items, whether they are eaten or drunk,
and whether they are measured by weight or by volume, there is nothing
objectionable in exchanging them at a ratio of two to one, provided that
the exchange is hand to hand. Accordingly, there is nothing objectionable
in exchanging one measure of dates for two measures of wheat, one
measure of dates for two measures of raisins, or one measure of wheat for
two measures of ghee. If the exchanged items of food are different, there
is nothing objectionable in exchanging two measures for one, or more
than two measures for one, provided that the exchange is hand to hand.
If settlement is deferred, however, the transaction is not permitted.809 It is
not permissible to exchange one mound of wheat for another, but there is
nothing objectionable in exchanging one mound of wheat for one mound of
dates, provided that the exchange is settled hand to hand.810 That is because
there is nothing objectionable in exchanging wheat for dates on the basis
of their estimated quantities. Whenever the food or condiments being
exchanged differ in kind, and the difference is obvious, there is nothing
objectionable in exchanging one kind for the other kind without precise
knowledge of their quantities, provided that the exchange is settled hand to
hand. If, however, settlement is deferred, it is prohibited. Exchanging these
items on the basis of their estimated rather than precise quantities is no
different from purchasing them with gold and silver on the basis of their
estimated quantities: someone may purchase wheat with silver on the basis
of the estimated quantity of the wheat, and dates with gold on the basis
of the estimated quantity of the dates. That is licit, and there is nothing
objectionable in it. But if, on the other hand, someone prepares a mound of

809 In other words, if the contract permits one or both parties to perform their obligations under
the contract at some time in the future.
810 The exchange of a mound of wheat for a mound of wheat is not permissible even if it is settled
hand to hand, because the parties cannot be certain that equal quantities of wheat are being
exchanged. By contrast, the parties’ ignorance of the precise quantities being exchanged in
the second transaction, that of wheat for dates, is irrelevant, because it is permissible to
exchange wheat for dates in unequal amounts.
Book 34 567

food for sale and knows its measure but sells it on the basis of an estimate of
its quantity without disclosing the actual quantity to the purchaser, the sale
is invalid. If the purchaser wishes to return the food to the seller, he may
do so on account of the fact that the seller withheld from him knowledge of
the actual quantity of the food that was sold, and because the seller misled
him. This is the rule that applies to all sales of food or similar items whose
precise quantity—whether by weight, volume, or number—is known to the
seller, but which he sells to the purchaser on the basis of a mere estimate,
without disclosing to the purchaser that he has precise knowledge of its
quantity. In such circumstances, the purchaser may, if he so wishes, rescind
the sale and return the purchased items to the seller. It has always been the
case that the people of knowledge prohibited such a practice (wa-lam yazal
ahl al-ʿilm yanhawna ʿan dhālika). There is no good in the exchange of one
loaf of bread for two, nor in that of a large one for a small one, if one weighs
more than the other. If care is taken that only like amounts are exchanged,
however, there is nothing objectionable in that, even if they have not been
weighed. The exchange of one measure of butter and one measure of milk
for two measures of butter is invalid. Such a trade is subject to the same rule
that we previously explained concerning the sale of different kinds of dates,
such as the exchange of two measures of high-quality kabīs dates and one
measure of low-quality ḥashaf dates for three measures of high-quality ʿajwa
dates. In that case, one of the parties said to the other, ‘Two measures of kabīs
for three measures of ʿajwa is not permitted,’ so he included the one measure
of ḥashaf in the exchange solely to render the transaction licit. The owner
of the milk offered to include his milk along with his butter in the proposed
exchange only so that he could take advantage of the superior quality of his
butter over the other man’s butter and thus accomplish his actual goal of
exchanging one measure of butter for two. There is nothing objectionable in
exchanging flour for wheat in like quantities. That is because the owner of the
flour separated the flour and exchanged it for an equal quantity of wheat. Had
he offered, however, to exchange half a measure of flour and half a measure
of wheat for a measure of wheat, the proposed exchange would be subject to
the same rule that we previously explained. Such a trade is invalid because
when the owner offered to include the flour in the trade, he was only seeking
to take advantage of the superior quality of his wheat, and that makes the
trade invalid.”811

811 In other words, the real substance of the transaction is the trade of half a measure of wheat
for one full measure of wheat, with the one-half measure of flour being included solely for the
purpose of satisfying the requirement that like quantities be traded.
568 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 23. Miscellaneous Matters regarding the Sale of Food

2012. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Maryam reported
that he asked Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab the following question: “I am someone
who purchases certificates (ṣukūk) representing the right to receive food
stored in the market of al-Jār. I might contract the purchase of a certificate
for one dinar and half a dirham. Should I satisfy my obligation to pay the
half-dirham using half a dirham’s worth of food?” Saʿīd said, “No; you
should pay the one dinar and another dirham in its entirety, and take half a
dirham’s worth of food from the seller as change.”812
2013. According to Mālik, it reached him that Muḥammad b. Sīrīn would say,
“Do not sell grain that has yet to be harvested until its husk has whitened.”
2014. Mālik said, “If someone buys food for a determinate price to be
delivered on a determinate date, but then on the date when delivery is due
the seller of the food says, ‘I have no food to deliver, so sell me the food
that I owe you and I will pay you for it in the future,’ and the purchaser,
the person with the claim to the food, says in response, ‘That is invalid; the
Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited the sale of food before one has taken
full possession of it,’ so the obligor, the party who is under the obligation
to deliver the food, says to the purchaser, his obligee, ‘In that case, sell me
some other food on credit so that I can settle my debt to you’813—such a
contract would also be invalid because the obligee, the purchaser under the
original contract, would be giving the obligor, the seller under the original
contract, food under the terms of the second contract just to permit the
seller to return that very food to the purchaser under the first contract.
In this case, the gold that the obligor would give the obligee under the
second contract serves as payment for the food that the obligor under the
first contract was originally required to deliver to the obligee, and the food
that the obligor gives the obligee serves merely as a device to render the
transaction between the two licit. Should they enter into such a transaction,
it would amount to selling food before taking full possession of it.”

812 Even though the contract specified half a dirham, there was no such thing as a half-dirham coin.
The purchaser was thus asking whether he could satisfy his obligation under the contract by
paying half a dirham’s worth of food. Saʿīd rejected the idea presumably because it would have
entailed a deferred trade of food (that is, the purchaser giving half a dirham’s worth of food
today against the future delivery of some amount of food). Saʿīd instead suggested that the pur-
chaser pay a full dirham, leading the seller to owe him a debt of half a dirham. There is nothing
objectionable in the seller satisfying that debt with food in the value of half a dirham.
813 In other words, the seller, finding himself unable to deliver the promised goods to the pur-
chaser and realizing that he cannot settle his obligation by having the obligee sell the obli-
gation to him on credit, asks the obligee to enter into a new contract pursuant to which the
obligee would sell him on credit new food, which the original seller could then use to satisfy
his original delivery obligation to the obligee.
Book 34 569

2015. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man is owed food acquired
via purchase from a second man, who is himself owed an equivalent amount
of food by a third man, and the obligor (the second man) says to his obligee
(the first man), “I will assign to you my claim against an obligor of mine who
owes me food in an amount equivalent to that of the food I owe you”: “If the
obligation of the second man arose out of a contract of sale, and he wishes
to satisfy his obligee by assigning to him his claim to food that also arises
out of a contract of purchase with a third party, the assignment would be
invalid because it amounts to the sale of food before full possession of it
has been taken. If, however, the third man’s obligation to deliver food to
the second man arises out of a loan that is due, and not a sale, there is
nothing objectionable in the second man assigning the debt he is owed to
his obligee, because that debt does not represent the proceeds of a sale.”814
2016. Mālik said, “It is impermissible to sell food before taking full
possession of it, given that the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited that.
Despite that prohibition, the people of knowledge agree that there is
nothing objectionable in the purchaser forming a partnership (shirk) with
the seller, selling the food back to the seller at cost (tawliya), or rescinding
a sale of food or other goods, in each case before the purchaser has taken
full possession of the food. That is because the people of knowledge deem
such actions acts of goodwill (maʿrūf) and not sales. These transactions are
similar to the case of a man who lends another man silver dirhams that are
underweight but is paid back in silver dirhams of full weight, resulting in an
excess. The transaction is nevertheless permissible and binding. By contrast,
had he purchased a number of underweight silver dirhams from another
man using a like number of full-weight silver dirhams, the transaction
would not have been permissible. Further, had the lender stipulated, when
lending the borrower the underweight silver dirhams, that he be repaid
in full-weight silver dirhams, that, too, would have been impermissible. A
similar rule to this one is the prohibition by the Messenger of God (pbuh) of
sales involving indeterminate amounts of goods (muzābana), even though
he granted permission to exchange unharvested fresh dates for dried dates
on the basis of an estimate of their quantity at harvest. He distinguished
between these two transactions because the former is a commercial
transaction (ʿalā al-wajh al-mukāyasa wa’l-tijāra), in which each party is
seeking a gain, whereas the latter is an exchange based on goodwill with no
commercial intent.”

814 The reasoning here is that the Prophet Muḥammad’s (pbuh) prohibition applies specifically
to the sale of food that one has not yet taken possession of, not to food that one is owed as a
result of a loan.
570 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2017. Mālik said, “No one should purchase food for one-fourth, one-third,
or any fractional share of a silver dirham payable on a future date on
the condition that the obligation to pay the fractional share of the silver
dirham be settled in an amount of food of equal value. There is nothing
objectionable, however, in purchasing food for a fractional share of a silver
dirham payable on a date in the future and then, when it is time to pay,
giving the seller one silver dirham and taking as change some other good
in an amount equal to the difference between the one silver dirham and
the fraction of the silver dirham. That is because the purchaser paid the
fractional share of the dirham he owed in silver and took in exchange for
the rest of the dirham some other good, and there is nothing objectionable
in that.”815
2018. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable in a man leaving one silver
dirham with a merchant and then taking from him a determinate good with
a price of one-fourth, one-third, or some other determinate fraction of that
silver dirham each day. If, however, that good does not have a stable price,
so the man says, ‘I will take from you each day an amount of that good in
accordance with its current price,’ that would not be permissible because
there is material uncertainty in the consideration (gharar). One day the
price declines, and the next day it rises. In this case, the parties would not
have come to a definitive agreement before they parted ways.”
2019. Mālik said, “If a man sells a mound of food on the basis of its
estimated quantity and does not reserve any portion of it for himself,
but then wishes to repurchase some of what he sold to the purchaser, he
may repurchase only what he could have reserved for himself in the first
sale, and that would be no more than one-third of the food originally sold.
Should he repurchase more than one-third of the original amount sold, the
purchase would transform the original transaction into one involving an
indeterminate quantity, rendering the contract prohibited. Accordingly, he
may repurchase from the purchaser only that which he might have reserved
for himself in the original sale. He would have been allowed to reserve for
himself no more than one-third of it. This is the rule about which there is no
dissent among us (hādhā al-amr alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi ʿindanā).”

815 Mālik objects to the first transaction because it amounts to a deferred trade of food for food:
the purchaser takes food immediately and then settles the debt later in food, albeit in an
amount specified with reference to a cash price. This amounts to selling the food before tak-
ing full possession of it.
Book 34 571

Chapter 24. Withholding Goods from the Market and Awaiting the
Best Price
2020. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “No
one should withhold goods from our market. No one with excess amounts
of gold on their hands shall use that wealth to acquire the provisions of
God that have alighted in our domain and then withhold them from us. As
for those who toil in the cold of winter and the heat of summer, bringing
goods to our market, they are ʿUmar’s guests and free to sell their goods or
withhold them, as God wishes.”816
2021. According to Mālik, Yūnus b. Yūsuf reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb once crossed paths with Ḥāṭib b. Abī Baltaʿa, who
was selling raisins of his in the market. ʿUmar said to him, “Either raise your
price or leave our market.”
2022. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān prohibited
withholding goods from the market.

Chapter 25. What Is Permitted with Respect to the Exchange of

Livestock (Ḥayawān), One for Another, and Advance Payment Therefor
2023. According to Mālik, Sāliḥ b. Kaysān reported from Ḥasan b.
Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib that ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib once sold a camel of his
named ʿUṣayfirā for twenty camels to be delivered on a future date.
2024. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar purchased
a riding camel for four camels, which he was obliged to deliver to the seller
at al-Rabadha.
2025. According to Mālik, he asked Ibn Shihāb about selling livestock
two for one, with delivery in the future. Ibn Shihāb said, “There is nothing
objectionable in that.”
2026. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ
ʿalayhi ʿindanā) is that there is nothing objectionable in someone exchanging
a camel for a camel like it, along with hand-to-hand payment of some silver
dirhams. Moreover, there is nothing objectionable in exchanging a camel
for a like camel hand to hand, along with some additional silver dirhams
payable later. It is not permissible, however, to agree to exchange a camel
for a like camel along with some additional silver dirhams, with the silver

816 In other words, a person who imports food into the city is free to sell his goods on whatever
terms he wishes, including withholding them from the market in the hope that their price
will increase, whereas someone who acquires goods in the domestic retail market is not per-
mitted to withhold them from the market in the hope of higher prices.
572 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

being paid immediately but the exchange of the camels being deferred to
a future date.817 Neither is it permissible to agree to defer the exchange of
both the camels and the silver coins.”
2027. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable in exchanging one
excellent riding camel for two or more pack-camels that are of inferior
quality. Even if they descend from the same stallion, there is nothing
objectionable in purchasing two camels for one, with delivery to take place
in the future, if they differ from one another in an obvious fashion. On the
other hand, if they resemble one another, whether or not they are of the
same type, two may not be exchanged for one, if delivery is to take place
in the future. An example of what would be prohibited in this respect is
exchanging one camel for two when there is no difference between them
in terms of descent or capacity to undertake long journeys. If the case is as
I have described to you, do not exchange two camels for one, with delivery
taking place in the future. There is nothing objectionable, however, in
someone selling whatever livestock he has purchased on credit before he
has taken full possession of them, provided that it is to someone other
than the one who sold them to him, and provided further that he sells
them for cash.”
2028. Mālik said, “An agreement to pay in advance for livestock that is to be
delivered on a specified date in the future, whose characteristics have been
reasonably specified, and whose price has been paid in cash is permitted.
Both the seller and the purchaser are bound by their agreed-upon description
of the animal to be delivered. That has been one of the continuous practices
of the people that they deem binding among themselves and the validity of
which the people of knowledge in our town have always upheld (wa-lam
yazal dhālika min ʿamal al-nās al-jāʾiz baynahum wa’lladhī lam yazal ʿalayhi
ahl al-ʿilm bi-baladinā).”

Chapter 26. Impermissible Exchanges Involving Livestock (Ḥayawān)

2029. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar reported that the Messenger
of God (pbuh) prohibited the sale of the offspring of a camel’s offspring
(ḥabal ḥabala). Such sales had been customary among the people in the
Days of Ignorance prior to Islam (jāhiliyya). A man would purchase a camel
for its meat (jazūr) but pay only when a fetus, at the time present in a
she-camel’s womb, successfully gave birth to its own calf.818

817 This transaction is prohibited because it takes on the appearance of a loan of money in which
the lender is earning a profit in the form of the camel to be received in the future.
818 The commentators differ in their understanding of why this transaction is prohibited. One
interpretation is that this pre-Islamic transaction is invalid because of the indeterminacy of
Book 34 573

2030. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab

said, “The rules of unlawful gain (ribā) do not apply to exchanges involving
animals. However, three specific exchanges involving animals were
prohibited: the sale of maḍāmīn, the sale of malāqīḥ, and the sale of future
offspring of a fetus still in its mother’s womb (ḥabal ḥabala).”819 Mālik said,
“Maḍāmīn refers to what is in the wombs of female camels, and malāqīḥ
refers to the offspring of male camels.”820
2031. Mālik said, “No one should purchase a specific animal unless it is
present at the time of the sale, even if the prospective purchaser has already
inspected it and found it acceptable, if he is to pay for it in cash, whether
he inspected it recently or at some time in the past. The reason that a
sale without such an inspection is prohibited is that the seller benefits
immediately from the price he receives from the purchaser, but he cannot
know whether the commodity has remained in the condition in which it was
when the purchaser last inspected it. Therefore, such a sale is prohibited.
It is not objectionable, however, if the seller’s obligation is not the delivery
of a specific animal but rather that of a generic animal, described with
reasonable precision.”

Chapter 27. Exchanging Livestock (Ḥayawān) for Meat

2032. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited the exchange of livestock
for meat.
2033. According to Mālik, Dāwūd b. al-Ḥuṣayn reported that he heard Saʿīd
b. al-Musayyab say, “One way in which the people before Islam gambled was
by exchanging the meat of an animal for one or two yearlings (shāt).”

the term, since it is defined with reference to an indefinite future event, namely, the fetus’s
giving birth to its own child. The second interpretation is that the transaction is invalid
because the object of the sale is the as-yet unborn future camel—a nonexistent item. From
an economic perspective, the seller presumably receives an above-market price for the camel
that he is giving the purchaser, insofar as it has reached the end of its useful life and its only
remaining use is to be slaughtered for meat. However, he will receive payment only if and
when the specified condition takes place in the future. The purchaser, meanwhile, benefits
immediately from the meat of the camel but will not be obliged to pay for it before the pas-
sage of several years, if ever. If the condition does not arise, he effectively obtains the camel
for free. Accordingly, the transaction is simply a bet on the future fertility not just of the
mother but of her daughter as well.
819 The third case refers to the transaction described in the previous hadith, no. 2029.
820 What is purported to be sold in the sale of malāqīḥ is the offspring that results from a male’s
mating with a female. Such a sale is invalid because it is impossible to know whether any
offspring will be produced from the mating.
574 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2034. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab

would say, “Exchanging an animal for meat is prohibited.” Abū al-Zinād
said, “I said to Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, ‘What do you think of a man who
purchases a camel that is long in the tooth for ten yearlings?’ Saʿīd said,
‘If he purchases the camel in order to slaughter it for its meat, it is not a
valid sale.’” Abū al-Zinād said, “Everyone I encountered among the people
forbade the exchange of animals for meat. That prohibition was also set
out in the letters of appointment that the governors Abān b. ʿUthmān and
Hishām b. Ismāʿīl issued to their subordinate officers. They all prohibited
such an exchange.”

Chapter 28. Exchanging Meat for Meat

2035. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr
al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā) concerning the meat of cattle, camels, and
sheep (ghanam) and the meat of wild animals similar to them is that the
meat of one should not be exchanged for the meat of another except in
like quantities and only if the exchange takes place hand to hand. It is
not objectionable, however, if the meat is not weighed, if care is taken
that like quantities are exchanged, and if the exchange takes place hand
to hand.’”
2036. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable in exchanging fish for
beef, camel meat, mutton, or the meat of wild animals similar to them, two
for one or more than two for one, provided that the exchange takes place
hand to hand. If the agreement permits delay in the performance of the
transaction, however, it is not a good sale.”
2037. Mālik said, “In my opinion, all meat from fowl constitutes a genus
different from both the meat of four-legged domesticated animals and the
meat of fish, and so I see nothing objectionable in exchanging one of these
for the other in dissimilar quantities hand to hand; however, no delay is
permitted in the exchange of such items.”

Chapter 29. What Has Come Down regarding Payment for a Dog
2038. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. al-Ḥārith b. Hishām and Abū Masʿūd al-Anṣārī that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited payment for a dog, the earnings of a
prostitute, and the money of a soothsayer. “The earnings of a prostitute”
refer to what a woman receives in exchange for illicit intercourse, and
“the money of a soothsayer” refers to the bribe he receives in exchange for
revealing his visions.
Book 34 575

2039. Mālik said, “I dislike that a seller should benefit from payment for
a dog, whether it is a hunting dog or not. This is on account of what has
been transmitted from the Messenger of God (pbuh) forbidding payment
for a dog.”821

Chapter 30. Loans and the Exchange of Goods One for Another
2040. According to Mālik, it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
prohibited the bundling of a sale and a loan in one transaction. Mālik said,
“An example of this is if one man says to another, ‘I will purchase your goods
from you for such-and-such amount, if you lend me such-and-such.’ If they
enter into an agreement on these terms, the contract is not permissible.
If, however, the party who made the loan a condition for entering into the
transaction waives it, the sale becomes binding.”
2041. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable in exchanging one unit of
plain linen, Shaṭawī linen,822 or fine Qaṣabī linen823 for several units of Itribī,
Qassī, or Zīqa824 linen, nor is there anything objectionable in exchanging
one unit of fine Harawī or Marwī825 cotton cloth for several Yemeni cloaks,
shawls, and similar garments made of rough cotton fabric, one for two or
three, if the exchange takes place hand to hand. Should the goods be of
the same kind, however, and performance of the transaction is deferred,
it is not a good sale. If performance is deferred, it is a good sale only if the
exchanged items are clearly different kinds of goods. When the goods are
similar to one another, even if they have different names, exchanging one
for two on a deferred basis is not permitted. An example of a prohibited
exchange is if someone takes two units of fine Harawī cotton cloth for one
unit of fine Marwī or Qūhī cotton cloth to be delivered in the future, or
two units of Furqubī linen for one unit of Shaṭawī linen. If these various
types of cloth have the same generic attributes, two units of them may
not be exchanged for one to be delivered in the future. There is nothing

821 Mālik’s view in the Muwaṭṭaʾ is that a dog, even a hunting dog, is not a legitimate object of
sale. Other Mālikī sources, however, report that he distinguished between the sale of dogs
whose ownership is permissible, such as hunting dogs and dogs used to guard livestock and
crops, and the sale of dogs whose ownership is impermissible. According to these sources,
it is permissible to sell and keep the payment received for the former type of dog. Bājī,
al-Muntaqā, 5:28. Later Mālikīs also disagreed regarding whether Mālik’s expression of dis-
like in the Muwaṭṭaʾ should be understood to mean that the sale of dogs is prohibited or that
it is merely disfavored (makrūh).
822 Linen cloth from a village in Egypt called Shaṭā.
823 Qaṣabī linen is a particularly soft kind of linen cloth. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 5:30; Zurqānī, Sharḥ
al-Zurqānī, 3:459.
824 Itrībī, Qassī, and Zīqa are types of rough linen cloth, in contrast to the Shaṭawī and Qaṣabī
linens, which are soft. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 5:30.
825 Cotton cloth from the Persian towns of Herat and Merv, respectively.
576 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

objectionable in selling any of these items before taking full possession of

them to someone other than the original seller, provided that the purchase
price was paid in cash.”

Chapter 31. Advance Payment for Goods

2042. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that al-Qāsim b.
Muḥammad said, “I heard a man ask ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās about a man who
paid in advance for some fine pieces of linen (sabāʾib) and who wished to
sell them before taking full possession of them. Ibn ʿAbbās said, ‘That is
silver for silver,’ and forbade the sale.”
2043. Mālik said, “In our opinion, and God knows best, Ibn ʿAbbās prohibited
that previous transaction only because the seller in the second transaction
wanted to sell the linen back to the very person who sold it to him in the
first transaction, at a price greater than what he had originally paid. Had
he sold the linen to a third person, however, the second transaction would
have been unobjectionable.”
2044. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ
ʿalayhi ʿindanā) regarding advance payment for slaves, livestock, or other
goods is that the purchaser can pay in advance for such goods provided
that they are described with sufficient precision and a determinate date is
specified for their delivery. When the seller’s obligation to deliver becomes
due, the purchaser is not permitted to sell any of the goods back to the
seller at a price higher than the amount that he initially advanced for them
before first taking full possession of them. That is because if he were to do
so, it would amount to an unlawful gain (ribā). In the latter scenario, by
giving the seller dinars or dirhams, the purchaser transfers his title to them
to the seller, which permits the seller to benefit from them. When the term
expires and the seller is obliged to deliver the goods, the purchaser does
not take possession of them but instead sells them back to their original
owner at a price higher than what he paid in advance for them. The result is
that the seller returns the advance payment to the purchaser along with the
payment of an additional sum of money.”826
2045. Mālik said, “When someone makes an advance payment of gold or
silver for the future delivery of a quantity of generically described livestock
(ḥayawān) or goods on a determinate date, and the seller’s obligation
becomes due, there is nothing objectionable in the purchaser selling
the goods back to the original seller, whether before or after the date of
delivery, in exchange for substitute goods in whatever amount they may

826 In other words, the transaction ends up being a loan at interest.

Book 34 577

be, provided that the purchaser takes immediate possession of such goods.
If the seller’s obligation, however, was to deliver food, the purchaser is not
permitted to sell that food back to the original seller until he first takes
full possession of it. But the purchaser may, before taking delivery, resell
the goods that he is entitled to receive from the original seller for gold or
silver or any other goods to anyone other than the original seller, provided
he is paid promptly. Were he to defer payment of the price for those goods,
the second transaction becomes invalid because it violates the prohibition
against exchanging one debt for another (al-kāliʾ bil-kāliʾ).827 Al-kāliʾ bil-kāliʾ
refers to an agreement in which a creditor sells a debt owed to him for a
new debt owed to him by another.”
2046. Mālik said, “When someone pays in advance for the future delivery
of goods on a determinate date, and those goods are neither solid nor liquid
foods, the purchaser may resell those goods for money or other goods
before taking full possession of them to whomsoever he wishes, other than
the original seller who sold them to him. He may not sell the goods back
to the original seller, except in exchange for promptly delivered substitute
goods. In the latter case, even if the seller’s obligation to deliver has not
yet become due, there is nothing objectionable in the purchaser selling the
goods that are the subject of the seller’s obligation back to their original
owner for substitute goods, provided that they are clearly different in kind
from those specified in the original contract and that the purchaser takes
prompt possession of the substitute goods.”
2047. Mālik was asked about the following case: Someone pays gold dinars
or silver dirhams in advance for the future delivery of four generically
described measures of cloth, but when the seller’s obligation becomes due
and the purchaser seeks to collect what is owed to him, he discovers that the
seller does not have in his inventory what he promised to deliver. Instead, he
finds that the seller has only cloth of an inferior quality to the kind specified
in the contract. The seller proposes the following arrangement to him: “In
lieu of what I owe you, I will give you eight measures of this cloth, the cloth
that I have.” Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable in that, provided
that the purchaser takes immediate possession of the eight measures of
cloth that the seller is offering him before they part ways. If the seller’s
obligation to deliver the eight measures of cloth is deferred, however, the
second sale is invalid. If they agreed to this arrangement before the original

827 In this case, the purchaser is owed delivery of certain goods by the seller. He is permitted to
sell that obligation to a third party, but the third party must pay immediately for the right to
take delivery from the original seller. If the original purchaser were to sell his right to receive
delivery to a third party on credit terms, he would be exchanging one debt owed to him for a
second debt owed to him, which is prohibited.
578 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

obligation became due, it would also be invalid, unless the measures of

substitute cloth that the seller is offering the purchaser were not of the
same kind as those specified in the original contract.”828

Chapter 32. The Sale of Copper, Iron, and Similar Items That Are Sold
by Weight
2048. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
regarding everything that is sold by weight other than gold and silver,
such as copper, brass, lead, iron, animal fodder, figs, cotton, and similar
things sold by weight, is that there is nothing objectionable in exchanging
two measures for one of the same kind hand to hand. There is nothing
objectionable in exchanging 280 grams (one riṭl)829 of iron for twice that
amount of iron, or a similarly unequal exchange of brass. A deferred
exchange of these items in unequal quantities, however, is not a good sale.
If the exchanged items are clearly of two different kinds, there is nothing
objectionable in exchanging them in unequal quantities on a deferred
basis. However, if the two kinds resemble one another but have different
names, such as lead (raṣāṣ) and black lead (ānuk), and brass (shabah)
and yellow brass (ṣufr), I believe that their deferred exchange in unequal
quantities is prohibited. There is nothing objectionable in selling these
kinds of purchased items in advance of delivery, even before the purchaser
takes full possession of them, provided that the purchaser sells them
to someone other than their original seller and that the purchase price
for the second transaction is paid immediately, if they were originally
purchased on the basis of volume or weight. If, on the other hand, the
original goods were purchased by estimate, the purchaser may resell
them to a third party either for cash or on credit. That is because in this
case the purchaser, not the original seller, is responsible for their delivery,
because he purchased them on the basis of an estimate. By contrast, if the
purchaser purchased the items by weight or volume, he is not liable for
their delivery in the second transaction until he has actually measured
out the items and taken them fully into his possession. Of all the views
that I have heard regarding these matters, this is the one I prefer most.
The people among us have always acted in accordance with this rule
(wa-huwa alladhī lam yazal ʿalayhi amr al-nās ʿindanā).’”

828 This is because pieces cloth of the same kind, even if their quality differs, may be exchanged
in unequal quantities only if the transaction takes place immediately.
829 The riṭl was a measure of weight that was used throughout the Islamic world but varied sig-
nificantly from one region to another. The riṭl in the Hijaz, where Mālik lived, was reported
to have been the equivalent in weight of 120 silver dirhams, which was approximately 280
grams. Ḥallāq, al-Īḍāḥāt al-ʿaṣriyya, 175.
Book 34 579

2049. Mālik said, “The rule in our view regarding the sale of items that are
sold by volume or weight and that are neither solid nor liquid food, such as
safflower, date pits, camel fodder, henna, and similar things, is that there is
nothing objectionable in the hand-to-hand exchange of unequal amounts of
any of these kinds of items, as long as the exchange is not deferred. Further,
if the exchanged items are clearly different, there is nothing objectionable
in the exchange of unequal amounts of these items on a deferred basis. In
addition, there is nothing objectionable in selling purchased items of these
kinds before taking full possession of them, if the purchaser sells them for
cash to someone other than the original seller who first sold him the goods.”
2050. Mālik said, “Exchanging any item830 that people find beneficial, even
gravel or gypsum, in unequal amounts on a deferred basis results in an
unlawful gain (ribā). So, too, does exchanging equal amounts of any beneficial
item on a deferred basis and adding something else to the exchange.”

Chapter 33. The Prohibition against Two Sales in One

2051. According to Mālik, it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
prohibited two sales in one.
2052. According to Mālik, it reached him that one man said to another,
“Purchase this camel for me. Pay for it in cash, and I will purchase it from
you on credit.” ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar was asked about that sale, and he
disapproved of it and forbade it.831
2053. According to Mālik, it reached him that al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad was
asked about a man who purchased some goods with the option of paying
either ten dinars in cash or fifteen on credit. He expressed his disapproval
of that sale and forbade it.832
2054. Mālik said, regarding someone who purchases goods from another for
either ten dinars in cash or fifteen on credit, with the purchaser becoming
entitled to the goods by virtue of payment of either one of the two prices,

830 He means goods that are neither solid nor liquid food.
831 In this transaction, the proposed agreement encompasses two contracts: the first contract
entails the first purchaser acquiring a camel from a third party by paying for it in cash, and
the second contract entails the sale of that very camel by the first purchaser to the second
purchaser, i.e., the person proposing the arrangement, on credit, presumably in an amount
in excess of the cash price initially paid by the first purchaser for the camel. Mālikī com-
mentators point out that this transaction involves not only two contracts in a single agree-
ment but also, implicitly, a loan at interest, and so it would be invalid on both grounds. Bājī,
al-Muntaqā, 5:39.
832 The defect in this transaction is that the price was not specified at the time the parties
entered into the contract, so it violates the rule that the price must be determinate in order
for a valid contract to come into existence.
580 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

“This is not allowed, because if he delays payment of the ten dinars in cash,
the price becomes fifteen dinars on credit, and if he pays the ten dinars in
cash, it is as though he is purchasing fifteen dinars for ten.”833
2055. Mālik said, regarding a man who purchases goods from another man
for either one dinar in cash or one young, generically described yearling
(shāt) on credit, with the purchaser being bound by one of the two prices,
“This is not permitted and should not be done, because the Messenger
of God (pbuh) prohibited two sales in one, and this is a case of two sales
in one.”
2056. Mālik said, regarding a man who says to another, “I’m prepared to
purchase from you either fifteen measures (ṣāʿ) of these ʿajwa dates of
yours or ten measures of these Ṣayḥānī dates of yours, or fifteen measures
of this low-quality wheat of yours or ten measures of this Levantine wheat
of yours, in each case for one dinar, with my retaining the right to specify
which of the two trades I desire upon payment”: “This is forbidden and
illicit. That is because he offered to take ten measures of the Ṣayḥānī dates
but then spurned them, instead taking fifteen measures of the ʿajwa dates,
or he offered to take fifteen measures of low-quality wheat but then spurned
them, taking instead ten measures of Levantine wheat. That is forbidden
and illicit. In addition, it resembles the subject of the prohibition in the
command forbidding two sales in one, as well as the prohibition against the
exchange of unequal quantities of the same kind of food.”

Chapter 34. Sales Involving Material Uncertainty in the Consideration

(Gharar)
2057. According to Mālik, Abū Ḥāzim b. Dīnār reported from Saʿīd b.
al-Musayyab that the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited sales involving
material uncertainty in the consideration.
2058. Mālik said, “An instance of a sale involving indeterminate
consideration and the mutual assumption of price risk (mukhāṭara) is
when someone makes an offer to another person who has lost an animal
or whose slave has run away, the purchase price of each having been fifty
dinars, saying, ‘I’ll purchase it from you for twenty dinars.’ In this case, if
the purchaser succeeds in finding the lost animal or the runaway slave, the
seller loses thirty dinars, but if he does not, the seller gets twenty dinars

833 In other words, the contract is invalid because the price has not been determined as of the
date of the parties’ agreement. It could be that the seller has the option of determining which
price prevails, or the purchaser has this option, or both of them do. If the latter is the case, it
is obvious that the parties have not reached any agreement at all with respect to price, so no
contract could be deemed to exist.
Book 34 581

from the purchaser without having given him anything in exchange. This
sale suffers from another defect as well, insofar as it is impossible to know
whether the value of the lost article, if it indeed is found, has increased or
decreased in the meantime, or whether any defects have arisen in it. This
type of agreement represents an extreme form of mutual assumption of
price risk.”
2059. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that the
purchase and sale of fetuses, whether human or not, is another instance
of a sale involving the mutual assumption of price risk and indeterminate
consideration, because it is not known whether the fetus will be born alive,
and if it is, whether it will be handsome or ugly, well-formed or defective,
or male or female. All of these factors, however, are relevant to making
the newborn more or less desirable, with its fair market value being one
amount if it has a particular set of features and a different amount with a
different set of features.”
2060. Mālik said, “It is not permissible to sell a female and to reserve what
is in her womb. An example of this is when a seller says, ‘The price for my
yearling (shāt), which produces a lot of milk, is three dinars, but I will sell it
to you for two dinars and reserve what is in its womb for myself.’ This offer
is prohibited because it entails indeterminate consideration and mutual
assumption of price risk.”
2061. Mālik said, “It is not licit to exchange olives for olive oil, sesame seeds
for sesame oil, or butter for ghee, because it is an exchange that involves
indeterminate amounts (muzābana). The purchaser who purchases seeds
and similar things in exchange for a specified amount of a substance that is
extracted from the thing purchased, such as olives for olive oil, does not know
whether what will be extracted from what he purchased will be less or more
than what he gave,834 resulting in a transaction that involves indeterminate
consideration and mutual assumption of price risk. Another instance of
this principle is an exchange involving moringa seeds (ḥabbat al-bān) for
moringa seed oil (salīkha). It involves indeterminate consideration, because
that which is extracted from the moringa seeds is nothing other than
moringa seed oil. There is nothing objectionable, however, in exchanging
moringa seeds for scented moringa seed oil, because the latter has been

834 In other words, if someone acquires one measure of olives in exchange for one measure of olive
oil, even though the amounts exchanged are known with precision, the transaction neverthe-
less involves indeterminate consideration, because it is impossible for the person acquiring the
olives to know whether the amount of the oil that is to be extracted from those olives will be
equal to, greater than, or smaller than the amount of the oil he gave his counterparty. Therefore,
there is material indeterminacy in the consideration and a substantial risk of inequality in the
exchange. Each of these constitutes a sufficient reason to invalidate the sale.
582 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

scented, mixed, and transformed through processing from its initial state as
raw moringa seed oil into another item.”
2062. Mālik said, regarding a man who sold goods to another party,
guaranteeing to the purchaser that he would not incur any loss on the
resale of the goods, “This is an invalid transaction, and it involves mutual
assumption of price risk. This can be explained by the following analysis: It
is as though the seller hired the purchaser, with the latter’s wage deriving
from the profit, if any, obtained from the resale of the goods. However, if
the purchaser sells the goods at cost or less, he receives nothing beyond
the cost of the goods, and his labor is uncompensated. This is not a valid
transaction, and the purchaser in this case is entitled to receive a wage in
accordance with the amount of labor he has expended in selling the goods,
with whatever loss or profit is realized from the sale of the goods accruing
exclusively to the goods’ original owner. This rule applies only if the
condition of the goods has changed substantially while in the purchaser’s
possession or if the goods were sold to a third party.835 If neither has
occurred, the transaction between them is simply rescinded.”
2063. Mālik said, “As for the case of someone who purchases goods from
another in a final and conclusive sale but then regrets the transaction and
says to the seller, ‘Give me a reduction in the price,’ but the seller refuses,
saying instead, ‘Sell it, and I will reimburse you for any losses,’ there is
nothing objectionable in that. That is because it does not involve the mutual
assumption of price risk. It is nothing more than a discount that the seller
freely gives to the purchaser, and it is not a condition of their original
contract. The rule among us is in accordance with that (dhālika alladhī
ʿalayhi al-amr ʿindanā).”

Chapter 35. Sales by Touch (Mulāmasa) and Tossing (Munābadha)

2064. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā b. Habbān and Abū al-Zinād
reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) prohibited sales by touch (mulāmasa) and by tossing (munābadha).
Mālik said, “Mulāmasa is when a man purchases a piece of cloth merely by
touching it, without first unfolding it or examining what is in it, or when
he purchases it in the darkness of the night, without knowing what is in
it. Munābadha is when a man tosses a piece of cloth of his to another man
and the latter throws his own piece of cloth to the first man, with neither of
them examining the cloth he has taken. Instead, each of them says, ‘This one

835 In other words, the rule that Mālik sets out here applies only if the purchaser successfully
resells the goods or if the goods are materially transformed while in his possession.
Book 34 583

is for that one.’ This is what is meant by the prohibition of sales by touch
and tossing.”
2065. Mālik said, regarding a rough cloak that is unwrapped within its
packaging or Egyptian cloth that is folded and packed, “It is not permissible
to sell them without first unfolding them or allowing the contents of
the containers to be examined. Otherwise, their sale would be a case of
indeterminate consideration (gharar), and a kind of ‘sale by touch.’”
2066. Mālik said, “The sale of bolts of cloth in reliance on a merchant’s
inventory list is different from the sale of a rough cloak that is unwrapped
within its packaging, or cloth that is folded and packed, or things of that
nature. The rule that is in force (al-amr al-maʿmūl bih) distinguishes
between the two sales, and an awareness of that difference is present in
people’s hearts and has long been the case in the practices of those engaged
in it (mā maḍā min ʿamal al-māḍīn fīh). This has been a continuous part of
people’s mutual contracts and mutual commerce in respect of which they
have found nothing objectionable (lam yazal min buyūʿ al-nās wa’l-tijāra
baynahum allatī lā yarawna bihā baʾsan). That is because the practice of
selling bolts of cloth in reliance on a merchant’s inventory list without
first unfolding the bolts is not intended to result in a profit from material
uncertainty in the consideration (gharar). Therefore, it does not resemble
a ‘sale by touch.’”

Chapter 36. Selling Goods at an Agreed-Upon Rate of Profit

(Murābaḥa)
2067. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) regarding
someone who purchases cloth in one town and then transports it for
sale to another town, where he sells it at an agreed-upon rate of profit, is
that none of his brokers’ fees, the costs of folding, straightening, or other
upkeep of his merchandise, or the rent of warehouse space are included in
the price on the basis of which the seller calculates his profit. The seller is
entitled to include in the item’s price the expense incurred in transporting
the cloth, but he may not receive a profit on this expense unless he first
discloses that information in its entirety to the potential purchaser. There
is nothing objectionable in the seller receiving a profit on that expense from
purchasers if the purchasers have knowledge of it. As for expenses arising
out of bleaching, tailoring, and dyeing the cloth, as well as similar matters,
they are deemed part of the cloth itself, and accordingly profit is calculated
on such expenses, just as it is calculated on the cloth itself. If the seller sells
the cloth without first disclosing the cost of the items that are to be excluded
584 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

from the calculation of the profit, and then the cloth’s condition changes836
while it is in the possession of the purchaser, the cost of the transportation
is reimbursable to the seller, but he is not entitled to any profit in respect
thereof. If the cloth’s condition has not changed while in the possession of
the purchaser, however, the sale between them is rescinded, unless they
come to a lawful, amicable settlement.”
2068. Mālik said, concerning a man who purchases goods using either
gold or silver on a day on which the exchange rate is ten silver dirhams for
one gold dinar, and who then sells the goods either in a different city or in
the city where he purchased them, in both cases at an agreed-upon rate of
profit according to the exchange rate prevailing at the place and date of the
second sale: “If he originally purchased the goods using silver dirhams but
then sold them for gold dinars, or if he originally purchased them for gold
dinars and then sold them for silver dirhams, and if the goods remained in
their original condition, the seller is given an option to affirm the sale or
to cancel it. If the goods are no longer in their original condition, however,
the purchaser is entitled to keep the goods if he pays the seller the price
that the seller initially paid for them. In this case the seller is entitled to
whatever profit results from the previously agreed-upon rate of profit that
the purchaser had agreed to give him on the basis of the seller’s original
purchase price.”
2069. Mālik said, “If a man sells to a purchaser goods that he, the seller,
himself purchased in an arm’s length transaction for one hundred dinars,
receiving an agreed-upon profit of one dinar on every ten spent, and then
it is discovered that the seller paid only ninety dinars for the goods, and
in the meantime, the condition of the goods changed while they were in
the purchaser’s possession, the seller is given an option. If he wishes, he
may claim the fair market value of his goods on the day his purchaser
took possession of them, unless their fair market value on that day was
higher than the price at which he sold them to his purchaser. In no case
can he collect more than the purchase price of 110 dinars. Alternatively, if
the seller wishes, he can claim the capital sum of his goods, ninety dinars,
plus the profit to which he was entitled on their sale to his purchaser,
nine dinars. If that sum is less than their fair market value on the day his
purchaser took possession of them, however, the seller is free to choose
between the fair market value of his goods and his capital sum plus the
agreed-upon profit, that is, ninety-nine dinars.”

836 The cloth’s condition may “change” if, for example, the purchaser uses it to tailor a garment,
it is destroyed by fire or some other cause, or its market price changes significantly.
Book 34 585

2070. Mālik said, “If a man sells goods on the basis of an agreed-upon
rate of profit, mistakenly saying to his purchaser, on the basis of a faulty
inventory list (barnāmij), ‘These goods cost me one hundred dinars,’ and
then it is discovered that their cost was actually 120 dinars, the purchaser
is given an option. If he wishes, he may give the seller the fair market value
of the goods on the day he took possession of them, or if he wishes, he may
give the seller the price that the seller originally paid for the goods, plus the
profit that the purchaser had agreed to give the seller, whatever that may
be, unless the goods’ fair market value would be less than the price at which
the seller originally purchased the goods. The purchaser is not entitled to
force the seller to accept a price that is less than what the seller originally
paid, because the purchaser agreed to purchase the goods from the seller on
the basis of his costs plus an agreed-upon rate of profit. Indeed, the owner
of the goods brought his claim out of a desire to seek additional profit. The
seller’s error does not provide the purchaser grounds for demanding a
reduction in the price he initially paid for the goods on the basis of their
faulty description in the merchant’s inventory list.”

Chapter 37. Sales in Reliance on a Merchant’s Inventory List

(Barnāmij)
2071. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Regarding a scenario in which a group of
people jointly purchase goods such as cloth or slaves, and then someone
comes to learn about their deal and says to one of them, “I am well informed
about the description and condition of the cloth that you just purchased
from so-and-so, and I would like to purchase your share of that cloth, giving
you a profit of such-and-such for it,” and the offeree says, “I accept your
offer,” so the first man gives the second the agreed-upon price, including the
agreed-upon profit, and then takes his place in the group as a partner to the
original transaction, but when they examine the cloth that they agreed to
purchase, they find it disagreeable and conclude that the price they paid was
excessive in light of the cloth’s poor quality: The rule in our view (al-amr
ʿindanā) is that the new partner is bound by his agreement with the former
partner and has no right to rescind it as long as the new partner purchased
the goods in reliance on a merchant’s inventory list or a reasonably precise
description of the goods sold from the former partner.”
2072. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a merchant arrives
bearing various kinds of cloth wrapped in numerous bundles, and when
prospective purchasers approach him to bargain over his goods, he reads
out to them his inventory list (but does not open up his bundles for their
visual inspection), saying, “In each bundle is such-and-such a number
586 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

of Basran wraps, and such-and-such a number of fine Sābirī837 wraps of

such-and-such size,” and he specifies for them the various kinds of cloth
he has for sale by their type, and says, “Buy them from me on the basis
of these representations,” and so they purchase the bundles relying on
his representations about their content, but when they open the bundles,
they conclude that they paid too much for them and regret their decisions:
“They are bound by their agreement with him, if the goods conform to the
description in his inventory list that formed the basis of his offer to them.
That is the rule that the people among us have continually followed and that
they regard as binding among themselves (hādhā al-amr alladhī lam yazal
al-nās ʿalayhi ʿindanā yujīzūnahu baynahum), as long as the goods conform
to the merchant’s inventory list and do not differ from it.”

Chapter 38. Sales with a Right of Rescission (Khiyār)

2073. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Both parties to a sale are free to rescind
their agreement as long as they have not gone their separate ways, except
in a sale with an option to rescind.” Mālik said, “In our view, a contractual
option to rescind is not subject to a determinate limit, nor is there any rule
in force (amr maʿmūl bih) with respect to it.”
2074. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd would
relate that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Whenever a dispute arises
between the purchaser and the seller in a contract of sale, the purchaser
bears the burden of proving the truth of his claim, unless they agree to
rescind their contract.”
2075. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man sells goods to another,
telling the purchaser when it is time to conclude the sale, “I’ll sell them to
you only on the condition that I first get the opinion of so-and-so, and if he
thinks the terms are appropriate, the sale will be final, but if he does not, the
deal between us is off,” and they contract on that basis, but the purchaser
later regrets agreeing to this condition before the seller has had a chance to
get the other person’s view of the terms of the deal: “That sale binds both of
them in accordance with their agreement, and the purchaser does not have
the option to rescind it. He is bound by the contract if the person to whom
he granted the option, that is, the seller, chooses to enforce it.”
2076. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) regarding a man
who purchases goods from another and then disagrees with the seller
about the price, with the seller saying, ‘I sold it to you for ten dinars,’ and

837 A reference to a Persian town where such wraps were manufactured.

Book 34 587

the purchaser saying, ‘I purchased it from you for five dinars,’ is that the
seller is told, ‘You may choose to give the goods to the buyer for the price
he claims, or you may choose to swear by God that you sold your goods
only for the amount that you claim.’ If the seller swears accordingly, the
purchaser is told, ‘Either take the goods for the price the seller claims, or
swear by God that you purchased them for only the amount that you claim.’
If the purchaser, too, swears as requested, he is relieved of the contract, and
that is because each of them is in the position of being a claimant against
the other party.”838

Chapter 39. What Has Come Down regarding Unlawful Gains (Ribā)
with Respect to Debts
2077. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from Busr b. Saʿīd that
ʿUbayd Abū Sāliḥ, the freedman (mawlā) of al-Saffāḥ,839 said, “I sold some
cloth of mine to the people of Nakhla on credit. I then intended to leave for
Kufa, so they proposed to me that I reduce the amount due in exchange for
immediate payment.840 I asked Zayd b. Thābit about that, and he said, ‘No;
I command you to neither accept such an offer nor make such an offer to
your creditor.’”
2078. According to Mālik, ʿUthmān b. Hafṣ b. Khalada reported from Ibn
Shihāb, from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh, from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, that he was
asked about a creditor who offers to reduce the stated amount of a debt,
maturing on a future date, if the debtor agrees to pay the remaining balance
immediately. ʿAbd Allāh disapproved of such an agreement and prohibited it.
2079. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam said, “In the Days of Ignorance
prior to Islam (jāhiliyya), ‘unlawful gain’ (ribā) was understood to consist of
the following transaction: someone was owed an obligation from another,
due on a future date, and when payment of the obligation became due, the
creditor would say to the debtor, ‘Will you pay me what you owe, or will

838 The ordinary rule of evidence is that the claimant is obliged to prove the truth of his claim,
and if the claimant has no such evidence, the defendant need only swear an oath denying the
claim in order to have it dismissed. In this case, as Mālik sees the dispute, both the seller and
the purchaser are claimants against each other; neither has affirmative evidence proving his
claim, but each is willing to swear an oath denying the truth of his opponent’s claim. Accord-
ingly, the claims of both are dismissed.
839 Al-Saffāḥ was the title of the first ʿAbbāsid caliph, ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿAbbās b. ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib (r. 132–136/750–754).
840 The debtors in this case are presumed to be offering prepayment using property of the same
genus as in the original debt—for example, offering seventy-five dinars to settle a debt with
a face value of one hundred dinars. If, however, the debtors were offering to settle the debt
with some other kind of property, such as cloth in lieu of the dinars set out in the contract,
that would be acceptable.
588 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

you increase the principal sum owed and defer payment to the future?’ If
the debtor paid, the creditor would accept payment, but if he did not, the
creditor would increase the principal sum of the debt owed to him and
extend the maturity date further into the future.”
2080. Mālik said, “When a debtor owes a creditor an obligation that is due
on a determinate date in the future, the practice that is forbidden and about
which there is no dissent among us (al-amr al-makrūh alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi
ʿīndanā) is the creditor’s agreement to reduce the amount of the obligation
in exchange for the debtor’s prompt payment of the reduced amount. We
consider that practice to be the equivalent of a scenario in which a creditor
agrees to defer collection of his debt from his debtor after it has matured,
and the debtor agrees to increase his obligation to the creditor. That is,
without doubt, the very essence of unlawful gain.”
2081. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a debtor owes his creditor
one hundred dinars, payable on a determinate date in the future, and
when payment is due, the debtor says to his creditor, “Sell me some goods
whose cash price is one hundred dinars for 150 dinars on credit”: “This is
not a permissible sale. The people of knowledge have always prohibited
it (lam yazal ahl al-ʿilm yanhawna ʿanh). Such a transaction is prohibited
because the creditor is merely giving his debtor the price of the very thing
that he first sold to the debtor, deferring the debtor’s obligation to pay
the first one hundred dinars to the new maturity date that the debtor just
suggested to him, and then increasing the debt that his debtor owes him by
fifty dinars in exchange for agreeing to postpone the maturity date of his
debtor’s obligation. That is prohibited and invalid. Moreover, it resembles
the report of Zayd b. Aslam regarding the practices of the people in the Days
of Ignorance before Islam. When their debts matured, the creditors would
say to their debtors, ‘Either pay up or increase the debt,’ and if they paid up,
the creditors accepted their payment, but if not, the debtors increased the
amount of the debt they owed to the creditors, and the creditors granted
their debtors an extension of the maturity date.”

Chapter 40. Miscellaneous Matters Related to Debts and the Transfer

of Debts
2082. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “A solvent debtor who puts
off payment of his debts when they are due commits a wrong. If a debtor
tells his creditor to pursue his claim against a solvent third-party debtor
who owes a debt to the first debtor, the creditor should pursue his claim
against the third-party debtor, not against his original debtor.”
Book 34 589

2083. According to Mālik, Mūsā b. Maysara reported that he heard a man say
to Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, “I am someone who sells on credit.” Saʿīd replied, “Sell
only what you already have on your camel,” meaning, in your possession.
2084. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man
purchases goods from another on the condition that the seller deliver them
to him on a determinate date in the future, aiming either to take advantage
of an anticipated increase in market demand for that good or to fulfill
a need at the time that he stipulates, and then the seller fails to make a
timely delivery of the goods, delivering them after the stipulated delivery
date, so the purchaser wishes to reject them and return them to the seller:
‘The purchaser cannot do that, and he is bound by the contract. Had the
seller delivered the goods prior to the specified delivery date, however, the
purchaser would not have been obliged to take them.’”
2085. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which someone purchases food
and measures it out, and then someone comes to purchase it from him, so
the first purchaser informs the prospective purchaser that he has already
weighed it out and taken full possession of it, and the prospective purchaser
is willing to accept the seller’s representation regarding the food’s quantity
and to purchase it on that basis: “There is nothing objectionable in such
a sale, if the price is paid in cash; however, if the food is sold on this basis
for delivery on a determinate date in the future, the sale is prohibited
unless the second purchaser measures out the goods received by the first
purchaser for himself. The sale on credit is forbidden only because it is a
means to the realization of an unlawful gain (ribā), and there is a risk that
the transaction will be performed in this way without the food ever being
measured, whether by weight or by volume. Therefore, if the sale is for
delivery on a determinate date in the future, it is prohibited, and there is no
dissent about that among us (lā ikhtilāfa fīhi ʿindanā).”
2086. Mālik said, “No one should purchase a debt, whether owed by a
present debtor or an absentee one, without that debtor’s acknowledgment
of the debt, nor should anyone purchase a debt owed by a deceased debtor,
even if the purchaser knows what property the deceased has left in his estate.
That is because purchasing such a debt involves material indeterminacy in
the consideration (gharar), because it is impossible to know whether the
debt will be fulfilled or not. The prohibition involved in this case can be
illustrated through the case of a person who purchases the debt owed by
an absentee or deceased debtor. It is unknown what other debt the debtor
might owe. If the deceased in fact owes other debts, the price that the
purchaser paid to acquire the deceased’s debt is lost without the purchaser
receiving anything of value in return. This transaction also suffers from
590 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

another defect insofar as he is purchasing something without anyone

being liable to him for its delivery. Accordingly, if the deceased’s debt is not
fulfilled, the price that the purchaser paid for it is lost without his receipt of
anything of value in return. The transaction thus involves an indeterminate
consideration, which makes it invalid. A further distinction has been made
between the rule that prohibits a person from selling something not in his
possession but permits him to accept payment in advance for something
that he does yet not own, and the rule governing an intermediary (ṣāḥib
al-ʿīna) who extends credit to finance a sale. The intermediary comes to the
market bearing his gold, which he wishes to use to purchase things solely
for the purpose of reselling them on credit. He says to the merchants in the
market, ‘Here are ten dinars. What goods would you like me to purchase for
you to then sell back to you on credit?’ It is as though the man were selling
his ten dinars in cash for fifteen dinars payable on a determinate date in the
future. For this reason the transaction is prohibited and is deemed nothing
other than a ruse to obtain an unlawful gain.”

Chapter 41. What Has Come Down regarding Partnership (Shirka)

and Resale at Cost (Tawliya)
2087. Mālik said, regarding someone who offers various kinds of cloth
for sale but excludes some on the basis of their particular marks, “There
is nothing objectionable in his making his offer conditional on his right to
choose among the garments bearing a particular mark those that he will
reserve for himself. If, however, his offer does not stipulate that he will
choose among them when he makes his reservation, then it is my belief that
he becomes a partner in the specific pieces of cloth that are purchased from
him, because two garments may share the same mark, but their prices may
nevertheless differ.”
2088. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that there is
nothing objectionable in forming a partnership (shirk), reselling at cost
(tawliya), or rescinding a sale (iqāla) for the benefit of the purchaser, whether
the sale involves food or anything else and whether or not possession has
been taken, provided that the original payment is in cash and that there
is no profit, loss, or delay. If profit, loss, or delay is involved on the part of
either of the parties to the transaction, it is treated as a new sale. In the
latter case, the sale’s legality or illegality is determined by the rules that
define lawful and unlawful sales generally. In this case, the transaction is
neither a partnership, nor a resale at cost, nor a cancellation.”
2089. Mālik said, “In a scenario in which a person purchases goods, whether
cloth or slaves, and finalizes the deal, and then a man asks him to become
Book 34 591

his partner in the transaction, and the purchaser acquiesces, and then both
of them pay the purchase price to the goods’ owner, and then a claim is
made against the goods which results in the removal of the goods from their
possession, the new partner is entitled to recover the price he paid from the
man who involved him as a partner, and the one who made him a partner
pursues the seller of the goods for reimbursement of their price. This does
not apply if the original purchaser stipulated to his prospective partner at
the time of their agreement or at the time of the contract with the seller, but
before any claims were made against the goods, that the seller would bear
all liability for any defects in the goods. But if a claim is then made against
the goods, and the sale cannot be rescinded, such a condition stipulated by
the original purchaser is invalid, and he bears sole liability for whatever
defects are present in the goods.”841
2090. Mālik said, regarding a man who says to another, “Purchase these
goods and let us own them as partners, and if you pay my share on my
behalf I will sell them for you,” “That is not a good sale insofar as the second
man said, ‘Pay my share, and I will sell them for you.’ That amounts to a loan
extended by the second man to the first on the condition that the first man
sell the goods on behalf of the second. Were the goods to be destroyed or
perish before their sale, the man who paid the price could recover from his
partner the portion of the price that he paid on his behalf. This transaction,
therefore, is a case of a loan that brings benefits to the creditor, and it is
thus invalid.”
2091. Mālik said, “If a man purchases goods and becomes fully entitled to
them, and then another man says to him, ‘If you make me your partner in
these goods, I will sell them all for you,’ that would be lawful and there is
nothing objectionable in it. The reason for that is that this is a new sale, in
which the goods’ owner sells his partner half of his goods on the condition
that his partner sell the half of the goods that he, the first owner, still owns.”

Chapter 42. What Has Come Down regarding the Debtor’s Insolvency
(Iflās)
2092. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. al-Ḥārith b. Hishām that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said,

841 The second partner in this case is permitted to hold the first partner liable for the defect,
because the first partner effectively sold the second partner an interest in the goods. By act-
ing as a seller of goods, the first partner is liable to the purchaser of those goods for any
relevant defects. In the second scenario, however, the second partner is purchasing the goods
directly from the original seller, not from the first partner. Accordingly, when the defect
arises, he sues the original seller and not the first partner.
592 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

“Whenever a man sells goods to another, and the purchaser becomes

insolvent without the seller having received anything of the purchase price
owed to him, but he discovers his goods still in the buyer’s possession,
unchanged from the condition in which he had sold them to him, he has a
greater entitlement to take them than the purchaser’s other creditors do.
If the purchaser has died without paying his debt to the seller, however,
the seller of the goods must, even if he finds his goods intact, nevertheless
share them with the decedent’s other creditors.”
2093. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Abū Bakr b.
Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b. Ḥazm, from ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, from Abū Bakr
b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Ḥārith b. Hishām, from Abū Hurayra, that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “If a debtor becomes insolvent, and then
a creditor of his finds his goods still in the debtor’s possession in their
original condition, the creditor has a greater entitlement to take them than
any of the debtor’s other creditors do.”
2094. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man sells another some
goods but the purchaser becomes insolvent without discharging his debt,
“If the seller finds any of his property still in the debtor’s possession in its
original condition, he is entitled to repossess whatever he finds. Even if the
purchaser has sold some of the goods and distributed them to others, the
claim of the first owner of the goods—that is, the seller—to the remaining
goods still in the purchaser’s possession is superior to the claims of the
purchaser’s other creditors. The fact that the purchaser has distributed to
others some of what he purchased does not preclude the seller from taking
possession of whatever intact property he still finds in the purchaser’s
possession. However, if the seller collected any portion of the payment
owing to him in respect of the goods, he may, if he so wishes, return the
payment to the purchaser and instead repossess whatever intact property
of his he finds in the purchaser’s possession and, to settle his claims arising
out of property that is no longer in the purchaser’s possession, share pro
rata with the purchaser’s other creditors whatever value still remains in the
purchaser’s property.”842
2095. Mālik said, “If someone sells goods such as wool thread or other
raw material or a plot of land to another on credit, and then the purchaser
makes some improvements to those goods, such as building a house or

842 In a situation in which the creditor has received partial payment of the debt owed by his
insolvent purchaser, the creditor is given a choice between retaining the payment received
and forgoing the right to repossess his intact goods or returning the payment received to
the insolvent purchaser and seizing whatever intact goods of his are still in the insolvent
purchaser’s possession.
Book 34 593

weaving the wool into cloth, but then becomes insolvent, the creditor in
this case has no right to claim, for example, ‘The plot of land and whatever
improvements have been built on it are mine.’ Rather, the plot of land,
along with any improvements the purchaser has made on it, are appraised
together, and then the value of the plot is determined independently and
the value of the improvements is determined independently. The seller of
the plot of land and any other creditors are then treated as co-owners of the
entire parcel, each in proportion to his share. The seller of the plot makes
a claim on the parcel in proportion to his claim against the purchaser, and
the other creditors make claims in proportion to their claims against the
purchaser. An example illustrating this rule is a plot of land whose aggregate
value is 1,500 dirhams, the value of the plot alone being 500 dirhams and
the value of the improvements being 1,000 dirhams. In this case, the seller
of the plot is entitled to one-third of the value of the entire parcel, and the
other creditors are entitled to the remaining two-thirds. The same principle
applies to wool thread and any other similar thing if the debtor has made
improvements to the property but is burdened by a debt that he is unable
to pay. This is the practice in such matters (hādhā al-ʿamal fīh). As for intact
goods to which the purchaser has not made any improvements but that sell
well and have undergone an increase in their price with the result that the
seller desires to repossess them for himself and the other creditors want to
retain them for their own benefit, the other creditors have a choice between
paying the seller the goods’ purchase price in full, without any reduction, or
abandoning the goods to him. If, on the other hand, the price of the goods
has decreased, the original seller has the option of repossessing his goods,
forgoing any recourse to the rest of the debtor’s property, or he may elect
to become one of the general creditors and take his pro rata share of the
debtor’s property, abandoning the claim to his specific goods.”
2096. Mālik said, regarding the insolvency of someone who has purchased
on credit a handmaiden or a female beast of burden that gave birth while in
his possession before he became insolvent, “The handmaiden or the beast
of burden, as applicable, and her offspring revert to the seller, unless the
other creditors want her, in which case they must pay the seller what he is
owed in full, and then they may keep her and her child.”

Chapter 43. What Is Permissible with Respect to Loans (Salaf)

2097. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār that
Abū Rāfiʿ, the freedman (mawlā) of the Messenger of God (pbuh), said,
“The Messenger of God (pbuh) once borrowed a young male camel. He
later received camels that were submitted as part of the alms-tax (ṣadaqa).
594 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

The Messenger of God (pbuh) then directed me to return a camel to the

lender, but I said to him, ‘I could find only fine seven-year-old camels in the
herd.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Give him one of them. The best of
people are those who repay their debts in the best way.’”
2098. According to Mālik, Ḥumayd b. Qays al-Makkī reported that Mujāhid
said, “ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar borrowed a number of dirhams from someone,
and when he later repaid his debt, he did so with higher-quality coins. The
man said, ‘Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān! These coins are superior to the ones I lent
you!’843 ʿAbd Allāh said, ‘I know, but I am happy to do this.’”
2099. Mālik said, “It is not objectionable if a person who has borrowed
gold, silver, food, or animals repays his lender with something better than
that which he borrowed from him, provided that he was not required to do
so by a prior stipulation, promise, or custom as part of the loan. But if the
terms of repayment were imposed through a stipulation, a promise, or a
custom as part of the loan, it is forbidden, and there is no good in it. That is
because the Messenger of God (pbuh) gave a good seven-year-old camel in
repayment to the man who lent him a young camel, and because ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿUmar borrowed some dirhams and repaid the loan with higher-quality
coins. When the borrower does so voluntarily and freely, not pursuant to a
prior stipulation, promise, or custom as part of the loan, the excess payment
is licit and unobjectionable.”

Chapter 44. What Is Impermissible with Respect to Loans (Salaf)

2100. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
disapproved of someone lending food to another person on the condition
that he repay it in a different town, saying, “What about the transport?” He
meant the cost of transporting the food to the other town.
2101. According to Mālik, it reached him that a man went to ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿUmar and said, “Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān! I made a loan to someone on the
condition that he repay me with something better than what I lent him.”
ʿAbd Allāh said, “That is an unlawful gain (ribā).” The man said, “What do
you advise me to do then, Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān?” ʿAbd Allāh said, “There are
three kinds of loans: a loan that you make for the sake of God, so look to God
to reward you for that loan; a loan that you make for the sake of your friend,
so look to your friend to reward you for that loan; and finally, a loan that you
make in which you advance something wholesome and receive in return
something foul, that foul thing being an unlawful gain.” The man said, “What
do you direct me to do in this case, then, Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān?” He said, “I

843 That is, they had a higher silver content.

Book 34 595

think that you should tear up your agreement. If he gives you back what you
loaned him in kind, accept it; if he gives you less than what you loaned him
and you are satisfied with it, God will reward you; and if he gives you more
than what you loaned him, freely and voluntarily, that is an act of gratitude
on his part. And God will certainly reward you for giving him any extra time
to repay you.”
2102. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that he heard ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar say, “No one who makes a loan should stipulate anything other than
its repayment.”
2103. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd would
say, “A person who makes a loan may not stipulate that it be repaid with
something better than what he gave. If the lender stipulates even a handful
of fodder in addition to what he loaned, that is an unlawful gain.”
2104. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ
ʿalayhi ʿindanā) is that there is nothing objectionable in a person borrowing
an animal with specific designated characteristics. In such a case, he is
obliged to repay the loan by giving back an animal with similar features.
Handmaidens are excluded from this rule since lending them out may
become a means of making permitted something that is not permissible,
and that is not acceptable. An example of what is prohibited in this respect
is a man who borrows a handmaiden and then has intercourse with her as
he wishes. Later, he returns that very same handmaiden to her owner. That
is not licit, nor valid, and the people of knowledge have always prohibited
it, refusing to make an exception for anyone in this matter (lam yazal ahl
al-ʿilm yanhawna ʿanhu wa-lā yurakhkhiṣūna fīhi li-aḥad).”

Chapter 45. What Is Prohibited in Bargaining and Trading

2105. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Do not make an offer after someone else
has made a firm offer.”
2106. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Do not leave the city to
meet caravans outside the city’s borders in order to trade with them before
they arrive at the market; do not make an offer after someone else has made
a firm offer; do not advance fictitious bids (najsh); let no townsman sell
on behalf of a bedouin; and do not bind the udders of camels and sheep
(ghanam). Whoever purchases such an animal is permitted to choose
the most favorable of the following two options, after milking it: he may
keep the animal if he is satisfied with it, or he may return it along with
596 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

two kilograms (one ṣāʿ) of dates if he dislikes it.” Mālik said, “What the
Messenger of God (pbuh) meant when he said ‘Do not make an offer after
someone else has made a firm offer,’ as far as we have come to understand
it, and God knows best, is that he prohibited a man from outbidding another
for something offered for sale only when it is clear that the seller has come
to an agreement with a prospective purchaser, and all that is left to do is
weigh the gold, establish liability for defects, and similar matters, such that
it is apparent that the seller has substantially come to an agreement with
the prospective purchaser. Making a new offer in these circumstances is
what the Prophet (pbuh) prohibited, and God knows best.”
2107. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable in holding a public
auction for the sale of goods in which numerous people are permitted to bid
against one another. Were it the case that people must refrain from bidding
after the first bid is made, goods would be sold at unreasonably low prices,
which would harm the well-being of sellers with respect to their goods. The
rule among us has always been in accordance with this (lam yazal al-amr
ʿindanā ʿalā hādhā).”
2108. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited fictitious bids. Mālik said, “Najsh
is when someone offers another more for his goods than they are really
worth, without an actual intent to purchase them, with a view to having
other bidders take their cue from his fictitious bid and raise their offers
in response.”

Chapter 46. Miscellaneous Matters Related to Sales

2109. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported from ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿUmar that a man mentioned to the Messenger of God (pbuh) that he
regularly made poor deals in the market. The Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “When you bargain, say ‘No trickery!’” Mālik said, “Whenever this man
bargained after that, he would say, ‘No trickery!’”
2110. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he heard Saʿīd b.
al-Musayyab say, “If you go to a place whose people give full measure, stay
there as long as you can, and if you go to a place whose people do not, stay
there no longer than is necessary.”
2111. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he heard Muḥammad
b. al-Munkadir say, “God loves a man who is liberal when he sells, liberal
when he buys, liberal when he pays his debts, and liberal when he collects
what others owe him.”
Book 34 597

2112. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a man who purchases camels or
sheep (ghanam), cloth, slaves, or other goods using estimation, ‘Sales based
on estimates are not permitted for goods that are sold by number and that
are amenable to a precise enumeration.’”
2113. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘There is nothing objectionable in someone
giving another person some of his own goods to sell after having appraised
their fair market value, and saying to him, “If you manage to sell the goods
for the price that I have determined for you, I’ll give you one dinar,” or some
other amount that he specifies for him and about which they come to a
mutual agreement, “but if you don’t sell them, you get nothing,” insofar as
the owner of the goods specified a sale price for his goods and a wage that
the other person would receive if he successfully sold them and specified
that if he failed, he would get nothing. This is similar to the case in which
someone says to another, “If you are able to recover my runaway slave
or my stray camel, I’ll give you such-and-such.” This is a reward, not a
wage, and had it been deemed a wage, this would not have been a valid
employment contract.’”
2114. Mālik said, “As for a man being given goods and told, ‘Sell them at
whatever price you can, and I’ll give you such-and-such,’ that is, for every
dinar some portion that the owner of the goods specifies, this is not a valid
contract because each time he sells the goods at a lower price, he reduces
what is due to him in accordance with what was specified in the agreement.
This involves material indeterminacy in the consideration (gharar) insofar
as he does not know how much he will receive for his labor.”
2115. According to Mālik, he asked Ibn Shihāb about a man who leases a
beast of burden and then hires it out for more than he himself is paying for
it. Ibn Shihāb said, “There is nothing objectionable in that.”

The Book of Sales Has Been Completed, with Praise

to God for His Beautiful Assistance.
 Book 35
The Book of Judicial Rulings (Aqḍiya)

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family
and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.

Chapter 1. The Merits of Good Faith in Litigation

2116. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father, from
Zaynab bt. Abī Salama, from Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh),
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “I am only a human being. You bring
your disputes to me. Sometimes one of you is more eloquent than the other
in pleading his case, and as a result I rule in his favor on the basis of what he
has told me. Accordingly, if I rule in favor of a party, giving him something
that rightfully belongs to the other, he should refuse it in its entirety, for in
that case I am only awarding him a piece of Hell.”
2117. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that a Muslim and a Jew brought a dispute to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb. ʿUmar
determined that the Jew was in the right and so ruled in his favor. The Jew
said to him, “By God, you have judged rightly.” ʿUmar poked him with his
whip and said, “What makes you so sure?” The Jew said, “We believe that
every judge, as long as he determines to rule justly, has an angel on his right
and an angel on his left, the twain guiding him and succoring him, so that
he may rule rightly. If he turns his back on justice, however, they ascend to
heaven and abandon him.”

Chapter 2. On Giving Truthful Testimony

2118. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Ḥazm reported from his
father, from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr b. ʿUthmān, from Abū ʿAmra al-Anṣārī, from
Zayd b. Khālid al-Juhanī, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Do you
know who makes the best witness? The one who gives his testimony before
it is demanded of him and relates it before he is questioned about it.”

599
600 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2119. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported that an

Iraqi man went to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb and said, “I have come to complain
to you about a pitiable state of affairs, one that has no beginning or end.”
ʿUmar said to him, “What is it?” The man said, “Perjury has spread to every
corner of our land.” ʿUmar then said to him, “Is that indeed so?” The man
said, “Yes, indeed.” ʿUmar said, “By God, no man may be detained under the
law of Islam except on the basis of the testimony of honest witnesses.”
2120. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said,
“Neither the testimony of a party to the case nor that of someone having an
interest in the outcome of a case is admissible.”

Chapter 3. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding the Admissibility

of Testimony (Shahāda) of a Witness Who Has Been Duly Punished
for Slander
2121. According to Mālik, it reached him from Sulaymān b. Yasār and others
that they had been asked whether the testimony of a man who has been duly
punished for slander is admissible. They said, “Yes, if he has subsequently
manifested sincere remorse.”
2122. According to Mālik, he heard someone ask Ibn Shihāb this question,
and his view was the same as that of Sulaymān b. Yasār.
2123. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘That is the rule among us (dhālika al-amr
ʿindanā). This is because God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says, “Those who
slander chaste women but produce not four witnesses in support of their
allegations—scourge them with eighty lashes and never again accept their
testimony, for these are the wicked transgressors; save those who repent
thereafter and make right. God, indeed, is Oft-Forgiving, Compassionate.”’”844
2124. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule about which there is no dissent
among us (al-amr alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi ʿindanā) is that the testimony of
someone who has been duly punished for slander but has subsequently
manifested sincere remorse and thereafter acted uprightly is admissible.
Of all the views that I have heard regarding that question, this is the one I
prefer most.”

844 Al-Nūr, 24:4–5.

Book 35 601

Chapter 4. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding Reliance on the

Testimony of a Single Witness (Shāhid) and the Claimant’s Oath
(Yamīn)
2125. According to Mālik, Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad reported from his father that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) decided cases on the basis of the testimony of
a single witness and the claimant’s oath.
2126. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported that ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz
sent a prescript to ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Zayd b. al-Khaṭṭāb,
who was at the time the governor of Kufa, stating, “Pass judgment on the
basis of the testimony of a single witness and the claimant’s oath.”
2127. According to Mālik, it reached him that Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
and Sulaymān b. Yasār were both asked, “Is it valid for a judge to decide a
case relying on the testimony of a single witness and the claimant’s oath?”
Each of them said, “Yes.”
2128. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘It has long been the established ordinance
(maḍat al-sunna) that judgment is given in accordance with the testimony
of a single witness and the claimant’s oath. If the claimant swears an oath
corroborating his witness’s testimony, he is entitled to what he claims is
his due. If he declines, however, and refuses to swear such an oath, the
defendant is given the opportunity to swear. If he does, the claim against
him is dismissed. If the defendant refuses to swear, however, the claimant is
granted his claim against the defendant.’”
2129. Mālik said, “That rule applies solely to cases involving disputes about
property (amwāl). It is not applicable in any case involving the mandatory
rules (ḥudūd), criminal or otherwise, nor in cases involving marriage
(nikāḥ), divorce (ṭalāq), manumission (ʿatāqa), theft (sariqa), or slander
(fariyya). Anyone who says, ‘But a claim of manumission involves property,’
is mistaken. It is not at all as he claims. Were this statement true, a slave
could produce a single witness to testify that his master has manumitted
him, and then the slave could swear an oath corroborating that testimony
and be adjudicated a free person. Alternatively, a slave could produce a
witness in support of his claim to some property, in which case he could
swear an oath corroborating the testimony of his witness and be awarded
his claim, just as a free person would have been offered the oath in similar
circumstances. Neither, however, is the case.”
2130. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The long-established ordinance among us
(al-sunna ʿindanā) is that if a slave produces a single witness who testifies
to the fact of his manumission, his master is asked to swear an oath
602 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

denying that he manumitted him. If he does so, the slave’s claim fails
and is dismissed. The long-established ordinance among us concerning
divorce is the same. If a woman brings forward a single witness claiming
that her husband divorced her, her husband is asked to swear an oath
denying that he did. If he takes the oath, her claim of divorce is dismissed.
Accordingly, the long-established ordinance regarding the testimony of a
single witness in claims of divorce and manumission is the same, namely,
that the husband and the master are each obliged to swear an oath denying
the claim. Manumission, moreover, is an instance of a mandatory rule
of law,845 and the testimony of women is thus not admissible as proof in
such cases. That is because when a slave is manumitted, his inviolability
under the law becomes perfected, and he is entitled to the full protection
of the law just as he becomes fully culpable for violating it:846 if he commits
fornication after having attained chastity, he must be stoned to death; if
he is killed, his killer is subject to being put to death for taking his life; and
upon his death, his property is recognized as an inheritable estate (mīrāth),
which he can pass to his legal heirs (rather than his property reverting to
his master). Someone might dispute this, saying, “Say a master manumits
his slave, and someone appears claiming to be a creditor of the master;
if the creditor produces a single male witness and two female witnesses
who testify in support of his claim, their testimony is sufficient to establish
the creditor’s right against the master and, if the master’s only property is
that slave, to repeal the slave’s manumission,” the point of this objection
being to establish that women’s testimony is admissible in cases involving
manumission. That example, however, cannot be understood in such a
fashion; rather, it is the equivalent of a case in which a man manumits his
slave, and then a creditor of the slave’s master appears and asserts his claim
against the master, relying on the testimony of a single witness and his own
oath corroborating the witness’s testimony, thereby entitling the claimant
to judgment in his favor, which results, if the master has no property other
than the slave, in a repeal of the slave’s manumission. Alternatively, it is the
equivalent of the case of a man who has a history of dealings and transactions
with the slave’s master and who asserts that the slave’s master owes him
some money. In this case the master is told, “Swear an oath, saying, ‘I do

845 In this text Mālik uses the term ḥadd to refer to a mandatory, non-waivable rule of law. By
contrast, in later legal thought ḥadd (pl. ḥudūd) is usually associated with the mandatory
scriptural penalties for the crimes of theft, alcohol consumption, fornication and adultery,
slander, apostasy, brigandage, and rebellion. Later jurists classified any non-waivable rule
more broadly as a “claim of God” (ḥaqq allāh), in contrast to a claim that was potentially
subject to waiver and was known as a “claim of man” (ḥaqq al-ʿabd).
846 Under Islamic law, slaves had diminished culpability for violations of criminal law. On the
other hand, at least according to the Mālikīs, a slave did not enjoy all the protections of crim-
inal law, such as protection against slander.
Book 35 603

not owe him what he claims.’” If the master declines, however, and refuses
to take the oath, the claimant becomes entitled to swear an oath in support
of his claim, and if he does so, his claim against the slave’s master is upheld.
That judgment, too, might repeal the slave’s manumission, if the master’s
debt is affirmed in this fashion and he has no property other than the slave.
It is also the equivalent of the case of a man who marries a handmaiden,
whereupon the handmaiden’s master goes to the man and says, “You and
so-and-so purchased my handmaiden from me for such-and-such an amount
of dinars,” but the handmaiden’s husband denies that. The handmaiden’s
master, however, produces a single male witness and two female witnesses
who testify in support of the master’s claim, thereby establishing that the
handmaiden was, in fact, sold to her husband and the other man, vindicating
the master’s claim and thereby rendering the husband’s marriage to the
handmaiden forbidden. That results in a mandatory divorce between the
husband and the handmaiden, even though the testimony of females is
generally not admissible to prove a divorce. Another example of this rule is
the case of a man who slanders a free man and so is subject to the legally
specified penalty for slander. Then, a man and two women come and testify
that the person slandered was a chattel slave (ʿabd mamlūk), a fact that excuses
the slanderer from criminal liability for the crime of slander after liability
had already been established. This is the case even though the testimony of
women is not admissible to prove criminal cases of slander. Another case that
is similar to these, in which the rule applied in court differs from what has
long been the established ordinance, is that of two women who testify to the
birth of an infant, resulting in the infant’s right to inherit and the right of the
infant’s heirs to inherit the infant’s estate, if the infant should die. This is the
rule even though no man testified alongside the two women, nor was there
an oath by a claimant to corroborate their testimony. Such cases may even
involve substantial amounts of property, including gold, silver, real property,
orchards, slaves, and other valuables. Yet had two women testified directly
as to the ownership of even a single dirham, or an amount lesser or greater
than that, their testimony, by itself, would not have been sufficient to resolve
the case in the absence of the testimony of an additional male witness, or the
claimant’s oath corroborating their testimony.’”847

847 In this lengthy text, Mālik is distinguishing between incidental and direct effects of testimony.
The testimony of a female, to the extent that it is admissible to establish a financial liability,
may have the incidental effect of invalidating the manumission of a slave in situations in
which the master of the slave would be unable to pay the debt that was proven in part by
the woman’s testimony except by selling the slave. In this case, the effect of the woman’s
testimony on the slave’s status, according to Mālik, is indirect and thus does not constitute
evidence that she is entitled to testify directly as to whether a slave is free or enslaved. The
same distinction between direct and indirect effects of testimony is emphasized in the other
cases that Mālik cites in support of his position.
604 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2131. Mālik said, “Some people say, ‘It is not permitted to decide a case on
the basis of the testimony of a single witness and the oath of the claimant,
relying on the statement of God, Blessed and Sublime is He, and what He
says is the truth, “And if there be not two male witnesses, then a single
male witness and two female witnesses, such as are agreeable witnesses to
you.”’848 These people say that if the claimant is not able to produce a single
male witness and two female witnesses, he is not entitled to anything,
and he is not given the opportunity to swear an oath corroborating the
testimony of his single witness in order to prove his claim.”849
2132. Mālik said, “One argument against anyone who holds that position—
namely, that it is impermissible for a judge to rule on the basis of the
testimony of a single witness and the claimant’s oath—would be to say
to him, ‘You certainly agree that were someone to claim that another man
owed him some property, and the defendant swore, “I do not owe him what
he claims,” the case against him would be dismissed. You also agree that if
the defendant refused to swear that oath, and the claimant swore, “My claim
is indeed true,” his claim against the defendant would be upheld. No one
disputes this rule, nor is there any dissension regarding it in any Muslim
town.’ But on what grounds did our opponent accept that rule? Where in
God’s Book did he find it? Insofar as he accepts the validity of the latter
rule, he ought to accept the rule regarding the testimony of a single witness
along with the claimant’s oath, even though there is no mention of it in God’s
Book. What has long been established as an ordinance in the law certainly
suffices to resolve that question. It may be the case, however, that someone
may sincerely wish to comprehend the grounds of the correct opinion and
to understand the argument. The preceding discussion provides a sufficient
clarification of these issues, if God, Sublime is He, wills.”

Chapter 5. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding a Decedent Who

Dies with Debts Owed to Him and with Debts That He Owes, and
There Is Only a Single Witness (Shāhid) to Prove Each Claim
2133. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, concerning a decedent to whom a
debt is owed and against whom third parties have asserted a debt, with
only a single witness available to prove each claim and with the heirs

848 Al-Baqara, 2:282.

849 The “people” whom Mālik is refuting here are the Ḥanafīs (the jurists of Iraq). They believed
that a claimant needs to have the testimony of two male witnesses in support of his claim in
order to win his case, and if he lacks two male witnesses, the only admissible substitute is the
testimony of one male witness and two female witnesses. Accordingly, the Ḥanafīs rejected
the Medinese practice of allowing the claimant to swear an oath corroborating the testimony
of a single male witness or of two female witnesses.
Book 35 605

refusing to swear an oath alongside the testimony of their single witness

to vindicate their claims, ‘If the decedent’s creditors swear an oath
corroborating the testimony of their single witness, they are given what
they claim. If anything remains of the decedent’s property, the heirs get
nothing of it.850 That is because they were given an opportunity to swear
oaths supporting their claims, but they refused. The exception to this rule
is if they say, “We did not know that the decedent’s property would be
sufficient to discharge his obligations,” it being known that they refused
to swear only for that reason. In that case, I believe that they should be
permitted to swear the oath and take whatever remains of the decedent’s
estate after his debt had been repaid.’”851

Chapter 6. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding the Validity of

Claims (Daʿwā)
2134. According to Mālik, Jamīl b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Muʾadhdhin
reported that he would be present with ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz whenever he
adjudicated the people’s disputes. When a claimant appeared before him,
asserting a claim against another, he would first determine whether there
was any history of dealings or transactions between the two. If there was,
he would force the defendant to take an oath denying the claimant’s claim;
but if there wasn’t, he would not require the defendant to swear an oath
denying the claim.
2135. Mālik said, “The rule among us is in accordance with that (ʿalā
dhālika al-amr ʿindanā). Accordingly, when a person makes a claim (daʿwā)
against another, the claim must first be examined to determine whether
there have been any dealings or transactions between the two parties. If
yes, the defendant is required to take an oath denying the claimant’s claim.
If he swears an oath denying the claim, the case against him is dismissed.
Should he refuse to swear, however, and instead demands that the claimant
swear an oath in support of his claim, and the claimant does so, then the
claimant prevails.”

850 That is, of the debt owed to the decedent, not of what is left of the estate after the decedent’s
debts to third parties have been fully discharged.
851 This is because the decedent’s debts must first be discharged before the heirs can take their
share of the estate. Therefore, if they believe that the estate is too small to discharge the dece-
dent’s debts, they might refuse to swear oaths corroborating the debts owed to the decedent
in the reasonable belief that they would not personally benefit from taking such oaths. When
they discover that the estate had sufficient assets to cover the decedent’s debts, they are now
in a position to benefit from taking the oaths, and for that reason, Mālik is prepared to give
them a second chance to swear.
606 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 7. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding the Testimony of

Minors (Shahādat al-Ṣibyān)
2136. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that ʿAbd Allāh b.
al-Zubayr used to rule in accordance with the testimony of minors in cases
involving batteries (jirāḥ) that the minors caused one another.
2137. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
is that the testimony of minors is admissible in cases involving batteries
that they cause one another, but it is not admissible against third parties.
Their testimony is admissible only in cases involving batteries that they
cause one another, not for any other claim. Moreover, even in such cases,
their testimony is admissible only if it is taken before they go their separate
ways, are coached, or are otherwise instructed as to what to say. If they go
their separate ways before testifying, their testimony is inadmissible, unless
upright witnesses were called to record the minors’ testimony before they
went their separate ways.’”

Chapter 8. What Has Come Down regarding Perjured Oaths Taken on

the Pulpit (Minbar) of the Prophet (pbuh)
2138. According to Mālik, Hāshim b. Hāshim b. ʿUtba b. Abī Waqqāṣ
reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. Nisṭās, from Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Anṣārī, that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Whoever swears falsely on my pulpit
has reserved for himself a place in Hell.”
2139. According to Mālik, al-ʿAlāʾ b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported from Maʿbad
b. Kaʿb al-Salamī, from his brother, ʿAbd Allāh b. Kaʿb b. Mālik al-Anṣārī, from
Abū Umāma, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “If anyone deprives a
Muslim of a rightful claim of his by means of a false oath, God shall deprive
him of Paradise and punish him with Hell.” They said, “Even if it is a trivial
matter, Messenger of God?” He said, “Even if it concerns only a branch of the
salvadora tree! Even if it concerns only a branch of the salvadora tree! Even
if it concerns only a branch of the salvadora tree!” He said it three times.

Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Reports about Swearing Oaths (Yamīn) on

the Pulpit (Minbar)
2140. According to Mālik, Dāwūd b. al-Ḥuṣayn reported that he heard Abū
Ghaṭafān b. Ṭarīf al-Murrī say, “A dispute broke out between Zayd b. Thābit
and Ibn Muṭīʿ regarding a house they owned in common. They brought
their case to Marwān b. al-Ḥakam, who was the governor of Medina at the
time. Marwān ruled that Zayd should swear an oath on the Prophet’s pulpit.
Zayd said, ‘No, I should rather swear for Ibn Muṭīʿ in this very spot where I
Book 35 607

am now standing.’ Marwān, however, said, ‘No, by God; when the rights of
others are at stake, the oath must be taken on the pulpit.’ Zayd proceeded
to swear that his claim was certainly truthful, and he continued to refuse to
swear on the pulpit. Marwān was astonished at his behavior.”
2141. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘No one should be compelled to swear an oath
on the pulpit with respect to any claim whose value is less than a quarter of
one dinar, and that is three dirhams.’”

Chapter 10. Impermissible Forfeiture Clauses in Connection with

Pledges (Rahn)
2142. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Pledges may not be forfeited.”
Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘What that means, in our opinion, and God knows
best, is that a debtor may give a pledge to his creditor as security for his
debt, with the pledge being worth more than the debt. The debtor then
says to the creditor, “If I repay my debt to you in a timely fashion,” and the
debtor specifies the date of repayment, “you will return to me my pledge,
but if I do not, you may take the pledge, in its entirety, for yourself.” That is
invalid and illicit. In fact, this is precisely what was forbidden. Even if the
pledge’s owner manages to pay off his debt only after its maturity date, he
is still entitled to redeem his pledge. It is my opinion that such a condition
is invalid.’”

Chapter 11. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding Pledges (Rahn) of

Unharvested Fruit (Thamar) and Livestock (Ḥayawān)
2143. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, regarding someone who pledges an
orchard of his to secure a debt due on a determinate date in the future, and
the orchard’s fruit ripens and is ready for harvest before the debt matures,
‘The orchard’s fruit is not subject to the pledge that applies to the orchard’s
trees, unless the secured creditor (murtahin) has expressly stipulated its
inclusion in the pledge. If a secured creditor accepts a handmaiden as a
pledge, however, and she is pregnant or becomes pregnant after she is
given to him as a pledge, her child remains with her and becomes subject
to the pledge.’”
2144. Mālik said, “The reason that the fruit of an orchard is treated
differently from the child of a handmaiden is that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, ‘If an orchard of date palms is sold after the date palms
have been pollinated, the seller is entitled to their fruit, unless the buyer
stipulates otherwise.’”
608 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2145. Mālik said, “The rule about which there is no dissent among us
(al-amr alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi ʿindanā) is that whoever purchases a pregnant
handmaiden or livestock that is pregnant is entitled to the fetus, whether
or not the purchaser so stipulates. Date palms, however, are not treated like
livestock, nor are the dates they produce treated like a fetus in the womb
of its mother.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Something else that clarifies the
difference in the applicable rules is the fact that people may pledge the fruit
of their date palms without ever pledging the trees themselves. No one,
however, would pledge a fetus in its mother’s womb without also pledging
the mother, whether pledging slaves or livestock.’”

Chapter 12. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding Pledges (Rahn) of

Livestock (Ḥayawān)
2146. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The rule about which there is no dissent
among us (al-amr alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi ʿindanā) regarding the question
of who bears the risk of loss with respect to pledges while they are in the
possession of the secured creditor (murtahin) is that if the pledge involves
property such as land, homes, livestock, or any other property whose loss
is manifest to all, the pledgor (rāhin) bears the loss of its value, without
reducing the secured creditor’s claim against the debtor in the least.852 If,
on the other hand, the true cause of the pledge’s loss can be known only
from the secured creditor’s own statement, the secured creditor bears the
loss of its fair market value.853 He is told, “Describe the pledge.” After he
does so, he swears an oath affirming the truth of his statement, and an oath
affirming the amount owed to him by the debtor.854 Expert appraisers then
estimate the pledge’s fair market value in accordance with his statement. If
the fair market value of the pledge is greater than the amount of the debt
that the secured creditor claims, the pledgor receives the excess value from
the secured creditor.855 If, however, the fair market value of the pledge is
less than the amount the secured creditor claims, the pledgor is given the

852 For example, if a debtor borrows 1,000 dinars from a creditor and gives the creditor his home
as a pledge to secure his obligation of repayment, and the house then collapses as a result of
an earthquake or another act of God, the debtor’s debt is not reduced by an amount equal to
the fair market value of the pledge; the debtor continues to owe the creditor the 1,000 dinars.
853 For example, if a debtor borrows 1,000 dinars from a creditor and gives the creditor jewelry
as a pledge to secure his obligation of repayment, and the secured creditor then claims the
jewelry was stolen, destroyed, or otherwise lost, the debtor’s debt is reduced by an amount
equal to the fair market value of the pledge.
854 Mālik is assuming that the parties in this case dispute both the value of the lost pledge and
the amount of the debt that the debtor owes the creditor.
855 For example, if the secured creditor claims he is owed a debt of 1,000 dinars, and the fair
market value of the collateral, according to the secured creditor’s own testimony, is 1,200
dinars, the secured creditor owes the debtor 200 dinars.
Book 35 609

opportunity to swear an oath affirming the secured creditor’s statement,

and if he does, the difference between the secured creditor’s claim against
the debtor and the pledge’s fair market value is canceled.856 However, if
the pledgor refuses to swear the oath, the secured creditor is entitled to
the difference between the amount of his claim against the debtor and the
pledge’s fair market value.857 If the secured creditor says, “I have no idea
what the actual value of the pledge is,” then the pledgor is asked to provide a
description of the pledge and to corroborate that statement with an oath. If
he does so, his claim is taken as true, provided that it is not unreasonable.’”
Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘That is the rule that applies if the secured creditor
himself took possession of the pledge and did not put it in escrow in the
hands of a third party.’”

Chapter 13. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) on Pledges (Rahn) Held in

Common by Two Secured Creditors
2147. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, regarding a scenario in which a pledge
is held in common by two secured creditors (murtahin), and then when the
debt matures, one of the two seeks to sell his interest in the pledge whereas
the other agrees to defer collection of his share of the debtor’s obligation
for one more year, ‘If it is possible to divide the pledged property without
diminishing the fair market value of that portion of the pledge held by the
secured creditor who has agreed to defer collection of his interest in the
debt, one-half of the pledged property held in common is sold for the benefit
of the secured creditor seeking immediate repayment, and his claim against
the debtor is satisfied out of those proceeds. However, if there is a fear that
partition of the pledged property will diminish its value, the pledge is sold
in its entirety, and the claim of the secured creditor who demanded the
sale of the pledged property is satisfied out of the proceeds. If the secured
creditor who has agreed to defer collection of his claim is agreeable, he may
give his one-half share of the proceeds from the sale of the pledge to the
pledgor (rāhin) and become an unsecured creditor. If he is unwilling to do
so, however, he is given an opportunity to swear an oath, saying, “I agreed
to defer collection of my claim against the debtor only on the condition

856 For example, if the secured creditor claims he is owed 1,000 dinars, and the fair market
value of the collateral, according to the secured creditor’s own testimony, is 800 dinars, the
secured creditor’s claim against the debtor is limited to the collateral’s fair market value, and
the additional 200 dinars that he claims is canceled. It should be noted that in this case the
amount of the debt is also in dispute, not just the fair market value of the collateral.
857 For example, if the secured creditor claims he is owed 1,000 dinars, and the fair market value
of the collateral, according to the secured creditor’s own testimony, is 800 dinars, and the
debtor is unwilling to swear an oath affirming the secured creditor’s description of the col-
lateral, the secured creditor is entitled to pursue the debtor for 200 dinars.
610 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

that my security interest in the pledge would remain as it is.” If the secured
creditor swears this oath, he is permitted to collect what is owed to him
immediately out of the proceeds from the sale of the pledge.’”858
2148. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, concerning a slave whose master
pledges him as security for a debt and who has his own property, ‘The
slave’s own property is not included in the master’s pledge of the slave,
unless the secured creditor expressly stipulates otherwise.’”

Chapter 14. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) on Miscellaneous Matters

Related to Pledges (Rahn)
2149. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, regarding a scenario in which a secured
creditor (murtahin) takes possession of some goods as a pledge, and these
goods perish while in his possession, and the debtor acknowledges the debt
and agrees with the secured creditor as to its amount but they contest the
fair market value of the pledge, with the pledgor (rāhin) saying, ‘Its value
was twenty dinars,’ and the secured creditor saying, ‘No, its value was ten
dinars,’ and the agreed amount of the debt being twenty dinars: ‘The one
who was in possession of the pledge is told, “Describe it.” After doing so, he
is asked to swear an oath affirming the truth of his statement, whereupon
expert appraisers estimate the pledge’s fair market value on the basis of
that statement. If the estimated fair market value of the pledge exceeds the
amount of the debt that the pledge secured, the secured creditor is told,
“Refund the difference to the pledgor.” However, if the estimated fair market
value of the destroyed pledge is less than the amount of the debt which
the pledge secured, the secured creditor is entitled to collect the deficiency
from the pledgor. If the estimated fair market value of the pledge is equal to
the secured creditor’s claim, the pledge represents repayment of his claim.’”
2150. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
regarding a debtor and a secured creditor who disagree about the amount
of the debt secured by the pledge that the debtor gave the secured creditor,
with the pledgor saying to the secured creditor, “I gave you this pledge as
security for an obligation of ten dinars,” and the secured creditor saying,
“No, I took it from you as security for an obligation of twenty dinars,” and
the pledge consists of property that is manifest and in the secured creditor’s
possession, is that the secured creditor is first given the opportunity to
swear an oath corroborating his claim as to the amount of the debt, provided
that his claim does not exceed the pledge’s fair market value. If his claim

858 In other words, although he agreed to allow the debtor an additional year to repay the debt,
the secured creditor is now allowed to collect his debt immediately because he has been
deprived of the benefit of his pledge.
Book 35 611

regarding the amount of the debt neither exceeds the pledge’s fair market
value nor is less than it, the secured creditor is entitled to take the pledge in
repayment of his claim against the debtor. He is given the first opportunity
to establish the value of the debt by means of his oath because he had
possession of the pledge. However, the pledgor may, in such circumstances,
instead choose to pay the secured creditor the amount that he claims and
affirms by oath, and to redeem his pledge. But if the fair market value of
the pledge is less than the twenty dinars that the secured creditor claims
is owed to him, the secured creditor is given the opportunity to swear an
oath affirming his entitlement to the twenty dinars that he claims he is
owed. If he does so, the pledgor is told, “Either you give him the amount he
demands and has affirmed with his oath and then redeem your pledge, or
you swear an oath affirming the truth of your claim regarding the amount
of the debt secured by your pledge. If you do the latter, you will not be liable
for the excess of the secured creditor’s claim over the pledge’s fair market
value.” If the pledgor takes the oath, his liability is limited to the pledge’s
fair market value, but if he does not, he is bound to pay the entire amount
the secured creditor claimed and affirmed through his oath. If the pledge
perishes, and the parties contest both the amount of the underlying debt
owed and the value of the pledge securing it, with the secured creditor
saying, “I held the pledge as security for a debt of twenty dinars and the
fair market value of the pledge was ten dinars,” and the debtor saying, “No,
it secured a debt of only ten dinars and its fair market value was twenty
dinars,” then the secured creditor is told, “Describe the pledge.” Once he
does so, he is required to swear an oath affirming his description of the
pledge, whereupon expert appraisers provide an estimate of its fair market
value in light of that statement. If the estimated fair market value of the
pledge is greater than the amount the secured creditor claims he is owed, he
is given the opportunity to swear an oath affirming his claim. If he does so,
the pledgor is given the difference between the estimated fair market value
of the pledge and the creditor’s claim regarding the amount of the debt. If,
however, the pledge’s estimated fair market value is less than the amount
the secured creditor claims is owed to him, the secured creditor is given an
opportunity to swear an oath affirming the amount of the debt he claims
was secured by the pledge. If he does so, the debtor may offset the amount
he owes the secured creditor up to the estimated fair market value of the
pledge. The debtor is then given the opportunity to swear an oath denying
that he owes the secured creditor any amount in excess of the pledge’s fair
market value. This is because in this situation the party in possession of the
pledge is in the position of someone making a claim against the pledgor, so
he bears the burden of proving his claim. Accordingly, if the debtor takes
612 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

this oath, he is not liable for the excess amount claimed by the secured
creditor. If, on the other hand, the debtor refuses to swear the oath, he is
bound to pay the excess of the amount claimed by the secured creditor over
the pledge’s fair market value.’”

Chapter 15. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding the Rental (Kirāʾ)
of Beasts of Burden (Dawābb) and Breaches of the Rental Contract
(Taʿaddī)
2151. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
concerning a man who rents a beast of burden (dābba) to take him to a
specified destination but then breaches the contract by taking it to a
destination beyond that specified in the rental contract is that the animal’s
owner is given an option. If he wishes, he may demand the additional
rent (kirāʾ) that would have been due for the lessee’s (mustakrī) actual
destination, plus the contractually specified rent and the return of his beast
of burden. Alternatively, if the owner so wishes, he may demand the fair
market value of his animal at the spot at which the lessee breached the
contract, in addition to the contractually specified rent that had accrued up
to the time of the breach.859 If the contract was for a one-way rental and the
lessee reached his specified destination before breaching the contract, the
animal’s owner is entitled to the full amount specified in the contract. If, on
the other hand, the lessee rented the animal for a round trip and breached
the contract only after reaching the contractually specified final destination,
the owner is entitled only to half of the contract’s rent. That is because one
half of the rent was for the outward journey and the other half was for the
return. Instead of returning with the animal after reaching his destination,
however, the breaching party took it to another destination, thereby
breaching the contract. In this case, only half of the rent had accrued at the
time of the breach. Had the beast of burden died, for example, when it reached
the contractual destination, thereby preventing the lessee from completing
the round trip, the lessee would not have been liable to the animal’s owner
for its value, and the owner could claim only half the rent specified in the
contract. Breaching parties are generally treated in accordance with this

859 By breaching the contract, the lessee has effectively usurped ownership of the animal. Accord-
ingly, Mālik gives the animal’s owner the right, if he so wishes, to force the lessee to pay him
the fair market value of the animal as of the moment of the usurpation. In addition, the owner
is entitled to collect the rent that had accrued under the contract up to the moment of the
breach. For example, if the lessee covered 75% of the distance to the contractually specified
destination before breaching the contract by directing the animal to another destination, the
animal’s owner has the option to take 75% of the rent owed to him (assuming the contract was
for a one-way rental), plus the fair market value of the animal as of the time of the breach. If he
selects this option, however, the lessee becomes the owner of the animal.
Book 35 613

rule. The same rule applies, therefore, when an entrepreneur takes money
from an investor to invest in an investment partnership (qirāḍ), and
the investor says to him, “Do not use the investment capital to purchase
such-and-such animals and goods,” expressly specifying the excluded items
and forbidding the entrepreneur to invest in them because the investor has
no desire to invest in a venture trading in such goods. However, despite
the investor’s instructions, the entrepreneur invests in the very articles he
was prohibited from acquiring, desiring thereby to assume liability for the
venture’s capital and to make off with the entirety of the venture’s profit at
the expense of the investor. If an entrepreneur breaches his undertakings
to his investor in such a manner, the investor is given a choice. If the
investor wishes, he can affirm his share in the venture’s capital despite the
entrepreneur’s failure to respect his conditions and take his share of the
venture’s profits in accordance with their agreement. Alternatively, he can
hold the entrepreneur, who took possession of the investor’s capital but did
not respect the terms of the investment, liable for the amount of his capital
contribution.860 The same rule applies to an agent who accepts commercial
goods from an owner who orders him to trade his goods for other, specified
goods. The agent, however, breaches the contract, using the owner’s capital
to acquire goods other than those that the owner specified. In this case, the
owner of the goods is given a choice. If he wishes, he can take the goods
the agent purchased using his capital. Alternatively, he is also entitled, if he
wishes, to hold the agent liable for the value of his capital.’”

Chapter 16. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding Women Coerced

into Sexual Intercourse (Mustakraha)
2152. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that ʿAbd al-Malik b.
Marwān ruled in a case involving a woman who had been coerced into
sexual intercourse that she is entitled to receive her dower (ṣadāq) from
the perpetrator.
2153. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
concerning a man who rapes a woman, whether a virgin (bikr) or a matron
(thayyib), is that if she is a free woman, the perpetrator is liable for her fair

860 The rule that Mālik articulates is intended to deter the entrepreneur from intentionally
breaching the terms of the investment contract in order to create the impression that the
entrepreneur is holding the capital as a loan from the investor. In that case, whatever profit
the entrepreneur earns from investing the capital would belong to him in its entirety. To
deter such behavior, Mālik allows investors to choose whatever remedy leaves them better
off: either to share in the venture’s realized profit, despite the fact that the entrepreneur
violated the terms of their agreement, or to treat the investment as a loan, in which case the
entrepreneur is required to return the investor’s capital in full, even if the venture fails to
earn any profit.
614 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

dower, and if she is a handmaiden, he is liable for the diminution in her fair
market value. The rapist (mughtaṣib) is also subject to criminal punishment,
whereas the victim (mughtaṣaba) is under no criminal liability whatsoever
for the act. If the rapist is a slave, monetary liability falls on his master,
unless he wishes to surrender the slave to the victim.’”

Chapter 17. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding the Destruction of

Livestock (Ḥayawān) and Food Belonging to Another
2154. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
concerning someone who destroys livestock without the permission of its
owner is that he is liable to the owner for its fair market value as of the day on
which he destroyed it. He is not obliged to replace it with similar livestock,
nor is he entitled to give the owner similar livestock in compensation for
what he destroyed. Rather, he is obligated to pay its fair market value as
of the date he destroyed it. Fair market value is a better measure of the
loss incurred from the perspective of both the owner and the perpetrator,
whether the destroyed property is livestock or goods.’”
2155. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘Anyone who takes food without its
owner’s permission is obliged to return a similar amount of the same food of
the same quality. Food, in this case, is like gold and silver: someone who takes
another person’s gold without the owner’s permission must replace it with
gold, and someone who takes another person’s silver without the owner’s
permission must replace it with silver. Livestock is not subject to the same
rule as gold: the long-established ordinance (al-sunna) and the practice in
force (al-ʿamal al-maʿmūl bih) have made a distinction between them.’”
2156. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘If some property is deposited for
safekeeping with another party, and the latter sells it, intending to benefit
himself, and successfully realizes a profit from the sale, he is entitled to
retain the profit entirely for himself because he assumed the risk of loss for
the property that had been left with him for safekeeping until such time as
he returned it to its owner.’”

Chapter 18. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding Someone Who

Apostatizes from Islam
2157. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that the Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, “Strike the neck of anyone who changes his religion.”
2158. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘We think—and God knows best—
that the meaning of the words of the Messenger of God (pbuh), “Strike the
neck of anyone who changes his religion,” is that it refers to people who
Book 35 615

abandon Islam for another religion, such as Manicheans861 and their like.
Such individuals, when they are discovered, are to be killed at once, without
being given an opportunity to repent of their apostasy and to reaffirm their
adherence to Islam. That is because it is impossible to know whether their
repentance is genuine, for previously they had concealed their disbelief
while outwardly professing Islam. I do not believe that such people should
be given an opportunity to repent, nor can their statements be taken at face
value. As for someone who openly abandons Islam for another religion, he
is given an opportunity to repent. If he repents and returns to Islam, he is
to be left alone, but if he does not, he is to be put to death. That rule also
applies in the case of a group of people who abandon Islam: I believe that
they ought to be called back to Islam and asked to repent, and if they repent
and return to Islam, their outward professions are to be taken at face value.
If they do not repent, however, they are to be put to death. We think—and
God knows best— the Messenger of God (pbuh) did not have in mind those
who leave Judaism for Christianity or Christianity for Judaism, nor those
who change their faith to any of the other faiths known to humanity, except
for Islam. The people intended by these words are only those who openly
abandon Islam for another religion, and God knows best.’”
2159. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿAbd al-Qārī reported that his father said, “A man came to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
at the behest of Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī, who was ʿUmar’s governor in Iraq at
the time. ʿUmar asked him about the people’s affairs, and the man gave him
a report. ʿUmar then asked him, ‘Do you have any strange news?’ He said,
‘Yes, a man became an unbeliever after he had embraced Islam.’ ʿUmar said,
‘What did you do with him?’ He said, ‘We arrested him and then executed
him.’ ʿUmar said, ‘Why didn’t you detain him for three days, feeding him
every day a loaf of bread, and call on him to repent, in the hope that he
would repent and return to God’s way?’ ʿUmar then exclaimed, ‘O God! I was
not present; I did not give any orders; and I certainly was not pleased by the
news when it reached me!’”

Chapter 19. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding Someone Who

Discovers a Stranger Alone with His Wife
2160. According to Mālik, Suhayl b. Abī Ṣāliḥ al-Sammān reported from Abū
Hurayra that Saʿd b. ʿUbāda said to the Messenger of God (pbuh), “What do

861 The Arabic term here is zanādiqa (sing., zindīq). This term would later be used generically
to mean “heretics,” but in this text, Mālik has in mind Manicheans in particular, whom he
accuses of feigning outward adherence to Islam while maintaining adherence to their
pre-Islamic faith.
616 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

you propose I do if I find a stranger alone with my wife? Shall I leave him be
until I can find four witnesses and bring them to the scene?” The Messenger
of God (pbuh) said, “Yes.”
2161. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that a man in the Levant found a stranger alone with his wife, so he killed
him, or her, or both of them.862 Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān did not know how to
resolve the case, so he wrote to Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī, asking him to seek the
view of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib. Abū Mūsā therefore asked ʿAlī’s opinion about the
case. ʿAlī said to him, “This is not a case that has occurred in my jurisdiction.
I insist that you give me the details.” Abū Mūsā said, “Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān
wrote to me, asking me to get your view.” ʿAlī then said, “I am Abū Ḥasan:
if the man failed to produce four witnesses, he must be handed over with a
rope around his neck to the families of his victims.”863

Chapter 20. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding an Abandoned

Child (Manbūdh)
2162. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sunayn Abū Jamīla,
a man from the tribe of Banū Sulaym, that during the rule of ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb he found an abandoned child. He said, “I took him to ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb, and he said, ‘What prompted you to assume custody of this soul?’
I said, ‘I found it in danger, so I took it.’ ʿUmar’s advisor said, ‘Commander of
the Faithful, he is a good man!’ ʿUmar said, ‘Is that so?’ His advisor said, ‘Yes,
indeed.’ ʿUmar therefore said to me, ‘Go, and you may keep the child! The
child, however, is free.864 You have the right to oversee his affairs (walāʾ),865
and we shall provide for his needs out of the treasury.’”
2163. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
concerning an abandoned child is that he is a free person, and the right to
his patronage belongs to the Muslim community. They are his legal heirs,
and they are monetarily responsible for any batteries he may commit.’” 

862 According to the notes to the RME, a marginal note in the manuscript indicated that the hus-
band killed both his wife and the stranger.
863 In other words, the family or families of the victim or victims have the right to put the hus-
band to death in retaliation (qiṣāṣ) for his killing of the stranger, his wife, or the both of them,
as the case may be.
864 ʿUmar is explaining to Sunayn that even though the child is of unknown lineage, he is to be
treated as a free person, not a slave.
865 Mālik here uses the word walāʾ, which ordinarily refers to the right of patronage to a freed
slave, to mean the right to act as the abandoned child’s guardian. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 6:4.
Book 35 617

Chapter 21. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding Affiliating a Child

to His Father
2164. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr
that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said, “ʿUtba b. Abī Waqqāṣ, in
his last will and testament, declared to his brother, Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ, the
following: ‘I am the true father of the son of Zamʿa’s handmaiden, so find the
boy, your nephew, and raise him.’ In the year the Muslims returned in victory
to Mecca, Saʿd found the child and took him, saying, ‘He is my brother’s son.
He entrusted his care to me.’ ʿAbd b. Zamʿa objected to Saʿd’s actions and said,
‘No; he is my brother, the son of my father’s handmaiden, and born on my
father’s bed.’ They took their dispute to the Messenger of God (pbuh). Saʿd
said, ‘Messenger of God, he is my nephew, my brother’s son, and my brother
entrusted his care to me at his death.’ ʿAbd b. Zamʿa said, ‘No, certainly he
is my brother, the son of my father’s handmaiden, and born on his bed.’
The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘He is your brother, ʿAbd b. Zamʿa.’ The
Messenger of God (pbuh) then said, ‘The child belongs to the marriage bed,
and the fornicator gets nothing.’ He then said to Sawda bt. Zamʿa, ‘Conceal
yourself from him when he is in your presence.’ This was on account of the
resemblance that the Prophet (pbuh) observed between the child and ʿUtba
b. Abī Waqqāṣ. The child did not see her again for the rest of his life.”
2165. According to Mālik, Yazīd b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Hādī reported from
Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. al-Ḥārith al-Taymī, from Sulaymān b. Yasār, from
ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Umayya, that a woman was widowed and observed her
waiting period (ʿidda) of four months and ten days. She then remarried
when it became lawful for her to do so. She had been with her new husband
for only four and a half months when she delivered a fully formed child.
Her husband went to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb and told him what had happened.
ʿUmar summoned some venerable old women who had been alive during
the Days of Ignorance prior to Islam (jāhiliyya) and asked them their
opinion of what had happened. One of the women said, “I’ll tell you what
happened to this woman. Her husband died around the same time she
became pregnant, and as a result she began to bleed, and the child in her
womb weakened and ceased to grow. Then, when she remarried, her new
husband had intercourse with her, and his semen reached the fetus. As a
result, the fetus began to move about in her womb again, and grew.” ʿUmar
credited her statement and consequently dissolved the couple’s marriage.
He said, “Indeed, I have heard nothing but good about each of you.” The
child, however, was affiliated to the deceased husband.
2166. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Sulaymān b. Yasār
that after the advent of Islam, ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb would affiliate children
618 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

born during the Days of Ignorance prior to Islam to whoever claimed them.
One day, two men appeared before ʿUmar, each of them claiming to be the
father of a woman’s child. ʿUmar summoned a physiognomist (qāʾif) to
examine the child’s features and to determine which of them was the likely
father. The physiognomist looked at both of them and said, “They are both
his father.” ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, angered by his statement, struck him with
his whip and then summoned the woman and said to her, “Tell me your
story.” She said, “This one (pointing to one of the men) used to come to me
while I tended my people’s camels. He continued to visit me until both of us
believed that I was pregnant. Then he stopped visiting me, and I bled. Then
this one (meaning the other man) began to visit me. As a result I do not
know which of the two is the father.” The physiognomist then said, “God is
great (Allāhu akbar)!” ʿUmar said to the child, “Choose whichever of the two
you wish to be your father.”
2167. According to Mālik, it reached him that either ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb or
ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān once ruled on a case involving a woman who concealed
her true status when she married her husband, falsely representing that
she was a free woman. She then gave birth to numerous children by him.
ʿUmar (or ʿUthmān) ruled that the husband must redeem his children from
slavery by giving their master a like number of slaves. Yaḥyā said, “I heard
Mālik say, ‘Their fair market value is the most equitable remedy in this case,
God willing.’”

Chapter 22. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding the Inheritance of

Affiliated Children (Mustalḥaq)
2168. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The agreed-upon rule among us
(al-amr al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā) concerning a man who dies leaving
sons, one of whom says, “My father told me that so-and-so is his son,” is
that the testimony of a single male is insufficient to establish paternity.866
An acknowledgment of paternity by one of the decedent’s sons who reports
his father’s statement binds no one other than that son and is effective only
with respect to that son’s share of his father’s estate. The one in whose
favor the testimony was made, therefore, is given his share from only that
portion of property that is in the possession of the son who acknowledged
him as his father’s son. The following example illustrates this rule. If a man
dies leaving two sons and 600 dinars, each of them is entitled to take 300

866 The rule, according to Mālik, is that paternity may only be established through the testimony
of two male witnesses. A fortiori, the testimony of a single female would be insufficient to
establish paternity. That is why in this hypothetical case Mālik assumes that all of the dece-
dent’s children are male.
Book 35 619

dinars. If, however, one of the two sons testifies that his deceased father
acknowledged that so-and-so is also his son, the son who testified owes
the son who is thus affiliated to the deceased father one hundred dinars.
That represents one-half of the inheritance that the newly affiliated child
would deserve if his affiliation to the deceased father had been indisputably
proven. If the other son also subsequently acknowledges the affiliated child
as his father’s son, the affiliated child takes the remaining one hundred
dinars from the other brother, thereby receiving his inheritance right in full
and indisputably establishing his affiliation to the deceased father. His legal
position is the same as that of a woman who acknowledges that her son
or husband died owing a debt, while the rest of the heirs deny it. In that
case she is obliged to pay the creditor in whose favor she acknowledged
the existence of an unpaid debt what would be her proportionate share of
that debt had it been conclusively proven and therefore binding on all the
heirs. If she was the widow of the decedent and inherited one-eighth of
the estate, she would pay the decedent’s creditor one-eighth of his debt; if
she was the decedent’s daughter and inherited one-half of the estate, she
would pay the decedent’s creditor one-half of his debt. It is in accordance
with this principle that the amount that any female heir who acknowledges
a debt owed by her decedent must pay to the decedent’s creditor is
determined. By contrast, were a male heir to testify in the same way as such
a female heir, stating that the decedent died owing a debt to so-and-so, the
creditor would be given an opportunity to swear an oath corroborating the
testimony of the male heir. If the creditor does so, he is awarded the entirety
of his claim against the estate. This case is not similar to the previous one
involving a female heir, because the testimony of a single male is effective in
establishing the debt’s existence, and it permits the creditor to recover the
entire amount he claims if he swears an oath corroborating the testimony
of his single male witness. However, if the creditor in this case declines to
swear such an oath, he receives repayment only from the inheritance of
the heir who acknowledged the creditor’s claim in proportion to that heir’s
share of the decedent’s debt. That is because that heir acknowledged the
creditor’s debt, while the other heirs denied it. The heir’s acknowledgment
is binding on him.”

Chapter 23. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding Handmaidens Who

Bear Their Masters’ Children (Umm Walad)
2169. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh, from
his father, that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “Men are having sexual relations
with their handmaidens and then abandoning them and denying paternity
of their children. Any master who admits to having had sexual relations
620 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

with his handmaiden will be deemed the father of her child. Whether he
claims to have practiced withdrawal (ʿazl) or not will not matter.”867
2170. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that Ṣafiyya bt. Abī ʿUbayd informed
him that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “Men are having sexual relations with
their handmaidens, and then leaving them to come and go as they wish.
Any master who admits to having had sexual relations with his handmaiden
will be deemed the father of her child. Send them out of your homes or keep
them inside; it will not matter.”868
2171. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
regarding a handmaiden who bears a child for her master is that if she
commits a battery (jināya), her master is liable only up to her fair market
value. Even if the injury she caused exceeds her fair market value, he is not
liable for more than that.’”

Chapter 24. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding the Reclamation of

Unused Land (Mawāt)
2172. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Anyone who puts to productive use unused
land shall become its owner, but no right will grow out of an unjust root
(ʿirq ẓālim).” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘“An unjust root” refers to anything that
was dug, taken, or planted without right.’”869
2173. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh, from
his father, that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “Anyone who puts to productive
use unused land shall become its owner.” Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule
among us is in accordance with that (ʿalā dhālika al-amr ʿindanā).’”

Chapter 25. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding Access to Water

2174. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b.
Ḥazm reported that it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said,

867 In other words, the master will not be able to deny paternity by claiming that he had engaged
in birth control. The only defense Mālikī jurists permit to a master who admits to having had
sexual relations with his handmaiden but who denies paternity of her child is the claim that
he ceased having sexual relations with her, that she subsequently menstruated (istibrāʾ), and
that he did not resume sexual relations with her afterward. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 6:20.
868 In this report, ʿUmar affirms the absolute liability of masters for the children of their
handmaidens if they admit to having had sexual relations with them. Accordingly, a master
will not be permitted to disclaim paternity on the grounds that another man had sexual
relations with his handmaiden while she was outside the home.
869 In other words, digging a well on someone else’s land, seizing and cultivating land belonging
to someone else, or planting fruit trees or vines on someone else’s land will not result in
legitimate rights, in contrast to such acts taken on land that is free of any prior claims.
Book 35 621

regarding the flood channels of Mahzūr and Mudhaynīb,870 “The upstream

user may retain floodwater until it reaches the ankles. Thereafter, he must
release the remainder and let it flow to the downstream user.”
2175. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Excess water from a well
in the countryside may not be withheld to deter others from pasturing their
herds in the well’s vicinity.”871
2176. According to Mālik, Abū al-Rijāl Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
reported that his mother, ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, told him that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “No one should be excluded from even the
puddles surrounding a well.”872

Chapter 26. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding Easements

(Mirfaq)
2177. According to Mālik, ʿAmr b. Yaḥyā al-Māzinī reported from his father
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “No one is to cause harm, nor repay
one injury with another.”
2178. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “One should not forbid his
neighbor from placing a wooden peg in his wall.”873 Abū Hurayra then said,
“Why is it that you people nonetheless shun this act of neighborliness? By
God, I shall most certainly continue to admonish you about this until you
observe it.”
2179. According to Mālik, ʿAmr b. Yaḥyā al-Māzinī reported from his father
that al-Ḍaḥḥāk b. Khalīfa dug an irrigation canal that began in al-ʿUrayḍ.874 He

870 Two flood valleys in Medina.

871 Mālikīs interpreted this report as referring to a well that is dug in the countryside on prop-
erty that is not privately owned. In such a case, the person who dug the well has the right
of first use to the well’s water for his own animals, but he must not seek to retain exclusive
access to the pasture available in the vicinity of his well by forbidding the herds of others to
use the well’s excess water. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 6:34–35.
872 Mālikīs interepreted this statement as applying to two situations. The first involves a well
that is owned in common, with the co-owners taking turns to use the well water for their
respective irrigation needs: a co-owner is not entitled to prevent any other co-owner’s use
of the well water in quantities that cause no harm to the other co-owner(s), regardless of the
details of their co-use arrangement. The second involves a well that is wholly owned by a
single individual. In this case, his neighbor has no right to any of the well’s water except if his
own well has collapsed. In this case, he may obtain a judicial order granting him access to his
neighbor’s well while he repairs his own well. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 6:38–39.
873 Both Mālikīs and Ḥanafīs interpreted this hadith as a commending the wall’s owner for per-
mitting his neighbor to use it out of good will, but not as imposing a legally enforceable duty
upon him to do so. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 6:43.
874 A flood channel close to Medina.
622 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

wanted to extend it through property belonging to Muḥammad b. Maslama

(whose property lay between his own and al-ʿUrayḍ), but Muḥammad
refused to give him permission. Al-Ḍaḥḥāk said to him, “Why do you forbid
me to do so, even though it would be advantageous for you? You could draw
water from it whenever you wish, and it causes you no harm.” Muḥammad
continued to refuse, however, so al-Ḍaḥḥāk raised the issue with ʿUmar
b. al-Khaṭṭāb. ʿUmar summoned Muḥammad and ordered him not to
interfere with al-Ḍaḥḥāk’s plan, but Muḥammad still refused to cooperate.
Exasperated, ʿUmar said to him, “Why do you wish to prevent your brother
from doing something that will benefit you both? You can draw water
from it when you wish, and it causes you no harm.” Muḥammad, however,
continued to refuse to give his permission. ʿUmar, his patience now having
run out, said, “By God, he can certainly pass the canal through Muḥammad’s
property, in spite of him!” ʿUmar therefore gave al-Ḍaḥḥāk permission to
extend the canal over Muḥammad’s property, so al-Ḍaḥḥāk did.
2180. According to Mālik, ʿAmr b. Yaḥyā al-Māzinī reported that his father
said, “ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf owned a stream that passed through my
grandfather’s orchard. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān wished to divert it to a corner of the
orchard that was closer to his property, but the owner of the garden refused
to give him permission. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān raised the issue with ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb, who ruled in favor of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān and gave him permission
to divert the stream.”

Chapter 27. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding the Partition

(Qasm) of Properties
2181. According to Mālik, Thawr b. Zayd al-Dīlī said, “It reached me that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘The ownership rights in respect of any home
or land that was partitioned during the Days of Ignorance prior to Islam
(jāhiliyya) remain as they are in accordance with that partition; however,
ownership rights in respect of any home or land that was not partitioned
prior to the advent of Islam shall be partitioned in accordance with the law
of Islam.’”
2182. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, regarding a decedent who left
property in ʿĀliya and Sāfila,875 ‘Rain-fed land is not to be partitioned along
with irrigated land, unless the decedent’s heirs agree to do so. Rain-fed land
is, however, partitioned along with spring-fed land, if they are of similar
quality. If the decedent’s properties that are to be partitioned are in the
same district and reasonably close to one another, each piece of land is to

875 Two districts in Medina.

Book 35 623

be appraised separately and then partitioned among the decedent’s heirs.

Dwellings and homes are to be dealt with in the same way.’”

Chapter 28. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) on Crop Damage Caused by

Tended (Ḍawārī) and Untended (Maḥrūsa) Livestock
2183. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Ḥarām b. Saʿd b.
Muḥayyiṣa that a she-camel belonging to al-Barāʾ b. ʿĀzib once entered a
man’s orchard, causing great damage to it. The Messenger of God (pbuh)
ruled that it is the responsibility of the orchard’s owner to protect it during
the day from untended livestock, but whatever damage such livestock cause
at night is the responsibility of the livestock’s owners.
2184. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father, from
Yaḥyā b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥāṭib, that some slaves belonging to Ḥāṭib once
stole a she-camel belonging to a man from the Muzayna tribe, and they
slaughtered and ate it. The case was brought to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb. He
initially found them guilty of theft and ordered Kathīr b. al-Ṣalt to amputate
their hands as punishment. Then, however, ʿUmar thought better of it and
changed his mind, saying to Ḥāṭib, “I think you must have been starving
them. By God, I have resolved to impose a hefty fine on you!” He then
asked the man from Muzayna, the stolen camel’s owner, “How much was
your she-camel worth?” The man said to him, “By God, I had turned down
offers of 400 dirhams for her.” ʿUmar said to Ḥāṭib, “Give him 800 dirhams
in compensation for his she-camel.” Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘Payment
of double the destroyed animal’s fair market value is not in accordance with
the practice among us (laysa ʿalā dhālika al-ʿamal ʿindanā);876 rather, it has
long been the rule of the people among us (maḍā amr al-nās ʿindanā) that
the person who destroys a camel or another animal belonging to another
person is liable to its owner for its fair market value as of the day he
wrongfully seized it.’”

Chapter 29. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding Someone Who

Injures Livestock Belonging to Another
2185. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
regarding someone who injures livestock belonging to another is that the
one who inflicted the injury is liable to the injured animal’s owner for any
diminution in its value.’”

876 “The practice among us” is the translation of the Arabic al-ʿamal ʿindanā proposed by
Wymann-Landgraf, Mālik and Medina, 417.
624 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2186. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, regarding a camel that charges a man
who, fearing for his own life, kills or injures the animal, that if the man can
produce witnesses to testify that the animal was heading toward him or
charging him, he is absolved of compensating its owner for the animal’s fair
market value. If he has no evidence to prove his claim other than his own
word, however, he is liable for the camel’s fair market value.”

Chapter 30. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding What Is Given to

Artisans
2187. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, regarding a scenario in which a person
gives a dyer some cloth to dye, and he does, and the owner later says, ‘I did
not order you to use that dye,’ but the dyer says, ‘Yes, you did’: ‘The dyer’s
statement regarding what happened is to be credited. The same rule applies
to disputes between tailors and goldsmiths and their customers, provided
that, in each case, the artisan swears an oath in support of his claim, and
his claim is in accordance with the ordinary practices of his craft. If that is
not the case, his version of events is not credited, and the customer is given
the opportunity to swear an oath in support of his claim. If the customer
refuses to do so, however, and instead asks the dyer or other artisan, as the
case may be, to take the oath, the artisan is then asked to swear an oath in
support of his claim.’”877
2188. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, regarding a dyer who receives a
garment but mistakenly returns it to someone other than its true owner, and
that person then wears it, ‘The one to whom the garment was mistakenly
given is not liable for any subsequent damage to the garment; rather, the
dyer is liable to the garment’s true owner for any such damage, but only
if the man who wore the garment did not know that it was given to him
mistakenly. If, however, he wore it knowing that it was not his, he is liable
for the damages.’”

Chapter 31. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding the Guaranty of

Debts (Ḥamāla) and Settling Obligations by Assignment (Ḥiwāla)
2189. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
regarding a debtor who assigns to his creditor the right to collect what a
third-party debtor owes him is that if the third-party debtor goes bankrupt
or dies, leaving insufficient property to discharge the creditor’s claim, the
creditor has no claim against the first debtor, nor does he have a right of

877 In this case, since the customer refuses to swear an oath in support of his claim, the artisan
prevails if he agrees to swear an oath in support of his claim. But if the artisan also refuses to
swear such an oath, the customer prevails.
Book 35 625

recourse against him. This is the rule about which there is no dissent among
us (al-amr alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi ʿindanā). By contrast, if another man
agrees to guarantee a debtor’s debt for the benefit of the creditor in reliance
on a debt that a second debtor owes the guarantor, but that guarantor dies
or goes bankrupt, the creditor is still entitled to collect his debt from the
first debtor.’”878

Chapter 32. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding Someone Who

Purchases a Defective Garment
2190. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘If someone purchases a garment that
has a defect, such as a burn mark or anything else, and the seller knew of it,
and testimony is introduced against him proving that he knew of the defect
or he admits having had knowledge of the defect at the time of the sale, and
then the purchaser further damages it by, for example, ripping it, further
reducing the garment’s value, and only then discovers the original defect,
he is nevertheless entitled to return it to the seller and is not liable for any
diminution in the garment’s value resulting from his actions.’”
2191. Mālik said, “If someone purchases defective cloth, whether damaged
by burn marks or marred by other blemishes, and the seller claims that he
was ignorant of those defects at the time of the sale, and the purchaser has
already cut the cloth into smaller pieces or dyed it, the purchaser is given
a choice: if he wishes, he may receive a rebate based on the diminution
in the value of the cloth as a result of the burn marks or other blemishes,
and retain the cloth; or if he wishes, he may return the cloth to the seller
and receive a refund of its purchase price, offset by an amount equal to the
diminution in the cloth’s value resulting from his cutting or dyeing of the
cloth. He may exercise either option. If the purchaser has dyed the cloth
and thereby made it more valuable, the purchaser has another choice. He
may elect to receive a reduction in the price of the cloth in an amount equal
to the diminution in the cloth’s fair market value resulting from the defect,
and retain the cloth. Alternatively, he may choose to become a co-owner of
the cloth along with the seller. In this latter case, the defective cloth’s value
must be determined. If it is ten dirhams, for example, and the increase in
value produced by the dyeing is five dirhams, they become co-owners of the
garment, each in accordance with his share of the cloth. On this basis, the
increase in the cloth’s value is applied toward its purchase price.”879

878 An assignment contract (ḥiwāla) entails the complete discharge of the original debtor,
whereas in a guaranty contract (ḥamāla) the original debtor remains liable to pay the under-
lying obligation in all cases.
879 In other words, if the purchaser chooses the second option, the increase in the cloth’s value
after the sale as a result of the dyeing is deemed part of the purchase price paid by the
626 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 33. Noneffective Gifts

2192. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that both Ḥumayd b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf and Muḥammad b. al-Nuʿmān b. Bashīr told him from
al-Nuʿmān b. Bashīr that his father, Bashīr, took him to the Messenger of God
(pbuh) and said, “I have gifted this son of mine one of my own slave-boys.”
The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Have you given each of your children a
similar gift?” He said, “No.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “In that case,
you should rescind it.”
2193. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr that
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said that Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq had
gifted her the harvest of approximately 2,440 kilograms of dates (twenty
awsuq)880 from date palms located on his property in al-Ghāba. When he
was on his deathbed, he said, “My dear daughter, there is no one, by God,
whom I would rather prefer to see wealthy after my death than you, nor is
there anyone whose poverty after my death would be more unbearable for
me than yours. I did indeed gift you the harvest of 2,440 kilograms of dates
from my date orchard. If only you had harvested them and taken possession
of them, they would be yours! Now, however, they are the property of my
heirs, you, and your two brothers and your two sisters. Accordingly, divide
them in accordance with God’s Book.” ʿĀʾisha said, “Dearest father! By God,
even if the gift had been more than that, I would have relinquished my
claim to the dates and shared them with my siblings, but Asmāʾ is my only
sister! Who is the second?” Abū Bakr said, “Bint Khārija881 is pregnant, and
I dreamed that she will give birth to a girl.”
2194. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr,
from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd al-Qārī, that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “Why do
some of you give your sons gifts but then retain possession of them, so that
if the son dies, you say, ‘This is my property and in my possession; I never
gave it to anyone,’ but when you are on your deathbeds, you say, ‘It is my
son’s; I gifted it to him previously’? Any gift whose possession is deferred
until the donor is on his deathbed and that would otherwise belong to his
heirs upon his death is void.”

purchaser. Accordingly, in Mālik’s example, the purchaser is entitled to one-third ownership

of the cloth. The purchaser is also entitled to a refund of his original purchase price.
880 In other words, Abū Bakr gifted her the output of the date orchard up to the amount of 2,440
kilograms (twenty awsuq), but not the orchard itself. Any dates the orchard produced above
that amount would belong to the owner of the orchard, presumably Abū Bakr himself.
881 According to the editors of the RME, Bint Khārija was a Medinese wife of Abū Bakr who
was pregnant when Abū Bakr died. Her name is reported in the sources as either Ḥabība or
Malīka. Abū Bakr reportedly married her after her Medinese husband died at the Battle of
Uḥud, which took place in year 3 of the Hijra (625 CE). She reportedly gave birth to a daugh-
ter after Abū Bakr’s death, and ʿĀʾisha named the girl Umm Kulthūm.
Book 35 627

Chapter 34. Effective Gifts

2195. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
regarding someone who gives another a gift without expectation of
receiving a like gift in return and so summons witnesses to attest to the gift
is that such a gift is effective in transferring ownership of the gifted thing to
the recipient, unless the donor dies before the recipient takes possession of
it. If the donor attempts to retain possession of the gift even after bringing
witnesses to attest to the gift, he is allowed to do so. If the recipient, the
gift’s owner, claims it, he is entitled to take possession of it.’”
2196. Mālik said, “If someone gives another a gift but later denies having
done so, the recipient may establish his right to the gift by producing
a witness who testifies that the donor did indeed give the recipient that
item of property as a gift, whether the gift consists of goods, gold, silver,
or livestock. In this case, the plaintiff-recipient must swear an oath
corroborating his single witness’s testimony in order to prove his claim
against the defendant-donor. If he refuses to take the oath, however, the
donor must then swear an oath denying the recipient’s claim. If the donor
refuses to take that oath, he is required to deliver to the recipient whatever
the latter claims the defendant gave to him as a gift. This is the rule that
applies if the recipient has one witness willing to testify to the fact of the
gift. If he has no such witness, however, he is not entitled to anything.”
2197. Mālik said, “If someone gives another a gift without expectation of
receiving a like gift in return, and the recipient dies before taking possession
of the gift, the recipient’s heirs step into his shoes. However, if the donor
dies before the recipient has taken possession of his gift, the recipient is
not entitled to anything. That is because he was given a gift but failed to
take possession of it. If the donor desires to retain possession of the gift
after bringing witnesses to attest to the gift at the time he made it, he is not
allowed to do so. If the recipient, that is, the gift’s owner, brings a claim to
take possession of the gift, he is entitled to take it from the donor.”

Chapter 35. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding Gifts

2198. According to Mālik, Dāwūd b. al-Ḥuṣayn reported from Abū Ghaṭafān
b. Ṭarīf al-Murrī that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “Whoever gives a gift to
assist his near-kin or with the aim of charity may not retract it. However, if
someone gives a gift with the expectation of receiving a like gift in return, he
may retract it if he is not given a satisfactory gift in return.”
2199. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The agreed-upon rule among us
(al-amr al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā) regarding a gift made in expectation
of receiving a like gift in return is that if the value of the first gift changes
628 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

while in the recipient’s possession, whether increasing or decreasing, the

recipient’s obligation with respect to the reciprocal gift he is obliged to give
to the donor is determined by the first gift’s fair market value as of the day
the recipient took possession of it.’”

Chapter 36. Retraction (Iʿtiṣār)882 of Gifts of Support (Ṣadaqa)

2200. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The rule in our view about which
there is no dissent (al-amr ʿindanā alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīh) is that if someone
makes a gift to his son, intending thereby to provide for his support (ṣadaqa),
and the son takes possession of it, or if the son is a ward under his father’s
supervision and the father summons witnesses to attest to the gift, he may
not later reclaim any part of it, because there is no retraction of a gift given
for support once it has been made.’”
2201. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The agreed-upon rule among us
(al-amr al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā) regarding anyone who makes a gift
to his son or otherwise gives him something that is not intended for his
support is that he may retract the gift as long as the recipient son has not
subsequently contracted a debt to third parties who trusted him to repay
them thanks to the gift from his father. In that case his father is not entitled
to retract any portion of the gift in view of the debts that his son has
contracted with third parties.’”
2202. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Or, it may happen that a father gives gifts to his
son or his daughter, and a woman marries the son because of his wealth and
the gifts his father has given him, and then the father wishes to retract the
gifts, or a man marries the daughter whose father has given her gifts, giving
her a large dower (ṣadāq) on account of her wealth and property and the gifts
her father gave her, and then the father says, “I am taking all of it back.” He is
not permitted to reclaim anything that he has given his son or his daughter if
the circumstances are similar to what I have described above.’”

Chapter 37. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding Gifts of a Life Estate
(ʿUmrā)883
2203. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān, from Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Anṣārī, that the Messenger of God

882 Islamic law recognizes a limited right of a father to retract gifts made to his children. This
right is known as iʿtiṣār.
883 A gift becomes a life estate if the donor qualifies the term of the gift with reference to either
the donor’s lifetime or the recipient’s lifetime. Such a gift consists of a property’s usufruct
(manāfiʿ), not of the property itself; the latter remains the property of the donor or, if he dies
before the term of the gift expires, his heirs.
Book 35 629

(pbuh) said, “Whoever is given a gift of a life estate (ʿumrā) for himself
and his descendants884 has effectively received an absolute gift; it never
reverts back to the donor because he has made a gift that is subject to the
rules of inheritance.”885
2204. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b.
al-Qāsim that he heard Makḥūl al-Dimashqī asking al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad
about gifts of a life estate and about the people’s opinions on such gifts.
Al-Qāsim said, “I have always seen the people observe the conditions
attached to the properties they have received from others and demand
observance of the conditions they impose on the properties they give to
others.” Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The rule among us is in accordance
with that (ʿalā dhālika al-amr ʿindanā). A property that is subject to a life
estate reverts to the donor, as long as he did not say, “It is for you and
your descendants.”’”
2205. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar inherited
the house of Ḥafṣa bt. ʿUmar. Ḥafṣa had given the daughter of Zayd b.
al-Khaṭṭāb the right to live there as long as she lived. When Zayd’s daughter
finally died, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar took possession of the property, believing
that he owned it outright.

Chapter 38. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding Lost Property

Found by a Third Party (Luqaṭa)
2206. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported from
Yazīd, the freedman (mawlā) of al-Munbaʿith, that Zayd b. Khālid al-Juhanī
said, “A man came to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and asked him what
he should do with some lost property that he found. The Prophet (pbuh)
said, ‘Note its particular details carefully and publicize it for a year. If
its owner shows up and claims it, give it to him, but if not, you may do
with it what you wish.’ The man then said, ‘What about a stray sheep
(ghanam), Messenger of God?’ The Prophet (pbuh) said, ‘It is either yours,
your brother’s, or the wolf’s.’ The man then said, ‘And what about a stray

884 Descendants (ʿaqib), for this purpose, include both males and females of a given generation,
but only the descendants of the male children in the next generation. The descendants of
female children, whether male or female, are not included under the term ʿaqib.
885 The editors of the RME report that Ashhab (d. 204/819), a prominent student of Mālik,
claimed that Mālik rejected this report, stating that it is not in accordance with the practice
(ʿamal) of the people of Medina and that he wished it had been erased from the Muwaṭṭaʾ.
According to Ibn al-Qāsim, Mālik’s most prominent student, Mālik stated that a gift of a life
estate to a person and his sons reverts to its donor if the donor is alive and to the donor’s
heirs once he dies. All gifts of usufruct, therefore, eventually revert to the ownership of the
donor or the donor’s heirs, unless the gift was expressly designated an endowment (ḥabs) at
the time of the gift.
630 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

camel?’ The Prophet said, ‘What business is that of yours? A camel can
find water for itself and trek throughout the land by itself, drinking water
when it finds it and eating bushes that it finds along the way, until such
time as its owner finds it.’”
2207. According to Mālik, Ayyūb b. Mūsā reported from Muʿāwiya b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. Badr al-Juhanī that his father informed him that he had alighted
once at the campsite of a group of people while he was on his way to the
Levant. While there, he found a purse containing eighty dinars, which he
took for safekeeping. He mentioned his discovery to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb,
and ʿUmar said to him, “For one year, publicize the find at the entrance to
the mosque, and mention it to everyone who comes from the Levant. When
one year has elapsed, you may do with it as you wish.”
2208. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that a man once found some lost
property, so he went to ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar and said to him, “I found some
lost property. What should I do with it?” ʿAbd Allāh said, “Publicize it!”
The man said, “I have already done so.” ʿAbd Allāh said, “Publicize it some
more!” He said, “I already have.” ʿAbd Allāh finally said, “I will not give you
permission to use it for yourself. No one forced you to take possession of it.”

Chapter 39. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding a Slave Who

Consumes Lost Property (Luqaṭa)
2209. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
regarding a slave who finds lost property and consumes it before the
one-year term for the public notice of lost property has expired is that the
property’s fair market value is an obligation attaching to his body. His master
has the choice of either paying to its true owner the fair market value of the
property that his slave consumed or surrendering his slave to the owner of
the consumed property. If, however, the slave retains the lost property until
the one-year term expires and then consumes it, its fair market value is a
debt for which the slave is personally liable; it is not attached to his body,
nor is his master liable in any way for it.’”

Chapter 40. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding Lost Animals

(Ḍawāll)
2210. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Sulaymān b. Yasār
that Thābit b. al-Ḍaḥḥāk al-Anṣārī informed him that he found a camel
at Ḥarra, so he bound it in its place. He then mentioned this to ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb. ʿUmar ordered Thābit to provide public notice of the bound
camel three times. Thābit said to him, “This matter has kept me from
Book 35 631

working on my own farm.” ʿUmar said to him, “If it is too much trouble for
you, release it from the spot where you found it.”
2211. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb once said, while resting with his back against the
Kabah, “Whoever takes possession of a stray animal (ḍālla) is himself astray
(ḍāll).”
2212. According to Mālik, he heard Ibn Shihāb say, “During the term of
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, stray camels were numerous and were left alone to
wander and breed, as if they were privately owned. No one interfered with
them until the term of ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān. He ordered that notice be given
with respect to them in order to determine their true owners, and then that
they be offered for sale. In such cases, if and when a camel’s true owner
showed up, he would be given the price it fetched.”

Chapter 41. An Act of Charity (Ṣadaqa) Performed by the Living on

Behalf of the Deceased
2213. According to Mālik, Saʿīd b. ʿAmr b. Shuraḥbīl reported from886 Saʿīd
b. Saʿd b. ʿUbāda, from his father, that his grandfather said, “Saʿd b. ʿUbāda
set out with the Messenger of God (pbuh) on a military expedition. While
he was away, his mother became grievously ill in Medina. Someone said
to her, ‘Make out your last will and testament.’ She said, ‘With respect to
what shall I make out a will and testament? Everything belongs to Saʿd.’
She then died before Saʿd returned. When Saʿd returned to Medina, he was
told of his mother’s fate, so he said to the Messenger of God, ‘Messenger of
God, will it help her if I perform an act of charity (ṣadaqa) on her behalf?’
The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Yes.’ Saʿd therefore said, ‘I hereby
donate such-and-such orchard in charity, for her sake,’ identifying the
intended orchard.”
2214. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father, from
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that a man said to the Messenger
of God (pbuh), “My mother died suddenly and unexpectedly. I believe that
had she had an opportunity to speak, she would have distributed some of
her property as charity. May I do so on her behalf?” The Messenger of God
said, “Yes.”

886 Other transmissions of Yaḥyā’s recension of the Muwaṭṭaʾ give the isnād as follows: Saʿīd b.
ʿAmr b. Shuraḥbīl b. Saʿīd b. Saʿd b. ʿUbāda, from his father, from his grandfather. This would
make Shuraḥbīl, the grandson of the protagonist, Mālik’s source for the report. This appears
to be a more accurate chain of authorities than that given in this text, which appears to make
the father of the protagonist the report’s source.
632 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2215. According to Mālik, it reached him that a Medinese man of the Banū
Ḥārith b. al-Khazraj887 gave some charity to his parents. They then died, and
their son inherited the very same property—which consisted of some date
palms—that he had given them as charity. He asked the Messenger of God
(pbuh) whether he could reclaim those date palms. The Prophet (pbuh)
said to him, “You have already been rewarded for your act of charity, so you
may take them as part of your inheritance.”

Chapter 42. The Rule (Amr) Commending Making Out a Last Will and
Testament (Waṣiyya)
2216. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “It is not proper that a Muslim with any
wealth to bequeath allow even two nights to pass without having written
out his last will and testament (waṣiyya).”
2217. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr
al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā) is that when a testator makes out his last will
and testament, whether he be in good health or on his deathbed, and it
provides for the manumission of some of his slaves or for anything else, he
may nevertheless change its terms in any way he wishes and do whatever
he wishes in respect of his property until he dies. If he wishes to cast aside
that last will and testament in its entirety and replace it with a new one, he
may do so. If, however, he has designated a chattel slave (ʿabd mamlūk) for
manumission upon his death, he has no power to change the status of such
a slave. This is because the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “It is not proper
that a Muslim with any wealth to bequeath allow even two nights to pass
without having written out his last will and testament.”’”888
2218. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Were the testator not able to change his last
will and testament or to change its terms with respect to the manumis-
sion of slaves, every testator would be compelled to sequester all property
specified in his last will and testament, including slaves promised manu-
mission as well as other items of his property. Furthermore, a man might
make out his last will and testament while in good health or while on a
journey. Accordingly, the rule in our view about which there is no dissent
(al-amr ʿindanā alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīh) is that a testator is free to change all
the terms of his last will and testament however he wishes, but he may not

887 The Khazraj were one of the two most important tribal groups in Medina before Islam, the
other being the Aws.
888 The master’s act of designating a slave for manumission binds the master, and such a slave
(mudabbar) is consequently no longer part of the master’s estate such that he could change
the slave’s status through his last will and testament.
Book 35 633

retract the status of a slave after he has designated him for manumission
upon his, the master’s, death.’” 

Chapter 43. The Enforceability of the Testamentary Dispositions

(Waṣiyya) of Minor (Ṣaghīr), Dull-Witted, Insane, and Spendthrift
(Safīh) Testators
2219. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Ḥazm reported from
his father that ʿAmr b. Sulaym al-Zuraqī informed him that someone said to
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, “There is here among us a youth of the Ghassān tribe
who has neared puberty and who has property. His heirs, however, are in
the Levant. The only near-relative of his present here is a female paternal
first cousin.” ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, “He should make a testamentary
disposition (waṣiyya) in her favor.” ʿAmr said, “The lad then bequeathed
his cousin a piece of property that goes by the name of ‘Jusham’s Well’
(biʾr Jusham). The property was later sold for 30,000 dirhams. His female
paternal first cousin, the one to whom he made the bequest, was known as
Umm ʿAmr b. Sulaym al-Zuraqī.”889
2220. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Abū Bakr b. Ḥazm
that a youth of the Ghassān was on his deathbed in Medina, and his heirs
were in the Levant. This was brought to the attention of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb,
and someone said to him, “So-and-so, a youth, is on his deathbed. Is he
permitted to make a testamentary disposition?” ʿUmar said, “Yes, he should
do so.”
2221. Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “Abū Bakr said, ‘The lad was between ten and
twelve years old, and he bequeathed ‘Jusham’s Well’ to his female paternal
first cousin. Her people later sold it for 30,000 dirhams.’”
2222. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The agreed-upon rule among us
(al-amr al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā) is that the testamentary dispositions
of testators who are dull-witted, spendthrifts, or insane but occasionally
lucid are binding, if they were in sufficient possession of their senses to
comprehend the content of their testamentary dispositions. But the last
will and testament of someone who was not in sufficient possession of
his senses to understand what he bequeathed and whose judgment was
overcome by some defect is null and void.’”

889 In other words, the beneficiary of the youth’s last will and testament was the mother of the
report’s original source.
634 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 44. The Judicial Ruling (Qaḍāʾ) regarding the

Unenforceability of a Testamentary Disposition (Waṣiyya) That
Exceeds One-Third of the Decedent’s Estate
2223. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿĀmir b. Saʿd b. Abī
Waqqāṣ that his father said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) came to pay me
a visit when I was gravely ill and in extreme pain in the year of the Farewell
Pilgrimage (ḥajjat al-wadāʿ).890 I said to him, ‘Messenger of God, the severity
of my painful condition is obvious to you. My property is abundant, but I
have only one heir, and she is a daughter. Shall I gift two-thirds of my
estate as charity (ṣadaqa)?’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘No.’ I then
said, ‘How about one-half?’ He said, ‘No.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh)
then said, ‘No more than one-third, and even one-third is a lot. It is better
to leave your heirs well off than it is to leave them poor, begging for the
people’s assistance. In any case, whenever you provide support to your
dependents, sincerely seeking thereby to fulfill God’s commandment, you
will be rewarded for it. You will be rewarded even for the food and drink
you place in your wife’s mouth.’ I said, ‘Messenger of God! Shall I be left
behind to my fate here in Mecca, even as my companions return with you
to Medina?’891 The Messenger of God (pbuh) then said, ‘If it is your fate to
be left behind in Mecca, it may very well be that you will yet perform good
deeds that further raise your honor and status. It may be that it is your fate
to stay behind so that some people may profit through you, while others
are harmed. O God! Perfect and complete my companions’ migration and do
not cause them to turn back on their heels!892 But alas, Saʿd b. Khawla was
indeed wretched!’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) expressed great sorrow on
his account because he died in Mecca.”
2224. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, about a scenario in which a man
bequeaths one-third of his property to someone, and also says to another
person, ‘My slave shall serve so-and-so for as long as so-and-so lives,
whereupon the slave is free,’ but then, upon investigation, it is discovered
that the fair market value of the slave amounts to one-third of the decedent’s
estate: ‘The fair market value of the slave’s service is appraised, and the
two beneficiaries divide the one-third share of the estate available for
testamentary dispositions, with the one to whom the one-third of the estate
was bequeathed taking his proportionate share of the one-third, and the one

890 The Farewell Pilgrimage took place in year 10 of the Hijra (632 CE), the year in which the
Prophet (pbuh) died.
891 A reference to the serious nature of his illness and his fear of dying in Mecca instead of Medina.
892 In other words, the Prophet (pbuh) is asking God to allow all of his companions who had
migrated with him to Medina to die there instead of turning their backs on Medina and
threatening their status as immigrants.
Book 35 635

to whom the service of the slave was bequeathed taking his proportionate
share of the appraised fair market value of the slave’s service.893 In addition,
each one of them takes his proportionate share of the slave’s labor, or of his
wage, if he earns wages. When the recipient of the slave’s labor dies, the
slave is manumitted.’”
2225. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, regarding a testator who bequeaths
one-third of his estate, saying, ‘To so-and-so this, and to so-and-so that,’
naming specific items of his property for each of them, but his heirs object,
saying, ‘He has gone beyond the one-third allotted to him,’ ‘The heirs
are given a choice. They may give the beneficiaries of the testamentary
dispositions their gifts and take for themselves the remainder of the estate.
Alternatively, they may partition the decedent’s estate for the benefit of the
beneficiaries of the testamentary dispositions, giving them one-third of the
decedent’s estate, out of which they are entitled to satisfy their claims. They
will be allowed to fulfill their claims only out of this property, whatever the
extent of their claims.’”

Chapter 45. The Rule (Amr) That Applies to the Property of Pregnant
Women, Ill People, and Those Engaged in Combat
2226. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The best view I have heard regarding
the last will and testament (waṣiyya) of a pregnant woman, as well as all
other issues related to the disposition of her property during her pregnancy
and the effectiveness of such actions, is that a pregnant woman is treated in
the same manner as someone who is ill. When the illness is not serious and
there is no fear that it will lead to the person’s death, the ill person is free
to dispose of his or her property as he or she wishes. If, however, the illness
is of the kind that may lead to the person’s death, he or she may freely
dispose of only one-third of his or her property.894 The same rule applies
to the pregnant woman. The first part of her pregnancy is all hope and joy,
with no sense of illness or fear. God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says in His

893 For example, if the aggregate value of the one-third of the decedent’s estate available for
testamentary disposition was one hundred dinars, and the appraised fair market value of the
slave’s labor was fifty dinars, the beneficiaries would split the one-third in a ratio of 2:1, with
the beneficiary of the testamentary disposition taking sixty-seven dinars and the recipient of
the slave taking thirty-three.
894 That is, a person suffering from a life-threatening illness may not give away more than
one-third of his property. He could, however, still sell his property without restriction on an
arm’s-length basis, the difference being that in the case of an arm’s-length sale of his prop-
erty he is not encroaching on the value of the estate, whereas in the case of a gratuitous
transaction he is diminishing the size of the estate and thereby threatening the interests of
his heirs.
636 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Book, “We then gave her the glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob.”895
God, Blessed and Sublime is He, also says, “She bears a light burden and it
passes, until later, when she grows heavy, both of them call to God, their
Lord, saying, ‘If You give us a healthy child, we shall certainly be among
the grateful.’”896 Accordingly, when a woman becomes heavy with child,
she is permitted to dispose of no more than one-third of her property. This
restriction begins at six months. God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says in His
Book, “Mothers breastfeed their children for two complete years,”897 and
God, Blessed and Exalted is He, also says, “Pregnancy and weaning last no
more than thirty months.”898 So when six months have passed from the date
of her pregnancy, she is permitted to dispose of no more than one-third of
her property.’”
2227. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, regarding a soldier on campaign, ‘If he
has been sent to the front lines and is marching to battle, he is permitted to
dispose of no more than one-third of his property. As long as he is in that
situation, his case is the same as that of a pregnant woman and that of the
gravely ill.’”

Chapter 46. A Testamentary Disposition (Waṣiyya) in Favor of an

Heir, and Rights of Possession (Ḥiyāza)
2228. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say regarding the statement of God,
Blessed and Sublime is He, ‘If someone is to leave any property, he should
make a testamentary disposition (waṣiyya) in favor of his parents and next
of kin,’899 ‘It has been abrogated. What was revealed in God’s Book regarding
the division of the decedent’s estate according to fixed shares (farāʾiḍ)
abrogated it.’”
2229. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The long-established ordinance
among us about which there is no dissent (al-sunna al-thābita ʿindanā allatī
lā ikhtilāfa fīhā) is that no testamentary disposition in favor of an heir is
valid unless all the decedent’s heirs ratify it. If some of them consent to it
and others do not, the beneficiary may take his proportionate share of the
testamentary disposition from those who consent to it, whereas those who
do not take the entirety of their specified share of the estate.’”
2230. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, regarding a scenario in which a person
on his deathbed wishes to make a testamentary disposition in favor of an

895 Hūd, 11:71.

896 Al-Aʿrāf, 7:189.
897 Al-Baqara, 2:233.
898 Al-Aḥqāf, 46:15.
899 Al-Baqara, 2:180.
Book 35 637

heir, so he requests his heirs’ permission to do so while he is ill and has

authority to dispose of only one-third of his property, and they consent to his
testamentary disposition in favor of one or more of his heirs in an amount
in excess of one-third of his estate: ‘They do not have the right to repudiate
their prior consent upon the testator’s death. If they were permitted to do
that, every heir would do the same, and when the testator died, they would
take the property mentioned in the testamentary disposition for themselves
and prevent the testamentary disposition of the one-third of his estate that
he was permitted to dispose of freely from taking effect. If, however, the
testator requests his heirs’ permission to make a testamentary disposition
in favor of an heir while still in good health, and they agree, their consent to
that disposition does not bind them, and his heirs can repudiate their prior
consent if they so wish. That is because when a person is in good health, he
is entitled to the entirety of his property and may do with it whatever he
wishes. If he so wishes, he can give away the entirety of it in charity, or give
it to whomever he wishes, including one or more of his heirs.900 The only
circumstance in which his request for the heirs’ permission binds them, if
the heirs do in fact consent to his request, is if they consent to his request at
a time when his authority over his property is limited and he is not allowed
to act gratuitously except with respect to his allotted one-third of the estate.
At such a time they have a greater claim to the remaining two-thirds of the
estate than the testator himself does. It is in that circumstance that their
agreement and their granting permission to him is binding. Accordingly, if
the testator asks one of his heirs to gift the testator a portion of the heir’s
right in the estate when the testator is on his deathbed, and the heir agrees,
but the testator does not in the end dispose of it in any fashion, it returns
to the heir who gave it,901 unless the decedent said to that heir, “So-and so
is weak, and so it is my earnest wish that you give him your share of the
inheritance,” and he does so. That binds the heir if the decedent specified
the beneficiary for the heir. If an heir gives a decedent his share of the
inheritance, and the decedent disposes of only some of it in a testamentary
disposition, the remainder reverts to the heir who gave it to the decedent,
and whatever remains with the recipient of the testamentary disposition
also reverts to the heir who gave it to the decedent when the recipient dies.’”
2231. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, regarding a scenario in which a person
makes a testamentary disposition stating that he has made a lifetime gift to

900 In other words, the heirs’ consent to the testator’s proposed disposition of his property while
he is in good health is legally superfluous insofar as the testator remains free to do whatever
he wishes with his property at that point in time.
901 In other words, it does not constitute additional property in the decedent’s estate to be
shared among all the heirs in accordance with their fixed claims.
638 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

one of his heirs during his lifetime but that the recipient has failed to take
possession of it during the testator’s lifetime, and after the testator’s death
the other heirs refuse to ratify the gift, that in such a case the gift reverts to
the estate and the heirs divide it in accordance with their shares as specified
in God’s Book. That is because the deceased did not intend for the gift to be
taken out of his one-third share of the estate. Therefore, the beneficiaries of
the testamentary disposition are not obliged to reduce their entitlements to
the decedent’s one-third of the estate by the amount of that gift.’”902

Chapter 47. What Has Come Down regarding Transgender Men

(Muʾannath), and Who Has the Strongest Claim to the Custody of
Minor Children
2232. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that a
transgender man (mukhannath)903 was with Umm Salama, the wife of the
Prophet (pbuh). He said to ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Umayya,904 while the Messenger
of God (pbuh) was listening, “ʿAbd Allāh, if God grants you victory at Ṭāʾif
tomorrow, I will show you the daughter of Ghaylān: when she walks toward
you, she is a real beauty, but when she turns her back to you, she is even more
of a sight to behold!” The Messenger of God (pbuh) then said, “Men such as
these are not of the sort who should be present with you in private.”905
2233. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “I heard al-Qāsim b.
Muḥammad say, ‘ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb had a Medinese wife who bore him
a son called ʿĀṣim. Sometime after his birth, ʿUmar divorced her. ʿUmar
then came to Qubāʾ and found his son ʿĀṣim playing there in the mosque’s
courtyard. ʿUmar took the boy by the arm and placed him on his mount,
intending to take the boy back with him to Medina. The child’s grandmother
caught up with them and fought with ʿUmar over the child. They went to

902 For example, a man dies leaving an estate with property worth 3,000 dinars and a last will
and testament in which he leaves one-third of the estate to certain distant relations who are
not his legal heirs. He also mentions in his last will and testament that A, one of his heirs, has
failed to take delivery of property worth one hundred dinars. That one hundred dinars is not
deemed part of the 1,000 dinars reserved for the beneficiaries of testamentary disposition.
Whether or not the decedent’s heirs ratify the lifetime gift of a hundred dinars to the heir, the
beneficiaries of the testamentary disposition receive their full 1,000 dinars.
903 In early Arabic texts such as the Muwaṭṭaʾ, a transgender man is referred to using the terms
muʾannath and mukhannath interchangeably.
904 The brother of Umm Salama.
905 The Quran’s imposition of a norm of modest dress on believing women included an excep-
tion for a group of men it described as “having no desire for women” (ghayr ulī ’l-irbati min
al-rijāl). Al-Nūr, 24:31. The behavior of the transgender man in this report, however, dis-
closed that even if he himself lacked sexual desire for women, he understood sexual attrac-
tiveness. The Prophet (pbuh) thus clarified that he did not fall under the category of those
men with respect to whom believing women did not need to observe the rules of modesty.
Book 35 639

Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq to resolve their dispute. ʿUmar said, “He is my son,” and
the woman said, “He is my son.” Abū Bakr then said, “Do not come between
her and the boy.” ʿUmar did not question Abū Bakr’s ruling.’” Yaḥyā said,
“I heard Mālik say, ‘This is the rule to which I adhere regarding that issue
(al-amr alladhī ākhudhu bihi fī dhālika).’”

Chapter 48. Defective Goods and Bearing the Risk of Loss

(Ḍamān) Thereof
2234. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, regarding a man who purchases goods,
be they livestock, cloth, or other merchandise, on the basis of an invalid
contract of sale, resulting in an order rescinding the sale and ordering the
purchaser, who has taken possession of the goods, to return them to the
seller, ‘The seller, the owner of the goods, is entitled to no more than their
fair market value as of the date the purchaser took possession of them.
He is not entitled to their fair market value as of the day the contract is
rescinded.906 That is because the purchaser bore the risk of their loss
(ḍamān) from the day he took possession of them and the risk of any
subsequent diminution in their fair market value while they remained in
his possession. Conversely, any appreciation in the value of the goods or
their subsequent growth accrued to him as well. It may very well be that
someone takes possession of goods at a time when they are selling well
and in great demand, but then the contract is rescinded at a time when
demand for the goods has collapsed and no one desires them. It might be
the case, for example, that the purchaser takes possession of the goods
from the seller and later sells them for ten dinars, or retains them in his
possession even as their price appreciates and reaches that sum, but then
when the contract is rescinded and he returns the goods to the seller, their
fair market value is only one dinar. He is not permitted to make off with
nine dinars’ worth of the seller’s property.907 Alternatively, the purchaser
may take possession of the goods and sell them for only one dinar, or retain
them in his possession with their fair market value being only one dinar,
but by the day the contract is rescinded, their fair market value may have
appreciated to ten dinars. The purchaser who took possession of the goods
is not required to pay an additional nine dinars from his own property to

906 According to Mālik, if the price of the goods transferred pursuant to an invalid contract of
sale changes after the purchaser takes possession and before the goods are returned to the
seller, the seller is entitled only to the fair market value of the goods, not the goods them-
selves. In this respect, Mālik deems changes in the fair market value of goods equivalent to a
change in the physical characteristics of the goods, rendering restitution of the goods to the
seller impossible. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 6:191.
907 This would be the result if the purchaser could simply reimburse the seller the fair market
value of the goods as of the date of rescission, rather than as of the date of possession.
640 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

the seller in order to retain the goods; he must pay only their fair market
value as of the day he took possession of them. A case that clarifies this rule
is that of a thief who steals goods: only their fair market value on the day of
the theft is taken into consideration in determining the thief’s punishment.
Only if that amount is great enough to require amputation of the hand is
that punishment applied to him.908 If implementation of the punishment
is delayed, either because he is imprisoned until a decision is made about
his final punishment or because he has fled the scene and is caught only
later, the delay in implementing the punishment of amputation is not an
effective reason to waive a punishment that became mandatory on the day
he stole the goods in question, even if the fair market value of the goods he
stole substantially decreased in the interim, nor would such a delay impose
the penalty of amputation if that punishment had not been obligatory
on the day the thief stole the goods, even if their fair market value rose
substantially in the interim.’”

Chapter 49. Miscellaneous Reports Related to Judging (Qaḍāʾ) and Its

Blameworthiness
2235. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Abū al-Dardāʾ wrote
to Salmān al-Fārisī, saying, “Hasten to Palestine, the Holy Land.” Salmān
wrote back to him, saying, “Land does not make anyone holy. The only thing
that makes a person holy is his deeds. Word has reached me that you have
been made a doctor charged with curing people. If indeed you are successful
in bringing good health to them, then blessed indeed you are. If, however,
you are merely pretending to practice your craft, take care lest you kill
someone and enter Hell therefor.” As a result, whenever Abū al-Dardāʾ ruled
in a dispute between two litigants, and they turned to leave, he would look
at them and say, “Come back, and tell me once more your stories! A quack,
by God, indeed am I!”
2236. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘Whoever uses another’s slave, without
the permission of the slave’s master, in any weighty task the like of which
ordinarily demands payment of a wage is liable for any injury that befalls
the slave, if the slave is injured in any way. If the slave emerges safely from
the task, his master has the right to demand payment for the slave’s labor.
That is the rule among us (dhālika al-amr ʿindanā).’”
2237. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, regarding a slave who is partially
manumitted, ‘He is entitled to the possession of his own property, but he is

908 The scriptural penalty for theft, amputation of the hand, is conditional on the stolen proper-
ty’s having a minimum value of one-quarter of a gold dinar.
Book 35 641

not entitled to act with respect to it beyond using it to secure his reasonable
needs for food and clothing. If he dies, his property belongs to the person
who is his part-owner.’”
2238. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The rule in our view is that as soon
as a minor child attains his own property, be it cash or goods, the father of
the child may, if he so wishes, charge whatever he spends on the child to the
child’s account.’”
2239. According to Mālik, ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Dalāf al-Muzanī
reported that a man from Juhayna would go out in advance of the pilgrims’
caravan, buy up as many riding camels as he could, and then sell them
at a high price to the pilgrims. He would then set out again, marching
quickly, aiming to overtake the caravan again, and repeat what he had done
previously. He went bankrupt, however, and his case was brought before
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, who said, “To proceed, then: O people! Usayfiʿ, Usayfiʿ
the Juhanī,909 cared so little for his religion and his reputation for honesty
that he was content that people should know him as the man who went out
ahead of the pilgrims’ caravan. In fact, he eagerly sought out your credit,
and you eagerly extended it to him, but now he is insolvent. Therefore, let
anyone who has a claim against him come to us tomorrow morning, and we
shall divide what remains of his property among them. Beware of debt! It
begins in anxiety and concludes in confiscation!”

Chapter 50. What Has Come Down regarding Losses of Life and Limb
Caused by Slaves
2240. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘The long-established ordinance
among us (al-sunna ʿindanā) regarding batteries (jināya) committed by
slaves is that any injury a slave causes to a person, any thing that he takes
surreptitiously, any animal in a herd that he makes off with, any dates still on
the branch that he cuts down or ruins, or any theft that he commits but that
does not entail amputation of the hand as punishment, is chargeable solely
against the slave’s body, and the compensation for it may never exceed his
fair market value, be it small or great. If the master wishes, therefore, he
may pay the aggrieved party the value of what his slave took or ruined or
the compensation due for the injury, and retain his slave. Alternatively, if he
wishes, he may surrender the slave to the victim, in which case the master
is absolved of any further liability. The slave’s master is free to choose either
of these two options.’”

909 “Usayfiʿ” is the diminutive form of “Asfaʿ,” which ʿUmar used derisively as a nickname for the
man who is the subject of this report.
642 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 51. What Gifts Are Effective

2241. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān said, “If someone makes a gift to one of his minor
children, but the child is too young to take possession of his gift, the gift
is nevertheless effective if the donor publicizes the gift to the child and
summons witnesses to attest to it, even if it is the father himself who takes
possession of it and manages it.”
2242. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that
if a father makes a gift of gold or silver to a minor son and then dies with
the gift still in his own possession and care, the gift shall not be deemed
effective unless the father kept the gift separate and apart from his other
gold and silver, or entrusted it to another person to keep for the benefit of
his son. If he did that, however, the son is entitled to the gift.’”

The Book of Judgments (Aqḍiya) Has Been Completed,

with Abundant Praise to God and through His Help.
God Grace Muḥammad and His Family.
 Book 36
The Book of the Right of First Refusal (Shufʿa)

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family.

Chapter 1. What Property Is Subject to a Right of First Refusal (Shufʿa)

2243. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
and Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) ruled that the co-owners of a property have a right of first refusal
before the property’s partition. However, once the property is partitioned
and boundaries delineating the co-owners’ individual rights have been
set out, the right of first refusal lapses. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘This is the
long-established ordinance about which there is no dissent among us (ʿalā
dhālika al-sunna allatī lā ikhtilāfa fīhā ʿindanā).’”
2244. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab was
asked whether there is an ordinance regarding the right of first refusal, and
he said, “Yes; the right of first refusal applies to real property, homes, and
land, and only among co-owners.”
2245. According to Mālik, it reached him that Sulaymān b. Yasār held a
similar view.
2246. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man who
purchases an interest in a piece of property that is owned in common
by a group of people, paying for that interest with an animal, a slave, a
handmaiden, or similar goods, and later one of the co-owners appears,
wishing to exercise his right of first refusal but discovering that the slave
or handmaiden, as the case may be, has died in the interim, and no one
knows what the fair market value of the slave or the handmaiden was, with
the purchaser saying, ‘The slave’s or handmaiden’s value was one hundred
dinars,’ and the co-owner who seeks to exercise his right of first refusal
saying, ‘No, his or her fair market value was fifty dinars’: ‘The purchaser

643
644 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

swears an oath that the fair market value of the goods he used to purchase
his interest in the land was one hundred dinars. Unless the co-owner can
produce testimony that the fair market value of the slave or the handmaiden,
as applicable, was less than what the purchaser claims, he may, if he wishes,
exercise his right of first refusal only by paying one hundred dinars.’”
2247. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘If a co-owner makes a gift of his share of
co-owned land or his share of a co-owned house, and the recipient makes a
reciprocal gift to the donor, whether in cash or in goods, the co-owners may
exercise their right of first refusal to acquire that share of the land or the
house, if they so wish. To do so, they must pay the recipient the fair market
value of his reciprocal gift in dinars or dirhams.’”
2248. Mālik said, “If someone makes a gift of his share of a house or
land owned in common with others, and he neither receives nor seeks a
reciprocal gift in exchange, his co-owner does not have the right to acquire
the gifted interest by paying its fair market value. This is the case as long
as the donor does not receive a reciprocal gift in exchange for his gift. If,
however, the donor receives a reciprocal gift, his co-owner may pay the
fair market value of the reciprocal gift and acquire the gifted interest in the
house or land.”
2249. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man purchases
on credit an interest in land owned in common, and a co-owner wishes to
acquire that interest by exercising his right of first refusal, ‘If the co-owner
is solvent, he may exercise his right of first refusal in accordance with the
original price and credit terms. If, however, there is reason to believe that
he will be unable to pay the price when it becomes due, he is permitted to
exercise his right of first refusal in accordance with the original terms of the
sale only if he provides a solvent and reliable guarantor having the same
reputation for creditworthiness as the purchaser of the interest in the land
owned in common.’”
2250. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘An absent co-owner’s right of first refusal
does not lapse because of his absence, even if his absence is prolonged. We
do not have a specific time limit after which the right of first refusal expires.’”
2251. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man dies and leaves land in
his estate to his children, one of whom has children of his own, but then the
child who has children dies, and one of the grandchildren sells his interest
in the land: “The brother of the grandchild who is selling his interest in the
land has a stronger claim to exercise the right of first refusal than do his
paternal uncles who were co-owners of the land with his deceased father.
That is the rule among us (dhālika al-amr ʿindanā).”
Book 36 645

2252. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Each co-owner enjoys a right of first refusal
proportional to his interest in the property. Each may take in accordance
with his share in the property. If his interest is small, his right of first
refusal is small, and if it is great, his right of first refusal is in accordance
with that. That is the rule that applies if more than one of the co-owners
wish to exercise their right of first refusal and they are unable to come to a
mutual agreement.’”
2253. Mālik said, “As for the case of a co-owner who purchases the interest
of another co-owner, and a third co-owner says, ‘I wish to exercise my
proportional right of first refusal with respect to that sale,’ and the purchaser
says, ‘If you wish to take the entirety of the interest in accordance with your
right of first refusal, you may do so, but if not, refrain from purchasing any
of it’: because the purchaser is giving his co-owner the option of purchasing
the entirety of the interest and is willing to abandon his own claim in favor
of the other co-owner, the other co-owner is only free either to purchase
the interest in its entirety or to relinquish it in its entirety. If he acquires the
entirety of the interest, he will have the strongest claim to it, but if not, his
right lapses in its entirety.”910
2254. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man purchases land and
makes improvements on it by, for example, planting trees or digging a well,
and then another man appears, rightfully claiming that he had a right of
first refusal in the sale of the land and that he now wishes to exercise that
right: “He may not exercise his right of first refusal unless he reimburses
the purchaser for the fair market value of the improvements the latter has
made on the land. If he gives the purchaser the fair market value of his
improvements, he is entitled to exercise his right of first refusal, but if he
does not, his right of first refusal lapses.”
2255. Mālik said, “A co-owner who sells his interest in commonly owned
land or a commonly owned house and then learns that one of his co-owners
wishes to exercise his right of first refusal is not permitted to defeat the
latter’s right of first refusal by asking the purchaser to rescind the contract,
even if the purchaser agrees to rescind it. In this case the latter, if he wishes
to exercise his right of first refusal, has a greater claim than the co-owner
to that interest in the property, provided that he pays the price at which the
co-owner first offered to sell it.”

910 In other words, in this case, the co-owner seeking to exercise his right of first refusal is not
allowed to acquire only his pro rata share of the transferred interest. He must either acquire
the transferred interest in its entirety or relinquish his claim in its entirety.
646 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2256. Mālik said, “If someone purchases an interest in a commonly owned

house or commonly owned land along with some livestock and other goods,
all in one deal, and a co-owner seeks to exercise his right of first refusal in
the house or the land, and the purchaser says to him, ‘Take everything I
purchased or nothing of it, for indeed I purchased them all together,’ he is
not entitled to force the co-owner either to assume the entirety of his deal
or to decline to exercise his right of first refusal. Rather, the co-owner may
exercise his right of first refusal on the land or the house on the basis of its
proportional share of the total contract price. Each item sold in the deal
must be appraised individually, in proportion to the price the purchaser
paid for it. The co-owner is then entitled to exercise his right of first refusal
on the basis of the ratio of the fair market value of the house or the land, as
applicable, to the aggregate contract price. He has no claim with respect to
the livestock or the goods, unless he wishes to come to an agreement with
the first purchaser in respect of those items.”
2257. Mālik said, “If a co-owner sells an interest in commonly owned land,
and one of his co-owners relinquishes his right of first refusal to the seller
while another refuses and insists on exercising his right of first refusal, the
co-owner who insists on exercising his right of first refusal must purchase
the entirety of the interest transferred. He is not permitted to purchase only
his proportional right to that interest and leave the rest of the interest to
the purchaser.”
2258. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a group of people are
co-owners of a house, and one of them decides to sell his interest in the
property while all his co-owners but one are away, and he gives that one
co-owner the option to exercise his right of first refusal with respect to the
entirety of the transferred interest or to relinquish it in its entirety, and the
co-owner says, “I will exercise my proportional right of first refusal, but I
will not interfere with the rights of my co-owners until they return, at which
time they may exercise their right of first refusal. If they do, the matter is
resolved, but if they relinquish their right of first refusal, I will purchase
the entirety of the transferred interest at that time”: “He is not allowed to
do that. He either exercises his right of first refusal over the entirety of the
transferred interest, or he relinquishes it in its entirety. When his co-owners
return, they will be allowed to exercise their right of first refusal against
him or to relinquish it if they wish. However, if this offer is made to him at
the time of the original transfer, and he does not accept it, I believe that his
right of first refusal lapses in its entirety.”
Book 36 647

Chapter 2. Property Not Subject to the Right of First Refusal (Shufʿa)

2259. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. ʿUmāra reported from Abū Bakr
b. Ḥazm that ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān said, “Once commonly owned land has
been partitioned and boundaries delineating the individual rights of the
co-owners have been set out, any right of first refusal (shufʿa) attached
to the land comes to an end. Moreover, there is no right of first refusal
in connection with a well that is owned in common, nor in respect of an
individual date palm.”911 Mālik said, “The rule among us is in accordance
with that (ʿalā hādhā al-amr ʿindanā).”
2260. Mālik said, “Nor is there a right of first refusal with respect to a
commonly owned road, whether or not partitioning it is feasible.”
2261. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that there is no
right of first refusal in the courtyard of a home, whether or not partitioning
it is feasible.”
2262. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man purchases an
interest in commonly owned land on the condition that he have an option
to rescind the sale, and the seller’s co-owners want to exercise their right
of first refusal in respect of the interest that their co-owner is selling before
the purchaser exercises his option to rescind, “They are not entitled to do
so. They may exercise their right of first refusal only after the purchaser
declines to exercise his option to rescind and affirms the sale. Only when
the sale has become final and the purchaser is entitled to the property may
the co-owners exercise their right of first refusal.”
2263. Mālik said, regarding a man who buys a parcel of land that remains
in his possession for some period of time until a second man shows up and
claims that he has a share in it by way of inheritance (mīrāth), “If the second
man establishes his claim, he continues to enjoy his right of first refusal
with respect to the parcel. If the parcel is productive, its output belongs
to the first purchaser until the claimant’s right is established, because the
first purchaser bore the risk of loss in case anything that had been planted
on the parcel was destroyed or washed away by a flood. If, however, an
extremely long period of time has passed, or if the relevant witnesses have
died, or if both the seller and the purchaser die, or even if they are both still
alive but the facts surrounding the original purchase and sale of the parcel
have been forgotten due to the passage of time, the right of first refusal
lapses, although any claimant whose right has been proven is entitled to his

911 The assumption here with respect to the well is that the land that it sits on is not owned in
common, and with respect to the date palm that it is the only date palm in a fruit orchard.
648 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

duly established interest in the parcel. If, however, his situation is different
from this because the sale of the parcel was recent but he believes that the
seller intentionally concealed the price and hid it so as to defeat his right
of first refusal, the parcel is to be appraised to determine its fair market
value, and that is deemed to have been the contract price. Then, whatever
improvements the purchaser has made to the parcel since the date he
acquired the land, whether raising buildings, planting trees, or completing
other improvements, are taken into account and added to the parcel’s price
so as to place him in a position equivalent to that of someone who bought
the land for a known price and then built or planted trees on it. The holder
of the right of first refusal can then exercise his right after that.”
2264. Mālik said, “A right of first refusal is part of a decedent’s estate to
the same extent that it was part of his property when he was alive. If the
decedent’s heirs fear that the value of the property will be reduced if it is
sold piecemeal, they are entitled to have the property sold only after it has
been partitioned, so that no one has a right of first refusal that can be used
against sales of the property.”
2265. Mālik said, “We do not recognize a right of first refusal in connection
with the sale of commonly owned slaves, handmaidens, camels, cows,
yearlings (shāt), or any other animals. Nor is there a right of first refusal in
connection with the sale of commonly owned cloth or wells surrounded by
cultivated land. A right of first refusal is recognized only in connection with
items that can be partitioned and are amenable to delineation by means of
borders. Any property that, by its nature, is not amenable to partition is not
subject to a right of first refusal.”
2266. Mālik said, “Whoever buys land knowing that it is subject to a right of
first refusal and knowing that the persons holding the right of first refusal
are present in the jurisdiction should initiate a case against them before
the responsible public official (sulṭān), who will either rule in their favor
or will dismiss their claim and award him the property. On the other hand,
if he leaves them be and does not sue them before the proper authority,
while they know that he purchased the property, yet they delay in taking
any action against him for a long time, I do not believe that they will be
permitted, after the passage of such a long period of time, to exercise their
right of first refusal.”

The Book of the Right of First Refusal (Shufʿa)

Has Been Completed, with Abundant Praise to
God in the Manner That Befits Him.
 Book 37
The Book of Irrigation Partnerships (Musāqāt)

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family.

Chapter 1. What Has Come Down regarding Irrigation Partnerships

(Musāqāt)
2267. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said to the Jews of Khaybar912 on the day it
surrendered to him, “I leave you be as you are in your current circumstances,
as long as God leaves you be, provided that we share equally the dates you
produce.” Saʿīd said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) would dispatch ʿAbd
Allāh b. Rawāḥa to oversee the division of the dates between them and the
Messenger of God (pbuh). ʿAbd Allāh would estimate the date palms’ yield
before they were harvested. He would then say to them, ‘If you wish, they
can stay in your possession, or if you wish, I can take possession of them.’
They decided to retain the output of the date palms in their possession until
harvest time.”
2268. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sulaymān b. Yasār that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) would send ʿAbd Allāh b. Rawāḥa to Khaybar,
where he would divide the date crop between the Prophet (pbuh) and the
Jews of Khaybar on the basis of an estimate of the date palms’ yield before
their harvest. The Jews amassed the jewelry of their womenfolk and said to
ʿAbd Allāh, “Take these! They are yours, but lighten the burden on us when
you divide the crop, and give us more than what we are due.’ ʿAbd Allāh said,
“By God, you Jews are among the most despicable of God’s creatures in my
sight, but I will not deal with you unfairly on that account. As for the bribe

912 Khaybar, an oasis town located approximately four days’ march north of Medina, was a site
of intense date cultivation by a Hijazi Jewish community. The Prophet (pbuh) campaigned
against them after making peace with the Meccans at al-Ḥudaybiya. Khaybar surrendered
after a brief siege.

649
650 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

that you have offered me, it is a foul thing, and we will not accept it.” They
said, “Indeed, this is the kind of conduct upon which the good order of the
heavens and the earth is sustained.”
2269. Mālik said, “If a landowner enters into a partnership with a laborer
who is responsible for watering and otherwise taking care of the date
palms on the owner’s land in exchange for sharing in the harvest, and
interspersed among the date palms is uncultivated land, whatever the
laborer cultivates on such land belongs to him. A landowner’s stipulation
that he will cultivate the uncultivated portion of the land himself is not
valid because the laborer has agreed to water and otherwise care for the
cultivated land for the benefit of its owner, and the owner’s stipulation
results in an additional benefit to the landowner at the expense of the
laborer. There is nothing objectionable, however, in the landowner
stipulating that any such crop be shared between the two of them,
provided that the laborer is responsible for all inputs other than the land
itself, including seeds, watering, and care. If, on the other hand, the laborer
stipulates that the owner must provide the seeds, the stipulation is not
valid, because it entails imposition of an additional requirement on the
landowner that benefits the laborer. Irrigation partnerships entail that the
laborer bears the labor costs and other out-of-pocket expenses related to
cultivation, with the landowner bearing no responsibility for any of these
things. This is the common understanding of the irrigation partnership.”
2270. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which the flow of water from a
spring that two men share to water their crops comes to a halt, and one of
the two men desires to repair the spring while the other says, “I lack the
resources to help repair it”: “In such a case, the one who desires to repair
the spring is told, ‘Repair it as you see fit, including spending additional
resources to complete the task, and if you are successful, all the spring’s
water is yours. You will have the exclusive right to use it to water your crops
until such time as your neighbor reimburses you for half of what you have
spent. Once he does, he again becomes entitled to take his share of the
water.’ The former is initially given all the water because he incurred the
expenses required to repair the spring, and because if his repairs failed to
restore the water’s flow, his neighbor would not have to reimburse him for
any of the expenses he incurred.”
2271. Mālik said, “If the landowner is responsible for all the costs of
cultivation, labor as well as out-of-pocket expenses, and the laborer is
required to contribute only the labor of his hands, he is merely a hired
hand receiving his payment as a share of the crop, and that is invalid. This is
because the laborer’s wage, in this case, would be indeterminate, insofar as
Book 37 651

the landowner specifies neither the amount of the wage nor the nature of
the tasks that the laborer must complete. Consequently, the laborer cannot
know either how much he will earn or how much work will be required of
him. He cannot know whether his wage in the end will be meager or ample.”
2272. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘It is not permitted for an investor in
an investment partnership (qirāḍ)913 or a landowner in an irrigation
partnership to reserve for himself any share of the investment capital or
of the date palms. This is because if he were to do so, the laborer becomes
a hired hand instead of a partner in the output. The landowner might say,
‘I am prepared to hand over my land to you pursuant to the terms of an
irrigation partnership, provided you act as a laborer for me with respect
to these particular date palms, which you will water and pollinate,’ or the
investor says, ‘I will give you such-and-such an amount of money to invest
on the condition that you perform ten dinars’ worth of work for me, the
returns from which will be excluded from division according to the terms
of our partnership agreement.’ Such conditions are invalid and nonbinding.
That is the rule among us (dhālika al-amr ʿindanā).”
2273. Mālik said, “The long-established ordinance (al-sunna) regarding the
stipulations that a landowner can impose on the laborer in an irrigation
partnership includes stipulations such as maintenance of the orchard’s
walls, cleaning the spring and irrigation canals, pollinating the date palms,
pruning the branches, harvesting the fruit, and similar matters, provided
that the laborer receives in exchange a specified share of the crop—half, or
less, or more, as they have mutually agreed. The landowner is not permitted
to require the laborer to initiate structural improvements to the land, such
as digging a well, installing a device for raising water from a spring, planting
new trees, or building water basins at great expense.”
2274. Mālik said, “Such conditions are no different from the landowner
saying to someone, ‘Build a structure for me here,’ or ‘Dig a well for me,’ or
‘Make a spring flow for me,’ or ‘Do some work for me,’ in each case ‘for half
of my orchard’s output,’ at a time before the orchard’s fruit has matured and
become lawful for sale. Offers such as these amount to selling fruit before
it has matured, and the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited the sale of
unharvested fruit before it has matured.”

913 A qirāḍ partnership entails an investor giving money to an entrepreneur (ʿāmil), who then
invests it on behalf of himself and its owner, with the entrepreneur receiving compensation
only out of the venture’s profits, if any, according to a predetermined proportional division of
the profits between the entrepreneur and the investor, such as fifty-fifty. If the venture does
not realize any profit, the entrepreneur receives nothing. In that case, any property of the
venture remaining after its dissolution is returned in its entirety to the investor.
652 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2275. Mālik said, “When the fruit has matured and ripened and is licit
for sale, there is nothing objectionable in the orchard’s owner saying to
someone, ‘If you perform such-and-such tasks for me,’ and specifying the
tasks, ‘I will give you half the produce of my orchard.’ In this case, however,
the owner has only employed the other party as a hired hand in exchange
for a definitive and certain wage, which the prospective worker has seen
and with which he is satisfied. In an irrigation partnership, by contrast, if
the orchard produces no fruit, if its output fails, or if its yield is less than
expected, the laborer receives only his share of the fruit that was actually
realized. The hired hand, however, contracts on the basis of a specified
and determinate wage. An employment contract (ijāra) is binding only
on that basis, because an employment contract is a type of sale in which
the purchaser purchases the labor of another. Accordingly, it is not a valid
contract if it entails material uncertainty in the consideration (gharar).
That is because the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited sales in which a
material term of the contract is indeterminate or uncertain.”
2276. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The long-established ordinance with respect
to irrigation partnerships among us (al-sunna fī al-musāqāt ʿindanā) is that
they are valid and there is nothing objectionable in them with respect to
the output of date palms, grapevines, olive and fig trees, pomegranates,
peaches, and any fruit trees similar to them, provided that the landowner’s
share of the output is specified in advance, be it a half, a third, a quarter, or
more or less than that.’”
2277. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Irrigation partnerships are also valid with
respect to cereal crops once their shoots have emerged from the earth and
they are visible. If their owner is unable to water them, labor over them, and
care for them, he, too, is permitted to enter into an irrigation partnership
with respect to them.’”
2278. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Irrigation partnerships are invalid, even on
crops for which such contracts are ordinarily licit, if the fruit has already
matured and ripened and is licit for sale. In such a case, an irrigation
partnership can only be arranged for the subsequent growing season. An
irrigation partnership involving fruit that is already licit for sale amounts
to an employment contract, because the laborer works for the benefit of
the landowner, tending to his fruit that has already matured and harvesting
it for its owner, in exchange for a share of the orchard’s output, this share
being the equivalent of a wage paid in dinars and dirhams that the employer
gives his employee. That is not an irrigation partnership. An irrigation
partnership is contracted between the time when the date palms are pruned
and the time when their fruit ripens and becomes licit for sale. An irrigation
Book 37 653

partnership with respect to fruit trees is validly contracted only when it is

entered into before the fruit has matured and is licit for sale.’”
2279. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Uncultivated land is not a proper object of
an irrigation partnership. Its owner may lease it for a determinate amount
of cash, in dinars or dirhams, or similar property. As for someone giving
his uncultivated land to another in exchange for a third or a fourth of what
the land produces that season, that transaction entails material uncertainty
in the consideration and is therefore invalid. That is because the harvest
may be large, or it may be poor; indeed, it may even fail entirely. In such an
event, the landowner would have foregone a determinate rent that would
have resulted in a binding lease contract in exchange for a mere gamble,
the outcome of which—whether it will be profitable or not—he cannot
know. That is prohibited. It is the equivalent of a case involving someone
who hires another man to undertake a commercial journey, offering him a
determinate sum, and then says, “Shall I instead give you one-tenth of my
profit from the venture as your wage?” That is not licit and is prohibited.’”914
2280. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘No one should agree to hire himself out or
to lease his land or his ship for anything other than a determinate sum, the
benefit of which does not go to anyone else.’”915
2281. Mālik said, “The reason it is permitted to enter into an irrigation
partnership with respect to an orchard of date palms but not with respect
to uncultivated land is that the orchard’s owner cannot sell the fruit his
orchard produces until the fruit matures, whereas the owner of uncultivated
land is able to lease it as-is, with nothing on it.”
2282. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule in our view regarding irrigation
partnerships for date palms is that the term of such partnerships is up to
the parties. They may contract for three or four years, or more or less than
that, if they wish. That is what I have heard. All fruit trees are the equivalent
of date palms in that respect. Therefore, the partners in an irrigation
partnership involving other kinds of fruit trees may also validly agree to a
term of several years in such contracts, to the same extent that such a term
is valid with respect to date palms.’”

914 This case must be distinguished from a legitimate investment partnership whose contract
entails the investor’s delegation of commercial discretion to the entrepreneur. In the case of
the invalid employment contract, the employee is being paid a wage out of the profits of the
venture for his service in transporting the goods to market, not for the exercise of commer-
cial judgment.
915 What Mālik appears to mean here is that when a person agrees to enter into an employment
contract for an indefinite wage or to rent his property for an indeterminate amount, he is
taking the risk that the entire benefit from the transaction will accrue to the other party in
the event that his bet on the future turns out to have been mistaken.
654 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2283. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding the landowner, ‘He is not permitted
to take anything in compensation from his laborer, whether gold or silver,
food, or anything else, as an additional consideration for the contract.
Any such requirement is invalid. Nor is it permitted for the laborer to
demand any additional compensation from the landowner, whether
gold or silver, food, or anything else. The inclusion in the contract of any
additional compensation accruing to either party is invalid. The investor
in an investment partnership is in the same position. If an additional
item is included in the partnership’s terms as compensation to either
party, both the irrigation partnership and the investment partnership
are transformed into employment contracts. Any contract that entails an
employment relationship, moreover, is invalid and may not be contracted
if it includes material uncertainty with respect to its consideration; that
is, a party does not know whether the consideration will or will not come
into existence, or he does not know whether the consideration will be
great or small.’”916
2284. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a man who enters into an
irrigation partnership with another man in respect of an orchard in which
date palms, grapevines, or similar fruit trees have been planted but parts
of which remain uncultivated, ‘There is nothing objectionable in entering
into an irrigation partnership with respect to an orchard such as this if the
portion of the land that is uncultivated is incidental relative to the fruit
trees and the fruit trees represent the great bulk of the land’s use; that is,
if the date palms (or other fruit trees) constitute no less than two-thirds of
the orchard, and the uncultivated land constitutes at most one-third. That
is because the uncultivated land, in this case, is incidental to the fruit trees,
which represent the real object of the contract. If, on the other hand, the
cultivated portion of the land includes only a few date palms, grapevines,
or similar fruit trees, which account for one-third or less of the land, while
the uncultivated portion of the land constitutes two-thirds or more, the
landowner is entitled to rent out the land, but handing it over within an
irrigation partnership is forbidden. That is because the rule followed by
the people (min amr al-nās) is that they enter into irrigation partnerships
with respect to orchards of fruit trees, some trivial portion of which may
be uncultivated, whereas they rent out uncultivated land that has a trivial

916 Under this analysis, it is invalid to stipulate a defined wage in connection with an irrigation
partnership because doing so would transform the relationship from a production partner-
ship into an employment contract. If the agreement is analyzed as an employment contract,
however, it fails because the worker’s wage is not specified with sufficient certainty: since the
laborer’s wage is contingent on the future success of the crop, he cannot know at the time of
the contract what his wage will be.
Book 37 655

number of fruit trees, just as a manuscript copy of the Quran or a sword, each
gilded with silver, may be exchanged for silver, or a gold-alloyed necklace or
a gold ring with precious stones may be exchanged for gold dinars. It has
always been the case that such sales are valid (lam tazal hādhihi al-buyūʿ
jāʾiza) and that people buy and sell these items on that basis. No bright line
or clear rule has come down to define the outer limits of this permissibility,
such that if the proportions exceeded a specific ratio the transaction would
be impermissible, and if they were less than that, it would be definitely
permissible. The rule in our view in respect of this issue (al-amr fī dhālika
ʿindanā) and the practice that the people have adopted and deemed binding
among them (wa’lladhī ʿamila bihi al-nās wa-ajāzūhu baynahum) with
respect to this question is that if the gold or silver is incidental to whatever
gold or silver is incorporated in the principal object of the sale, the sale of
that object for gold or silver is valid. The condition is that the fair market
value of the sword’s blade, the copy of the Quran, or the precious stones
represents two-thirds or more of the value of the item being sold, and the
value of the gold or silver in the exchanged item is one-third of the item’s
value or less.’”

Chapter 2. Stipulating the Inclusion of Slaves in an Irrigation

Partnership (Musāqāt)
2285. Mālik said, “The best view that has been reported regarding a laborer
in an irrigation partnership is that there is nothing objectionable in the
laborer stipulating that he have the right to use the landowner’s slaves in
performing the contract, because they are deemed to be laborers dedicated
to the property and therefore are in the same position as the property
itself. The only benefit the laborer in the irrigation partnership receives
from them is the easing of his burden. By contrast, if the slaves are not
deemed part of the property, his burden is greater. The issue in this case
is similar to that in an irrigation partnership involving land whose water
flows spontaneously from a spring versus one involving land whose water
source requires manual lifting. No one would willingly enter, on the same
terms, an irrigation partnership involving a parcel of land that, although
similar with respect to trees and fertility to another parcel of land, demands
heavy labor to draw its water whereas the other parcel’s water comes from
a continuously flowing (wāthina) spring, because of the ease of working
the parcel with the spring compared with the difficulty involved in drawing
water for the parcel without. The rule among us is in accordance with
that (ʿalā dhālika al-amr ʿindanā). Wāthina refers to a spring whose water
flow is constant and regular, neither shrinking in volume nor subject to
periodic interruption.”
656 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2286. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The laborer in an irrigation partnership

is permitted to use the slaves attached to the property only to perform
work on the landowner’s property, and he is not permitted to impose
on the landowner a stipulation that would allow him to use them for
other purposes.’”
2287. Mālik said, “The laborer is not permitted to impose on the landowner
a stipulation that the landowner provide him with slaves that he can deploy
for work in the orchard, if such slaves were not already present at the time
they entered into the irrigation partnership.”
2288. Mālik said, “The landowner is not permitted to stipulate, in his
agreement with the laborer to whom he is giving the right to cultivate his
land by virtue of the irrigation partnership, that he be allowed to exclude
any of the orchard’s slaves from the terms of the partnership. An irrigation
partnership is undertaken in respect of a piece of property in the condition
it is in at the time the contract comes into effect. Accordingly, if the
landowner wishes to exclude any of the orchard’s slaves from the irrigation
partnership, or if he wishes to include any additional slaves in it, he should
do so in each case before entering into the irrigation partnership. Only after
he has made such changes should he enter into the irrigation partnership,
God willing. If any of the orchard’s slaves then die, go missing, or become ill,
however, the landowner must replace them.”

The Book of Irrigation Partnerships (Musāqāt)

Has Been Completed, with Praise to God and through
His Abundant Help. God Grace Muḥammad and His
Family and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.
 In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate
May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family
and Grant Them Tranquility.

Book 38
Leasing Out (Kirāʾ) Farmland

Chapter 1. Leasing Out (Kirāʾ) Farmland

2289. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported from
Ḥanẓala b. Qays al-Zuraqī, from Rāfiʿ b. Khadīj, that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) prohibited the leasing out (kirāʾ) of farmland. Ḥanẓala said, “I asked
Rāfiʿ b. Khadīj whether that prohibition included leases whose rents were
payable in gold or silver, and he said, ‘There is nothing objectionable in
leasing out farmland if the rent is payable in gold or silver.’”
2290. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb said, “I asked Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
whether leasing out farmland in exchange for rent payable in gold or silver
is permissible, and he said, ‘There is nothing objectionable in that.’”
2291. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that he asked Sālim b.
ʿAbd Allāh about leasing out farmland, and he said, “There is nothing
objectionable in it if the rent is payable in gold or silver.” Ibn Shihāb said,
“So I asked him, ‘What is your view of the report that has been attributed to
Rāfiʿ b. Khadīj, which prohibits the leasing out of farmland?’ Sālim replied,
‘Rāfiʿ exaggerated. If I had any farmland, I wouldn’t hesitate to lease it out.’”
2292. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf leased
some farmland that remained continuously in his possession pursuant to
a lease until he died. His son said, “I always assumed the land was ours,
given how long it remained in his possession, until he mentioned the lease
to us on his deathbed, directing us to pay some of the rent that he still owed
under the lease in an amount of gold or silver.”

657
658 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2293. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that he
would lease out his farmland in exchange for gold or silver.
2294. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked about a man who leased out his
farmland in exchange for one hundred measures (ṣāʿ) of dates or some other
agricultural produce, wheat or its like. He declared that to be prohibited.”

The Book of Leasing Out (Kirāʾ) Farmland Has

Been Completed, with Praise to God.
 Book 39
The Book of Investment Partnerships (Qirāḍ)

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family
and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.

Chapter 1. What Has Come Down regarding Investment Partnerships

(Qirāḍ)
2295. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that his father said,
“ʿAbd Allāh and ʿUbayd Allāh, two sons of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, set out with
a detachment of the army toward Iraq. On their way back to Medina, they
met Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī, who was then the governor of Basra. He greeted
them warmly and welcomed them with open arms. He then said to them, ‘If
only there were something I could do for you that would benefit you both!’
He then said, ‘Indeed, here are some funds from the public treasury that I
would like to send to the Commander of the Faithful in Medina. What if I
lend them to you, and you use them to purchase goods from Iraq that you
can then sell in Medina? You can return the principal to the Commander of
the Faithful and retain the profit for yourselves.’ They said, ‘We are happy
to accept your offer,’ and so Abū Mūsā advanced them the funds. He then
wrote to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, telling him to take the funds from them. When
they arrived in Medina, they sold the goods they had acquired in Iraq at
a profit. When they returned the principal sum to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, he
said, ‘Did the governor lend every soldier in the army what he lent the two
of you?’ They said, ‘No.’ ʿUmar then exclaimed, ‘Two sons of the Commander
of the Faithful? They are the ones to whom the governor lends public
property? Turn over the principal and the profit.’ ʿAbd Allāh kept quiet,
but ʿUbayd Allāh objected, saying, ‘Commander of the Faithful, you are
not acting fairly. Had the property’s value diminished, or had it perished,
we would have been liable for it.’ ʿUmar nevertheless said, ‘Hand it over!’
ʿAbd Allāh remained silent, but ʿUbayd Allāh renewed his appeal. One of

659
660 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

ʿUmar’s advisors, who had been seated with ʿUmar at the time, then said,
‘Commander of the Faithful, why don’t you deem this transaction to have
been an investment partnership instead of a loan?’ ʿUmar said, ‘Very well, I
will treat it as an investment partnership.’ He thus took the entirety of the
capital and half of the profit, and ʿAbd Allāh and ʿUbayd Allāh, the two sons
of ʿUmar, took the remaining half of the profit.”
2296. According to Mālik, al-ʿAlāʾ b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported from his
father, from his grandfather, that ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān once gave him money on
the understanding that it would be the capital of an investment partnership.
He was to trade using that capital, with the two of them sharing the venture’s
profit, if any.

Chapter 2. What Is Permissible in Connection with a Binding

Investment Partnership (Qirāḍ)
2297. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The well-known form that a binding
investment partnership takes (wajh al-qirāḍ al-maʿrūf al-jāʾiz) is that the
entrepreneur takes capital from his partner in order to deploy it in trade
without bearing the risk of its loss. The entrepreneur’s reasonable expenses
while he is traveling on business, such as his food and clothing and whatever
else he needs, determined in view of the aggregate amount of the venture’s
capital, are paid out of it if the capital is sufficient to bear those expenses.
If, however, the entrepreneur remains resident in his hometown, living
with his own people, he is not entitled to his expenses or clothing out of the
venture’s capital.’”
2298. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable in the partners to an
investment contract doing small favors for one another, if they do so freely.”
2299. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable in the investor purchasing
some of the goods that the entrepreneur acquires, if the purchase is
voluntary and not a stipulation of the investment partnership.”
2300. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding an investor who gave some money
to his slave and to another man on the understanding that the money would
be the capital of an investment partnership that the two would manage
jointly, ‘There is nothing objectionable in that, and it is valid. That is because
the profit belongs to the investor’s slave. It is not the master’s until such
time as he takes it from him, if he ever does. This property is no different
from the slave’s other earnings.’”
Book 39 661

Chapter 3. What Is Not Permitted in an Investment Partnership (Qirāḍ)

2301. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘It is not permissible for a creditor to agree to
his debtor’s suggestion to recharacterize the debt owed to the creditor as
the capital of an investment partnership between the creditor and debtor
until the creditor has first collected his debt. After doing so, the creditor can
then decide whether to invest it as capital in an investment partnership or to
keep it. Agreeing to the suggestion before collecting payment is prohibited
only because of the risk that the debtor is insolvent and unable to pay
his debt when he makes the suggestion and his actual intent is to delay
repayment in exchange for paying his creditor an additional sum later.’”917
2302. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man gave money to
another on the understanding that it would be the capital of an investment
partnership, and then some of the capital was lost before the entrepreneur
could begin trading, but once the entrepreneur began to trade with what
was left of the capital, he earned a profit, and now he wanted to calculate
each partner’s share of the profits on the basis of what remained of the
capital after part of it was lost: “His accounting of the profits is not
acceptable, and the entirety of the investor’s capital must be restored out
of the entrepreneur’s share of the profits. Only after the investor’s capital is
returned to him in full do the partners divide the remaining property of the
venture in accordance with the stipulated terms of their agreement in the
investment partnership.”
2303. Mālik said, “The only appropriate form of capital in an investment
partnership is gold or silver coin. It should not be capitalized in kind using
goods or retail commodities. There are sales that, although invalid for one
reason or another, may not be rescinded because the positions of the parties
with respect to the goods have substantially changed since the sale, and
it would be impossible to rescind the transaction. Unlawful gains (ribā),
however, must always be rescinded. It is not permitted to retain any portion
of an unlawful gain, whether trivial or substantial. Partial recognition
of otherwise invalid contracts of sale is permitted, but no recognition
whatsoever can be given to contracts involving unlawful gain, because God,
Blessed and Sublime is He, says, ‘If you repent, you are entitled to the return
of your capital. You are not to deal unjustly nor to be treated unjustly.’”918

917 Mālik expresses concern that the debtor’s suggestion to recharacterize the debt as investment
capital is a subterfuge to allow the creditor to receive payment from his debtor in excess of
the principal amount due in exchange for deferring payment of the debt. This would amount
to unlawful gain (ribā).
918 Al-Baqara, 2:279. According to Bājī, Mālik here draws an analogy to invalid sales to make the
case that just as some sales, despite their inclusion of invalid terms, are given partial legal
recognition and not rescinded in their entirety, so, too, some investment partnerships may
662 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 4. Binding Conditions in an Investment Partnership (Qirāḍ)

2304. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a man who gave money to another on
the understanding that it would be the capital of an investment partnership
and imposed a condition that the entrepreneur use the capital only to
purchase specific goods or prohibited the entrepreneur from purchasing
specific goods, ‘There is nothing objectionable in the investor conditioning
his investment on the entrepreneur’s agreement not to purchase specific
kinds of livestock or goods. On the other hand, it is impermissible for the
investor to impose on the entrepreneur the obligation that he purchase
only specific kinds of goods, unless a ready supply of such goods is available
year-round. In that case, there is nothing objectionable in that condition.’”
2305. Mālik said, regarding a man who gave money to another on the
understanding that it would be the capital of an investment partnership,
“The investor may not include a stipulation that part of the profit belong
exclusively to the investor, with the entrepreneur having no claim to it, even
if only for a single dirham. He is, however, permitted to stipulate that he
receive half of the profit and the entrepreneur the other half, or a third, or
a quarter, or less or more than that. Any specified division of the venture’s
profit, be it small or great, is lawful. These are the terms that Muslims use
to constitute their investment partnerships (qirāḍ al-muslimīn). But it is
impermissible for the investor to stipulate that even one dirham of the profit,
much less anything more, belong to him exclusively and that only the profit
that is in excess of that sum be shared between him and the entrepreneur
at a ratio of fifty-fifty, for example. The investment partnerships of Muslims
are not consistent with such terms (laysa ʿalā dhālika qirāḍ al-muslimīn).”

Chapter 5. Impermissible Conditions in an Investment Partnership

(Qirāḍ)
2306. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Neither is the investor permitted to stipulate
an exclusive share of the profit for himself that is prior to the entrepreneur’s
share, nor is the entrepreneur entitled to stipulate an exclusive share of
the profit for himself that excludes the investor. In addition, an investment
partnership may not be concluded alongside a sale contract (bayʿ), a
rental contract (kirāʾ), an employment contract (ʿamal), a loan (salaf), or

receive limited legal recognition even if they include some invalid terms, while others must
be rescinded. An improperly capitalized investment partnership must be rescinded because
it is impossible to restore the investor’s capital to him at the conclusion of the partnership,
thereby resulting in unlawful gain. In such a case, if the investment partnership is performed
despite having been unlawfully capitalized, the entrepreneur is deemed to be an employee,
not a partner, and is given a fair wage (ujrat al-mithl) for his services rather than a fair share
of the venture’s profits (qirāḍ al-mithl), if any. See Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 5:157–58.
Book 39 663

an easement of any kind (mirfaq) that one party imposes on the other
as a condition of entering into the investment partnership; however, it is
permissible for them to give assistance freely to one another, provided that
it is not stipulated in the investment partnership, and provided further that
it takes the form of a favor. Neither of the parties is permitted to stipulate
against the other an additional benefit that is not shared with his partner,
be it in gold, silver, food, or anything else. If the agreement includes any
such stipulation, the contract is transformed into an employment contract,
which requires a fixed and determinate wage. When the entrepreneur
takes possession of the capital, he is not permitted to stipulate that he be
permitted to deal with third parties on non-arm’s-length terms, whether
by accepting favors or by giving favorable offers with respect to the
venture’s merchandise, nor may he stipulate that he be permitted to deal
in the venture’s merchandise for his own benefit. If, at the conclusion of
the venture, the partnership’s funds are plentiful and the capital has been
repaid, the partners divide between themselves whatever money remains
in accordance with what they stipulated. The entrepreneur bears no liability
to the investor in the event no profit is realized or a loss is incurred, resulting
in a diminution of the investor’s capital, whether the loss is a result of the
entrepreneur’s permitted personal expenses or of unfavorable commercial
conditions. Such losses are chargeable to the capital account that belongs to
the investor. Investment partnerships are valid and binding in accordance
with whatever division of profit the investor and the entrepreneur mutually
agree upon, whether one-half, one-third, one-fourth, or anything more or
less than that.’”
2307. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The entrepreneur is not permitted to
stipulate that he be entitled to keep the venture’s capital for a stated
number of years during which the investor may not call his capital. Nor is
it permissible for the investor to stipulate that the entrepreneur may not
dissolve the venture before the completion of a mutually agreed term. This
is because an investment partnership must not be limited by a determinate
term of years; rather, it requires that the investor give his money to the
entrepreneur, who deploys it to trade on the investor’s behalf. If either of
the two decides to dissolve the venture while the capital is still uninvested,
he may do so, in which case the investor receives a refund of his capital.
If the investor, however, wishes to call his capital after the entrepreneur
has invested it, he must wait until the entrepreneur sells the venture’s
assets and reduces them to cash. If the entrepreneur decides to return the
investor’s capital after it has been invested, he must first sell the venture’s
assets and reduce them to cash so that he may repay the investor in cash,
just as he originally took the capital from the investor in cash.’”
664 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2308. Mālik said, “It is not permissible for an investor who gives his money
to an entrepreneur as the capital of an investment partnership to stipulate
that the entrepreneur should pay the alms-tax (zakāt) that is due only
on the investor’s share of the profit. That is because such a stipulation,
insofar as it would amount to a reduction in the amount of alms-tax that
the investor owes in respect of his own share, would entail the investor’s
stipulation of a fixed share of the profit for himself, in addition to his agreed
share of the venture’s profit.919 Nor is it permitted for the investor in an
investment partnership to stipulate that the entrepreneur purchase only
from a specific merchant. Such a condition renders the entrepreneur a
mere agent working for an indeterminate wage.”
2309. Mālik said, regarding a man who gave money to another on the
understanding that it would be the capital of an investment partnership,
stipulating that the recipient guarantee its return, “The investor is not
permitted to stipulate terms in respect of his investment other than those that
form the rules of the investment partnership and are in accordance with the
long-established ordinances of the Muslims (mā maḍā min sunnat al-muslimīn)
with respect to it. If the investment capital appreciates along with the
protection of the guarantee, the investor will have received a benefit in addition
to the profit on account of that guarantee. The profit is to be divided between
them only on the basis of what it would have been had the investor made
the investment without the benefit of the entrepreneur’s guarantee. Further,
should the capital be lost or perish, I do not believe that the entrepreneur can
be held liable for the loss because a stipulation in an investment partnership
holding the entrepreneur liable for losses in the capital is void.”
2310. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a man who gave money to
another on the understanding that it would be the capital of an investment

919 Assume for purposes of this example that the investor has held the minimum amount of
cash in gold for the previous year (niṣāb), rendering him liable to pay the alms-tax. He then
gives the entrepreneur 1,000 dinars as capital to invest in an investment partnership, with
the profit to be divided equally between the investor and the entrepreneur. One year into
the venture, the value of the investment partnership has increased to 1,100 dinars, so the
investor is required to pay the alms-tax in respect of his share of this increase, fifty dinars,
resulting in an obligation to pay 1.25 dinars in alms-tax. If this obligation is paid out of the
partnership’s funds, the value of the investment partnership is then 1,098.75 dinars, 1,000
of which represents the capital and 98.75 of which is profit subject to a fifty-fifty division at
the end of the venture in accordance with the parties’ stipulated agreement. By requiring
the entrepreneur to pay his alms-tax obligation out of the partnership’s funds, the investor
is effectively taking one-half of his alms-tax obligation out of the entrepreneur’s share of the
profit, thereby resulting in an excess benefit in contradiction of the basic agreement to share
the profit fifty-fifty. According to Mālik, this invalidates the stipulation. If, on the other hand,
the entrepreneur pays the alms-tax due on the shares of both the investor and the entrepre-
neur, no such excess benefit results, and the condition is permissible.
Book 39 665

partnership, stipulating that the entrepreneur use it only to purchase date

palms or beasts of burden in order to acquire the date palms’ output or the
animals’ offspring but with the intention of never selling the date palms or
animals themselves, ‘That stipulation is not permitted and is not consistent
with the long-established ordinances of the Muslims regarding investment
partnerships. It must be the case that the entrepreneur can both purchase
and sell these items, just as other goods in investment partnerships are
purchased and sold.’”
2311. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable in the entrepreneur
stipulating that the investor provide him with a slave-boy as an assistant to
help manage the venture’s capital. If the slave-boy is no longer able to assist
with the venture’s capital, however, he is not to serve the entrepreneur in
anything unrelated to the venture.”

Chapter 6. Investment Partnerships (Qirāḍ) Involving Goods

2312. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Only gold and silver coins should be used
to capitalize investment partnerships. It is not permitted to capitalize an
investment partnership using goods. Improperly capitalized investment
partnerships come about in one of two ways: either the owner of the
goods says to the entrepreneur, “Take these goods, sell them, and use the
proceeds to trade, and we’ll deal with one another as though we were in an
investment partnership,” or he says to him, “Trade using these goods, and
when you cease trading, purchase goods for me that are similar to the ones
I gave you originally, and if a profit is realized, we’ll share it.” In the first
case, the investor, the owner of the goods, receives an additional benefit
through these terms in the form of the entrepreneur’s uncompensated
labor arising out of the sale of the investor’s goods, as well as the benefit of
relief from assuming the expenses arising out of the sale of his goods. In the
second case, it is possible that when the investor gives the entrepreneur the
goods, demand is high and their price dear, but then when the entrepreneur
returns to the investor like goods at the conclusion of the venture, the
goods are cheap. In this case the entrepreneur might purchase the like
goods for one-third of their original price, or even less. The entrepreneur
would therefore make a profit equal to half the amount by which the price
of the goods decreased between the beginning and the end of the venture
as his share of the profit. Alternatively, the entrepreneur takes the goods
at a time when their price is cheap, but through his successful trading, the
partnership’s assets become substantial. However, when it is time to return
the goods to the investor, the price of the goods is high, so he is required
to use all the venture’s capital to purchase the goods the investor requires.
666 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

In such a case, his labor and commercial efforts would have been wasted.
This amounts to a kind of material indeterminacy in the consideration
(gharar)920 that renders the arrangement invalid. If the parties do not know
that investment partnerships on such terms are invalid, and they enter into
an investment partnership and begin to perform it on the basis of such
terms, the entrepreneur is to be given the fair wage that would have been
due to an employee who performed services such as selling the investor’s
goods and managing and investing the proceeds. After he successfully sells
the goods and invests the proceeds, the funds are deemed the capital of an
investment partnership as of the day the entrepreneur took possession of
them in cash. The terms of the investment partnership in this case will be
those of a standard fair investment partnership (qirāḍ al-mithl).’”921

Chapter 7. Rental Contracts (Kirāʾ) in an Investment Partnership

(Qirāḍ)
2313. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a person
was given money on the understanding that it would be the capital of an
investment partnership and used the money to purchase goods that he
transported for sale to another town, but prices there were not favorable, so,
fearing a loss if he sold the goods there, he hired transport to take the goods
to another town, where he ended up selling them at a loss anyway, with the
cost of the transportation to the second town exceeding the entirety of the
partnership’s capital: ‘If what he realizes from the sale of the goods in the
second town is sufficient to cover the additional transportation expenses,
the matter is settled; however, if any part of the transportation contract
remains unpaid after the sale of the venture’s goods, the entrepreneur is
liable for the balance. The investor may not be pursued for any portion of it.
That is because the investor instructed the entrepreneur only to trade using
the investor’s own capital. Accordingly, the entrepreneur cannot hold the
investor responsible for any additional sums of money. If the investor were

920 The consideration given to the entrepreneur in an investment contract is, of course, indefi-
nite, but the contract is nonetheless valid. In the case of an investment contract capitalized
with goods, however, Mālik objects that the entrepreneur’s return is contingent not only on
the exercise of his commercial skill but also on the future price of the goods he is required
to return to the investor. This second element of indeterminacy, in Mālik’s view, renders the
contract’s indeterminacy too great to be sustained. This is especially so given the easy solu-
tion available to the parties: the investor could sell his goods for cash and use the proceeds to
capitalize the investment partnership, or he could hire the entrepreneur to sell the goods for
cash on his behalf in exchange for a determinate wage and then use the proceeds to capitalize
the investment partnership.
921 A standard fair investment partnership in these circumstances would mean a division of
partnership profits that is consistent with prevailing market practices for valid investment
partnerships similar to the invalid one that the parties attempted to execute.
Book 39 667

responsible for that unpaid amount, it would be tantamount to deeming

him personally indebted to the third party for an amount in excess of the
capital he initially provided to capitalize the investment partnership. The
entrepreneur is not entitled to compel the investor to accept responsibility
for that.’”

Chapter 8. Breaches (Taʿaddī) of the Investment Partnership (Qirāḍ)

Agreement
2314. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man gave
another money on the understanding that it would be the capital of an
investment partnership, and the entrepreneur successfully invested it
and realized a profit from it and then, using some or all of the profit and
capital of the venture, purchased a handmaiden with whom he had sexual
intercourse, as a result of which she became pregnant, and then the venture’s
property diminished in value: ‘If the entrepreneur has money of his own, he
must use it to restore the venture’s capital by paying to the venture out of
his own money an amount equal to the handmaiden’s fair market value. If,
after he satisfies that obligation, the venture has surplus funds, they are to
be divided between the two of them in accordance with the terms of their
initial investment partnership. If the entrepreneur lacks sufficient personal
funds to reimburse the venture, however, the handmaiden must be sold and
the proceeds received from her sale given to the venture in order to restore
its diminished capital.’”
2315. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man gave another
money on the understanding that it would be the capital of an investment
partnership, and that man, the entrepreneur, violated the agreement by
purchasing more goods than the venture’s capital could pay for using his
own funds: “The investor is given a choice. If he wishes, whether the goods
have been sold at a profit or at a loss or not sold at all, he may pay the
entrepreneur the price he advanced for the goods and acquire them for
himself. Alternatively, he may treat the entrepreneur as his partner in the
goods in proportion to the entrepreneur’s share of their value with respect
to any future increase or diminution in their value, in accordance with
any additional amount the entrepreneur advanced from his own funds to
acquire them.”
2316. Mālik said, regarding a man who took money from another on the
understanding that it would be the capital of an investment partnership
and then paid it to another man on the understanding that it would be the
capital of a second investment partnership without the prior consent of
the first investor, “If the second investment partnership yields a loss, the
668 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

first entrepreneur is responsible for the loss, but if it realizes a profit, the
first investor is entitled to his share of that profit in accordance with their
initial agreement, and the first entrepreneur is entitled to receive his share
of what was stipulated out of what remains of the venture’s money.”
2317. Mālik said, regarding an entrepreneur who violated the investment
partnership agreement by borrowing money from the venture’s capital
and using it to purchase goods for himself, “If he earns a profit from those
goods, it must be divided between them in accordance with the terms of
their original agreement, but if he incurs a loss, the entrepreneur must bear
it out of his own funds.”
2318. Mālik said, regarding a man who gave another money on the
understanding that it would be the capital of an investment partnership,
but the entrepreneur borrowed some of the venture’s capital to purchase
goods for himself, “The investor has a choice. If he wishes, he may become
the entrepreneur’s partner in the goods the entrepreneur purchased using
the venture’s capital in accordance with the terms of their initial investment
partnership agreement. Alternatively, he may abandon the goods to the
entrepreneur and call his capital. This remedy applies in all cases involving
an entrepreneur who violates the investment partnership agreement.”

Chapter 9. Permitted Expenses in an Investment Partnership (Qirāḍ)

2319. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a man who gave another money on
the understanding that it would be the capital of an investment partnership,
‘If the capital is sufficient to bear the entrepreneur’s personal expenses, the
entrepreneur can use some of it to defray his reasonable personal expenses,
such as food and clothing, in proportion to the size of the venture’s capital
when he travels in furtherance of the venture’s affairs. He may also hire an
assistant to assist him with the venture’s burdens and pay him a wage out of
the venture’s capital, if the venture’s capital is so great that he is unable to
manage its affairs entirely by himself. There are tasks that someone in the
entrepreneur’s position is not expected to perform and the entrepreneur
need not discharge himself, such as personally collecting debts, carrying
goods and loading them, and similar tasks. Accordingly, the entrepreneur
can use some of the capital to hire someone who will relieve him of these
tasks. However, the entrepreneur is not permitted to use the venture’s
capital to defray his personal expenses when he is not traveling on business
but rather is at home with his family. Spending from the capital is permitted
only when he is traveling in furtherance of the venture’s purposes and
the capital is sufficient to cover such expenses. If he is trading with the
venture’s capital only in the town in which he resides, he is not entitled to
Book 39 669

be reimbursed for his personal expenses, such as food and clothing, from
the venture’s capital.’”
2320. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man gave another
money on the understanding that it would be the capital of an investment
partnership, and the entrepreneur used the money, along with his own
capital, to trade in an out-of-town venture, “His personal expenses can be
defrayed out of the venture’s capital and his own capital, according to the
proportion of each in the entirety of the combined capital.”

Chapter 10. Impermissible Expenses in an Investment Partnership

(Qirāḍ)
2321. Mālik said, regarding a man in possession of an investment
partnership’s capital, from which he defrays his personal expenses and
clothes himself, “He may not make any gifts from the partnership’s capital,
nor give any of it to a beggar or anyone else, nor deal with others on any
other than an arm’s-length basis. If it happens that he encounters a group
of people on his travels, and they share food together on the journey, each
contributing some food to their common meal, I believe there is a great deal
of latitude for that, as long as he does not intend to be ostentatious. But if he
is deliberately ostentatious, giving his companions substantially more than
they give him without having obtained the investor’s prior permission, he
must disclose to the investor whatever he gave them. If the investor ratifies
his action, no harm results, but if the investor refuses to ratify his action, the
entrepreneur must reimburse the investor with something similar to what
he gave the third parties, if that item has a reasonable substitute.”

Chapter 11. Debts Contracted in Connection with an Investment

Partnership (Qirāḍ)
2322. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr
al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā) regarding a scenario in which a man gave
another money on the understanding that it would be the capital of an
investment partnership, and the entrepreneur used it to purchase goods that
he then sold on credit, realizing a profit on the capital, but then the agent
died before collecting the money owed to the venture, is that if his heirs wish,
they may collect those debts and receive their share of the venture’s profit
in accordance with the terms of their father’s agreement, provided that they
are sufficiently trustworthy to carry out that task. If they dislike the idea of
collecting the venture’s debts, they may leave it to the investor to deal with
the venture’s debtors. They are not obliged to collect the debts themselves.
They are under no obligation to collect the debts, but they also have no right
670 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

to demand collection if they leave this task to the investor. If they decide to
collect the debts, they are entitled to their share of the proceeds in accordance
with the terms of the original agreement, as well as to their personal expenses;
whatever rights their father had, they, too, have. If they are not trustworthy
for the task, they are entitled to hire a trustworthy person to collect the debts.
If this person collects all the capital and all the profit, they are then entitled to
their father’s share of the venture’s profit.’”
2323. Mālik said, regarding a man who gave another money on the
understanding that it would be the capital of an investment partnership,
on the condition that the latter invest it personally and that he personally
guarantee the payment of anything he sells on credit, “That condition binds
the entrepreneur. If he sells anything on credit, he is personally responsible
for its repayment.”

Chapter 12. The Transport of Goods in an Investment Partnership

(Qirāḍ)
2324. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man gave
another money on the understanding that it would be the capital of an
investment partnership (qirāḍ), and the entrepreneur then borrowed
money from the investor, or the investor borrowed money from the
entrepreneur, or the investor gave the entrepreneur some goods to sell
for him, or the investor gave the entrepreneur some dinars to purchase
goods for him: ‘There is nothing objectionable in any of these things if
both parties freely agree to perform them for each other as personal
favors and they are not stipulated as terms in the investment partnership,
such that the investor knows that even if he had not given his capital to
the entrepreneur, had he asked the entrepreneur to take his goods with
him the entrepreneur would have done so, either because of their friendly
personal relationship or because the request was not burdensome, and that
had the entrepreneur refused his request, he would not have immediately
called back his capital. Or if the entrepreneur borrowed money from the
investor or agreed to transport his goods for him, he knows that even if
he did not have the investor’s capital in his possession, the investor would
nonetheless deal with him in the same fashion, and that even if the investor
had refused to comply with his request, the entrepreneur would not have
returned his capital to the investor. If, on the other hand, the entrepreneur
agreed to perform these services for the investor only in order to ensure
that the investor kept the capital with him, or if the investor did these things
only so that the entrepreneur continued to pursue the venture and did not
return the capital to him, the parties to the investment partnership may not
Book 39 671

perform these actions. This is one of the things that the people of learning
forbid (huwa mimmā yanhā ʿanhu ahl al-ʿilm).’”

Chapter 13. Loans (Salaf) in Connection with an Investment

Partnership (Qirāḍ)
2325. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a man who lent money to another
and then was asked by the borrower to consider the money he has lent him
the capital of an investment partnership, ‘I do not approve of entering into
such an arrangement until the loan has been repaid. The lender may then
choose to give the funds to the borrower as the capital of an investment
partnership if he wishes, or he may refuse to do so.’”
2326. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man gave
another money on the understanding that it would be the capital of an
investment partnership, and then, sometime later, the entrepreneur told
the investor that he has collected the money but asked him to deem the
money he holds a loan rather than the capital of an investment partnership:
‘I do not approve of entering into such an arrangement until the investor has
taken possession of his money. He would then be free to lend it to the man,
if he so wished, or to keep it. Otherwise, I worry that in such circumstances
the venture’s capital might have in fact diminished, and the entrepreneur
wishes to defer repaying it to the investor so that he can make up what he
has lost. That is not permitted and is neither valid nor binding.’”922

Chapter 14. Accounting in Investment Partnerships (Qirāḍ)

2327. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man gave
another money on the understanding that it would be the capital of an
investment partnership, and the entrepreneur successfully invested the
money for a profit, and then the entrepreneur wanted to dissolve the
partnership and take his share of the profit, but the investor was away on
a journey: ‘He has no right to take any of the venture’s funds unless the
investor is present. If he takes anything for himself in the investor’s absence,
he is liable for it until a full accounting of the venture’s gains and losses has
been made and the money is divided between them.’”

922 Technically, the venture’s property that is under the entrepreneur’s control is not a personal
debt of the entrepreneur, which makes Mālik’s reasoning in this context appear anomalous.
Nonetheless, the entrepreneur owes specific obligations to the investor, including an honest
accounting of the venture’s operations. A failing entrepreneur may be tempted to breach
such obligations and hide his failure to achieve a high rate of profit by agreeing to guarantee
the capital personally through transforming it into a loan. This concern seems to be behind
Mālik’s refusal to permit the ex post conversion of the capital of an investment partnership
into a personal loan to the entrepreneur.
672 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2328. Mālik said, “It is not permissible for the two partners in an investment
partnership to account for the venture’s profits and losses, settle their
accounts, and go their separate ways if the money is not in their presence.
They should perform their final accounting only when the venture’s money
is present with them so that the investor can take possession of his capital
investment in full, and then they can divide the profit between themselves
in accordance with the stipulated terms of their agreement.”
2329. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man took
property from another on the understanding that it would be the capital of
an investment partnership and then used the venture’s capital to purchase
goods for the venture at a time when he was indebted to third parties, and
then his creditors sought to enforce their claims against him, suing him
in a foreign town in which the investor was not physically present, but in
the entrepreneur’s possession were goods in which substantial profit had
obviously been realized, so the creditors sought an order for the sale of
those goods so that they could take the entrepreneur’s share of the profit
to satisfy their claims against him: ‘None of the venture’s profit may be
distributed unless the investor is present and is first repaid his capital. Only
then can they divide the profit in accordance with the stipulated terms of
their agreement.’”923
2330. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man gave another
money on the understanding that it would be the capital of an investment
partnership, and the entrepreneur traded with it, making a profit, and
then separated the capital, apportioned the profit, took his own share, and
set aside the investor’s share of the profit, along with the original capital
amount, doing all of this in the presence of witnesses whom he had brought
to attest to the accounting of the venture’s profits and losses: “Division of
the venture’s profit is permissible only in the presence of the investor. If
the entrepreneur has taken anything from the venture’s funds outside the
investor’s presence, he must return it until the investor’s capital investment
has been repaid to him in full. Only then can they divide what remains of the
venture’s funds in accordance with the stipulated terms of their agreement.”
2331. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man gave another
money on the understanding that it would be the capital of an investment
partnership, and the entrepeneur used it and then went to the investor and
said, “This is your share of the profit, and I have taken the same for myself.
Your capital investment remains fully intact and is in my possession”: “I

923 In other words, the creditors of the entrepreneur do not have the right to seize the entre-
preneur’s share of the venture’s property before the venture is finally wound up and the
entrepreneur receives his share of the venture’s returns in cash.
Book 39 673

do not approve of dividing the venture’s property in that way. Only when
the entirety of the venture’s capital is present and the investor is able to
account for the entirety of his invested capital and to confirm that it is
intact, complete, and deliverable to him are they then permitted to divide
the profit between themselves. The investor may then return the capital to
the entrepreneur if he so wishes, or keep it. It is obligatory for the capital to
be present, because it might be the case that some of the capital has been
lost, in which case the entrepreneur fears that the investor might call it
back were he to learn the truth, but since the entrepreneur wishes to keep
the remaining capital in his possession, he hides the loss from the investor.”

Chapter 15. Miscellaneous Reports on What Has Come Down

regarding Investment Partnerships (Qirāḍ)
2332. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man gave
another money on the understanding that it would be the capital of an
investment partnership, and the entrepreneur used the capital to purchase
goods, and the investor then said to the entrepreneur, ‘Sell the goods now!’
but the entrepreneur refused, saying, ‘I do not think it is a good time to
sell,’ and they could not come to an agreement about what to do: ‘Neither
statement shall be given any consideration; instead, people with expertise
regarding such goods are consulted about the proper course of action. If
they believe it is opportune to sell the goods, the goods are to be sold, but
if they believe it would be more opportune to defer their sale, their sale is
to be deferred.’”
2333. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man took money
from another man on the understanding that it would be the capital
of an investment partnership and deployed it in trade, after which the
investor asked the entrepreneur about the fate of his investment, and
the entrepreneur said, “It is safely with me,” but when the investor later
discovered that the venture’s capital had in fact been impaired and
demanded that the entrepreneur explain what happened, the entrepreneur
said that such-and-such a portion of the venture’s capital had in fact
perished and that he said what he did only so that the investor would not
call his capital: “His statement alleging that part of the venture’s capital has
perished is afforded no weight, given his previous statement affirming that
it was safely with him. His prior admission is taken to bind him, unless he
can provide some extrinsic evidence of the destruction of the capital that
would corroborate the truth of his second statement. If he is unable to
provide such evidence, his prior statement is deemed dispositive, and his
claim that some of the capital has perished does not serve as a defense for
674 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

him. The same principle applies to a situation in which the entrepreneur

says, ‘I made a profit of such-and-such from the capital,’ and then, when
the investor asks the entrepreneur to return his capital and his share of
the profit to him, the entrepreneur says, ‘In fact, I did not make any profit
from the venture. I only told you that I had so that you would not call your
capital and instead leave it in my possession.’ Such a statement does not
provide a defense for the entrepreneur, and his prior statement admitting
the realization of a profit is taken as conclusive against him, unless he can
produce some extrinsic evidence that corroborates the truth of his second
statement. Only in that case would he not be bound by his first statement.”924
2334. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man gave another
money on the understanding that it would be the capital of an investment
partnership, and the entrepreneur earned a substantial profit in it and then
said, “I agreed to enter into an investment partnership with you on the
understanding that I would take two-thirds of the profit,” but the investor
said, “No; it is rather the case that I agreed to enter into the investment
partnership with you on the understanding that you would take only
one-third of the venture’s profit”: “The entrepreneur is to be taken at his
word, provided he swears an oath corroborating his statement, what he
says is consistent with the terms on which similar investment partnerships
are contracted, and his claim is similar to the customary terms in people’s
investment partnership agreements. But if his claim is out of the ordinary
and contrary to the customary terms in people’s investment partnership
agreements, he is not to be taken at his word and is awarded only the share
of profit that would usually be due in a similar investment partnership.”
2335. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man gave another man
one hundred dinars on the understanding that it would be the capital of an
investment partnership, and the entrepreneur then used it to contract for
the purchase of some goods, but when he went to pay the hundred dinars to
the owner of the goods, he discovered that it had been stolen,925 whereupon
the investor said, “Sell the goods, and if a profit is realized, it belongs to
me, but if there is a loss, you must bear it, because you lost the capital,” but
the entrepreneur said, “Rather, you are obliged to satisfy fully the seller’s

924 The ordinary rule in an investment partnership is that the entrepreneur does not personally
guarantee to the investor the return of his capital. However, in circumstances in which the
entrepreneur makes a representation to the investor regarding the condition of the venture
that is intended to reassure the investor that all is well in order to deter the investor from
exercising his right to call the capital, Mālik holds the entrepreneur personally liable for the
loss on the assumption that in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary, the entrepre-
neur has misappropriated the funds.
925 The entrepreneur in this case purchased the goods on credit, but when he attempted to pay
for the goods later, he could not because the partnership’s capital had been stolen.
Book 39 675

claim, inasmuch as I purchased the goods with your money that you gave
me”: “The entrepreneur is obliged to pay the seller the purchase price of the
goods, and the investor is told, ‘If you wish, pay the one hundred dinars to
the entrepreneur, and you will be partners in the goods in accordance with
the terms of the investment partnership you contracted with him with the
original hundred dinars. Alternatively, you may disclaim any interest in the
goods.’ If the investor pays the sum to the entrepreneur, this establishes an
investment partnership on the same terms as the first one, but if he refuses,
the goods become the property of the entrepreneur, who is obliged to pay
for them.”
2336. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which two people were partners in
an investment partnership, and when they dissolved the partnership, each
taking his share of the profit, the entrepreneur still had in his possession
some of the venture’s property that he used in the venture, such as a
worn-out waterskin, a garment, or the like: “The entrepreneur is entitled
to retain any item belonging to the venture that is of trivial value and of no
concern to anyone. I have not heard anyone opine (lam asmaʿ aḥadan aftā)
that he must return such an item to the investor and divide it with him. He
is obliged to return to the investor only the venture’s valuable property.
Accordingly, if there remains anything that can be named, like a beast of
burden, a camel, coarse Yemenite cloth, or anything similar to them, and
it has a ready price, I believe that the entrepreneur must return whatever
such items are left with him at the conclusion of the venture, unless his
partner permits him to keep them.”

The Book of Investment Partnerships (Qirāḍ)

Has Been Completed. Praise Belongs to God,
the Lord of the Worlds.
 Book 40
The Book of Compensation (ʿAql) Due for Battery

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family
and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.

Chapter 1. The Proclamation regarding Compensation (ʿUqūl) Due for

Battery
2337. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b.
Ḥazm reported from his father that the edict that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) sent to ʿAmr b. Ḥazm926 regarding compensation due for battery
stated the following: One hundred camels for a life; one hundred camels for
a nose, if completely severed; one-third of the compensation due for a life
(diya) for a head or facial wound that reaches the brain (maʾmūma), and
the same for a wound that pierces the abdomen (jāʾifa); fifty camels for the
loss of an eye, a hand, or a foot; ten camels for each finger; five camels for a
tooth; and five camels for a wound that exposes the skull (mūḍiḥa).927

Chapter 2. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to the Payment of

Compensation for Loss of Life (Diya)
2338. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb established
a monetary value for the compensation due from urban dwellers for the
loss of life of a free Muslim male. For those living in regions that used gold
coins, he made it 1,000 dinars, and for those who used silver coins, 12,000
dirhams. Mālik said, “The people who use gold are the Egyptians and the
Levantines, and those who use silver are the Iraqis.”

926 The Prophet (pbuh) appointed ʿAmr b. Ḥazm as his governor in Najrān, a region in the south-
west of the Arabian Peninsula that had a large pre-Islamic Christian community.
927 Wymann-Landgraf understands the maʾmūma as “a head or facial wound that lays bare the
dura mater of the brain.” He understands the mūḍiḥa as a “skull wound [that] . . . lays bare the
skull bone without penetrating further”; Mālik and Medina, 489 n. 73.

677
678 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2339. According to Mālik, he heard that compensation for the loss of life
of a free Muslim male was payable in instalments over three or four years.
Mālik said, “Of all the views that I have heard regarding that question, three
years is the one I prefer most.”
2340. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ
ʿalayhi ʿindanā) is that camels are not accepted as compensation from
urban dwellers for the loss of life of a free Muslim male, nor is gold or silver
accepted from desert dwellers, nor is silver accepted from those who use
gold coins, nor is gold accepted from those who use silver coins.”

Chapter 3. The Compensation Due for Intentional Killing (Diyat

al-ʿAmd), If Accepted by the Next of Kin in Lieu of Retaliation, and
Batteries Committed by the Insane (Jināyat al-Majnūn)
2341. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb would say, “The compensation due in
a case of intentional killing of a free Muslim male, when accepted by the next
of kin in lieu of retaliation, is twenty-five one-year-old female camels (bint
makhāḍ), twenty-five two-year-old female camels (bint labūn), twenty-five
three-year-old female camels (ḥiqqa), and twenty-five four-year-old female
camels (jadhaʿa).”
2342. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Marwān b. al-Ḥakam
wrote to Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān, telling him that an insane man had been
brought before him on the accusation that he killed someone. Muʿāwiya
wrote back to him, saying, “Restrain him, but do not permit retaliation to
be taken against him, for the insane are not subject to retaliation (qawad).”
2343. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘If an adult and a minor, acting in concert,
intentionally kill someone, the adult may be put to death in retaliation for
the killing, whereas the child’s liability is limited to half the compensation
due for unlawful killing.’”
2344. Mālik said, “The same principle applies in the case of a free man and
a slave who, acting in concert, intentionally kill a slave: the slave may be put
to death in retaliation for the killing, whereas the free man is liable for half
of the dead slave’s fair market value.”

Chapter 4. The Compensation Due for Unintentional Killing (Diyat al-

Khaṭaʾ) of a Free Muslim Male
2345. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿIrāk b. Mālik and
Sulaymān b. Yasār that a man of the Banū Saʿd b. Layth tribe released a
horse of his, letting it gallop freely, and it trampled the legs of a man of the
Book 40 679

Juhayna tribe. The man bled profusely from the wounds he received, and
later died. ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said to the defendants, the men of the Banū
Saʿd, “Are you prepared to swear by God fifty times that he did not die as a
result of the injuries he received from your kinsman’s horse?” They refused
and were reluctant, fearful of swearing falsely. ʿUmar then said to the
victim’s next of kin, “Are you yourselves willing to swear that your deceased
kinsman died as a result of the injuries he received from the perpetrator’s
horse?” They also refused to swear the requisite oaths. ʿUmar therefore
ruled that the Banū Saʿd would pay half of the compensation due for the
intentional killing of a free Muslim male. Mālik said, “Judicial practice is not
in accord with this report (laysa al-ʿamal ʿalā hādhā).”928
2346. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb, Sulaymān b. Yasār, and Rabīʿa b. Abī
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān would all say, “The compensation due for the unintentional
killing of a free Muslim male is twenty one-year-old female camels (bint
makhāḍ), twenty two-year-old female camels (bint labūn), twenty two-year-
old male camels (ibn labūn), twenty three-year-old female camels (ḥiqqa),
and twenty four-year-old female camels (jadhaʿa).”
2347. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr
al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā) is that retaliation (qawad) may not be taken
against minors and that even their intentional acts are deemed unintentional
until they reach puberty and criminal laws (ḥudūd) are applicable to them.
Therefore, every act of killing for which a minor is responsible is deemed un-
intentional. If a minor and an adult, acting in concert, kill a free man without
intent to do so, each of them is liable for half of the compensation due.’”
2348. Mālik said, “The compensation (ʿaql) due for someone killed
unintentionally is simply an interest in property, there being no right of
retaliation arising from it. It is no different from any other kind of property
belonging to the deceased: his outstanding debts may be discharged from
it, and it is subject to the terms of his last will and testament (waṣiyya).
Accordingly, if the decedent has other property, and the compensation due
to him constitutes one-third of his property, and he agreed to waive his
right to that compensation prior to his death, the waiver would be valid and
binding; but if he has no property other than his right to compensation, the
waiver would be valid only with respect to one-third of the compensation
due. Likewise, if he has no other property, he may make a testamentary
disposition with respect to only one-third of it.”

928 Mālik is here referring to the fact that ʿUmar’s demand that the defendant’s paternal
near-relations collectively swear an oath exonerating their relative of responsibility for the
victim’s death is not the procedure used by courts in such a case. His comment is not a refer-
ence to the substantive verdict in the case.
680 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 5. The Compensation (ʿAql) Due for Unintentional (Khaṭaʾ)

Nonlethal Injuries
2349. According to Mālik, “The agreed-upon rule among them (al-amr
al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindahum)929 with respect to unintentional injuries
(khaṭaʾ) is that the victim is not entitled to compensation until he heals
and is restored to good health. If a person suffers a broken bone, whether
a hand, a foot, or the like, as a result of an unintentional injury, and it
heals and is restored to good health and is not misshapen as a result of
the injury, the victim is not entitled to compensation. But if, after the break
heals, the bone either has been permanently diminished or is crooked or
otherwise deformed, compensation is due in proportion to the impairment.
If a rule establishing the precise compensation due has come down from
the Prophet (pbuh) in respect of the deformed bone, compensation should
be granted in accordance with whatever the Prophet (pbuh) ordained.
But if no rule establishing the precise compensation due has come down
from the Prophet (pbuh) in respect of the deformed bone, nor is there a
long-established ordinance (lam tamḍi fīhi sunna), nor is there any other
precedent specifying the compensation due, the compensation due is
determined through judicial discretion (ijtihād).”
2350. Mālik said, “No compensation is due for unintentional, nonlethal
injuries to the body if the wound heals without leaving a permanent
deformity. If, however, the injury results in a permanent deformity after
healing, judicial discretion must be applied to determine the appropriate
compensation, except in the case of a wound that pierces the abdomen
(jāʾifa). That requires payment of compensation in an amount equal to
one-third of what is due for the life of a free man.”
2351. Mālik said, “No compensation is due for a wound to the body that
breaks a bone (munaqqala) or exposes a bone (mūḍiḥa) if, in both cases, the
wound heals without leaving a permanent deformity.”
2352. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ
ʿalayhi ʿindanā) is that if a physician severs the head of the penis in the
course of performing a circumcision, he is obliged to pay compensation,
but this is the kind of unintentional injury in which his kin group (ʿāqila)
bears joint responsibility for payment of the compensation due.930 It is also
the agreed-upon rule among us that whenever a physician unintentionally

929 Here Mālik is attributing the rule to unnamed third parties, in contrast to his normal practice
of using the first-person plural. It is not clear from the text or the commentaries who these
third parties are.
930 In certain cases, such as some types of unintentional battery, the kin group is held jointly
liable for the payment of the compensation due to the victim of the battery.
Book 40 681

causes an injury or violates ordinary standards of practice, compensation

is required, and the physician’s kin group bears joint responsibility for
payment of the compensation due.”

Chapter 6. The Compensation (ʿAql) Due to Women

2353. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab would say, “The
compensation due to a woman is the same as that due to a man up to
one-third of the compensation due for a free Muslim male’s life (diya). The
compensation due to her on account of an injury to her finger is the same
as his; the compensation due to her on account of an injury to her tooth
is the same as his; the compensation due to her on account of an injury
that exposes her skull (mūḍiḥa) is the same as his; and the compensation
due to her on account of an injury that cracks her skull without exposing it
(munaqqala)931 is the same as his.”
2354. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported, and it also reached him
from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr, that both of them held the same view as Saʿīd b.
al-Musayyab regarding the amount of compensation due to a woman,
namely, that the compensation due to her is the same as that due to a
man up to one-third of the compensation due for a free man’s life. If the
compensation that would be her due exceeds one-third of a free Muslim
male’s life, however, she receives half of what a similarly situated male would
receive. Mālik said, “In other words, she receives the same compensation
as that due to a man for an injury that exposes her bone, one that breaks
it, any injury that is less serious than an injury that pierces the skull and
reaches the brain (maʾmūma), any injury that pierces the abdomen (jāʾifa),
and similar injuries that entail compensation equal to one-third or less of
the compensation due for a free man’s life. If the compensation due to her
would be more than that, however, her compensation is reduced to half of
what would be due to a free man for the same injury.”932

931 Wymann-Landgraf understands the munaqqala to be a “cranial wound [that] . . . shatters the
small bones next to the cranium but does not penetrate the brain matter”; Mālik and Medina,
489 n. 73.
932 One of the odd results of this rule, and one for which the Mālikīs have been roundly criticized
(if not mocked), is that in certain cases, the more severe the injury, the less compensation the
woman receives. For example, if a woman is injured and loses three fingers, she is entitled to
thirty camels in compensation. If, however, she loses four fingers, forty camels would exceed
one-third the compensation due for the life of a free man. Consequently, under the Mālikī rule,
she would receive in the second case only twenty camels as compensation, even though she
lost an additional finger. Zurqānī explains this anomalous result by saying that the normal rule
is that the compensation due to a free woman is half of that due to a free man. However, the
long-established ordinance (sunna) made an exception with respect to compensation obliga-
tions that were equal to or less than one-third of that due for the life of a free man, treating free
men and free women similarly in those cases. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 4:285.
682 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2355. According to Mālik, he heard Ibn Shihāb say, “It has long been the
established ordinance (maḍat al-sunna) regarding a man who injures his
wife that he is required to compensate her for that injury, but he is not
subject to retaliation.” Mālik said, “That rule applies only in the case of
unintentional injuries (khaṭaʾ), such as if a man strikes his wife and inflicts
an injury on her that he had not intended. For example, if he gives her a lash
with a whip but accidentally gouges her eye, or something similar to that.”
2356. Mālik said, regarding a woman whose husband and children neither
count among her male paternal near-relations (ʿaṣaba) nor are from her
own people, “If she injures another person, neither her husband, insofar as
he is of another tribe, nor her children, insofar as they are not of her people,
nor her maternal half-brothers, who are not counted among her paternal
near-relations, are under an obligation to contribute to the compensation
due for batteries (jināya) that she commits. These are the people most
entitled to her estate when she dies, and it has been the case since the time
of the Messenger of God (pbuh) that it is only the paternal near-relations
who are jointly liable to pay the compensation due for batteries. The same
principle applies to a woman’s freed slaves: their estates go to her children,
even if they are not of her tribe, but her tribe remains obligated to pay the
compensation due for any batteries that her freed slaves commit.”

Chapter 7. The Compensation (ʿAql) Due for Killing a Fetus

2357. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf, from Abū Hurayra, that a woman of the tribe of Hudhayl
struck another woman of her tribe, causing her to miscarry. The Messenger
of God (pbuh) ruled that the victim was entitled to receive a fine infant slave
(ghurra), male or female, as compensation.
2358. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) ruled in the case of a man who killed a
fetus in its mother’s womb that the perpetrator was obliged to compensate
her with a fine infant slave, male or female. After hearing the judgment,
the defendant said, “How can I be liable to compensate for the loss of
something that never drank, ate, uttered a word, or even let out a sound
at birth? A thing such as that is subject to neither retaliation (qawad) nor
compensation (ʿaql).” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said in response, “A
man such as this is surely a companion of soothsayers.”933

933 The defendant’s response was expressed in rhyming prose characteristic of the speech of
pre-Islamic soothsayers (pl. kuhhān, sing. kāhin). Al-Qāḍī Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh
b. al-ʿArabī, al-Qabas fī sharḥ Muwaṭṭaʾ Mālik b. Anas, 3 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī,
1992), 1:1000.
Book 40 683

2359. According to Mālik, Rabīʿ b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān would say, “The fair
market value of a fine infant slave (due in respect of a fetus) is fifty dinars,
or 600 dirhams. The compensation (diya) due for the life of a free Muslim
woman is 500 dinars or 6,000 dirhams.”
2360. Mālik said, “Accordingly, the compensation due for the fetus of a free
woman is one-tenth of that due for its mother’s life, one-tenth being fifty
dinars or 600 dirhams.”
2361. Mālik said, “I have not heard anyone (lam asmaʿ aḥadan) deny that
the obligation to provide compensation for killing a fetus in its mother’s
womb arises only after it is delivered stillborn.”
2362. Mālik said, “I heard that if the fetus is born alive and then dies,
compensation for loss of life is due in full. A fetus is considered to have
been born alive only if it cries out at birth. If it does so and then dies, full
compensation for loss of life is due.”
2363. Mālik said, “We believe that the compensation due for a handmaiden’s
fetus is one-tenth of the fair market value of its mother.”
2364. Mālik said, “If a pregnant woman intentionally kills a man or a
woman, retaliation may be taken against her only after she has given
birth. If, however, a pregnant woman is killed, whether intentionally or
unintentionally, her killer is not required to pay any compensation for her
fetus. If she was killed intentionally, her killer may be put to death, but no
compensation is due for her fetus. If she was killed unintentionally, the
killer’s paternal kin group (ʿāqila) is jointly responsible for payment of the
compensation due for the loss of her life, but no compensation is due for the
loss of her fetus.”
2365. Mālik was asked about the stillborn fetuses of Jewish and Christian
women. He said, “I believe that compensation is due in an amount equal to
one-tenth of that due for its mother.”

Chapter 8. Circumstances in Which the Compensation Due for the

Loss of Life of a Free Muslim Male (Diya) Is Required in Its Entirety
2366. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
would say, “The full amount of the compensation due for the loss of life of a
free Muslim male is due for severing both lips of a person. If only the lower
lip is severed, two-thirds of this amount is due.”
2367. According to Mālik, he asked Ibn Shihāb about a partially blind
man who gouges out the eye of someone who sees, and Ibn Shihāb said,
684 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

“The victim, if he wishes, may insist on retaliation (qawad) against the

perpetrator. If he wishes, however, he may instead take the full amount of
the compensation due for the loss of life, 1,000 dinars or 12,000 dirhams,
as compensation for his injury.”
2368. Mālik said that it reached him that the compensation for the loss of
life of a free Muslim male is due for the loss of any paired body part, and that
this amount is also due for the loss of a tongue. Likewise, the compensation
for the loss of life of a free Muslim male is due if hearing is lost in both ears,
whether or not they were severed. The same is also due if a man’s penis is
severed, or the two testicles.
2369. According to Mālik, it reached him that the compensation for the loss
of life of a free Muslim woman is due for the loss of both of her breasts.
Mālik said, “The most trivial of the injuries requiring compensation, in my
opinion, are those to eyebrows and a man’s breasts.”934
2370. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that if a man is
injured in several parts of his body, and the resulting compensation due
to him would exceed that due for the loss of life of a free Muslim male, he
is nevertheless entitled to receive compensation for each of the specific
injuries he has suffered. Accordingly, if he loses both of his hands, his feet,
and his eyes, he receives full compensation for the loss of life of a free
Muslim male three times over.”
2371. Mālik said that if the sound eye of a partially blind man is
unintentionally gouged out, full compensation for the loss of life of a free
Muslim male is due.

Chapter 9. The Compensation (ʿAql) Due for an Injury to the Eye That
Results in Loss of Vision
2372. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Sulaymān b. Yasār
that Zayd b. Thābit would say, “If an eye is injured but is physically intact,
yet there has been a loss of vision in that eye, the compensation due is one
hundred dinars.”
2373. Mālik was asked regarding the compensation due for the loss of the
lower eyelid or the eye socket. He said, “The only resort in this circumstance
is judicial discretion (ijtihād). If the victim’s vision has suffered, however, he
is entitled to compensation to the extent that his vision has been impaired.”

934 Mālik’s first statement—that the loss of every paired body part results in an entitlement to
the compensation due for the loss of life of a free Muslim male—is only a general rule with
some notable exceptions, such as the loss of the eyebrows and a man’s breasts, as mentioned
in this report.
Book 40 685

2374. Yaḥyā said that Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
regarding an intact but blind eye that is gouged out and a paralyzed hand
that is severed is that no specific amount of compensation is due; rather, it
is a matter of judicial discretion.”

Chapter 10. The Compensation (ʿAql) Due for Wounds to the Head
and Face
2375. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he heard Sulaymān
b. Yasār say, “A wound to the face that exposes the bone (mūḍiḥa) is the
equivalent of one to the head, unless it permanently disfigures the face. In
that case, the compensation due is increased by the difference between
the compensation due for the facial wound itself and one-half of the
compensation that would be due for a wound that exposes the skull. That
amounts to seventy-five dinars.”935
2376. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that the
compensation due for a wound that cracks the skull but does not expose
it (munaqqala) is fifteen camels. A munaqqala is a wound that removes the
outer lining of the bone but does not penetrate the brain. It can affect both
the head and the face.”
2377. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ
ʿalayhi ʿindanā) is that retaliation (qawad) is not permitted in the case
of head wounds that pierce the skull and reach the brain (maʾmūma) or
of wounds to the abdomen (jāʾifa). Ibn Shihāb said that retaliation is not
permitted in the case of a head wound that pierces the skull and reaches the
brain. A maʾmūma is any blow that pierces the skull and reaches the brain.
Such a wound occurs only in the head, and it must penetrate the skull and
reach the brain to receive this designation.”
2378. Mālik said, “The rule in our view is that no compensation is due for
any wound to the head or the face that does not expose the bone. Only if the
wound is one that exposes the bone or is more severe than that does the
duty to compensate arise. That is because the Messenger of God (pbuh), in
the edict he sent to ʿAmr b. Ḥazm, made no mention of compensation due
for wounds that do not at least expose the bone; for wounds that do, he
designated five camels as compensation. Nor have any of our rulers,936 in
the past or recently, ruled that compensation is due in respect of any head
wound that does not at least expose the bone.”

935 Mālik did not adopt the view of Sulaymān b. Yasār with respect to a wound to the face that
results in disfigurement. He instead left it to the judge’s discretion to determine what addi-
tional compensation was due. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 7:86.
936 The term used is aʾimma, the plural of imām.
686 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2379. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab

said, “One-third of the compensation that would be due for the loss of a
limb is due if that limb suffers a piercing wound.”
2380. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘Ibn Shihāb disagreed with that view.”
2381. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘I do not believe there is an agreed-upon
rule among us regarding the compensation due for a wound that pierces a
limb (nāfidha). Rather, it is a matter for judicial discretion (ijtihād) exercised
by the ruler (imām) or his appointed representative,937 and there is not an
agreed-upon rule among us regarding that.’”
2382. Mālik said, “The rule in our view regarding wounds to the face and
the head is that only wounds that satisfy the definition of maʾmūma (a
wound that pierces the skull and reaches the brain), munaqqala (a wound
that cracks the skull but does not expose it), or mūḍiḥa (a wound that
exposes the skull) are subject to fixed obligations of compensation. The
compensation due for any other wound to the head or the face is a matter
for judicial discretion. I do not deem wounds to either the lower jaw or the
nose to qualify as wounds to the head. That is because the lower jaw and
the nose are two separate bones, whereas the head is a single bone distinct
from them.”
2383. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported that ʿAbd
Allāh b. al-Zubayr permitted retaliation in cases involving wounds that
crack and expose the skull.

Chapter 11. The Compensation (ʿAql) Due for the Loss of Fingers
2384. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said, “I asked Saʿīd
b. al-Musayyab how much compensation is due for the loss of a woman’s
finger. He said, ‘Ten camels.’ I then said, ‘How much for two fingers?’ He
said, ‘Twenty.’ I then said, ‘How much for three?’ He said, ‘Thirty.’ I then said,
‘How much for four?’ He said, ‘Twenty.’ I then said, ‘The more egregious
her wound and the more severe her tragedy, the lower her compensation?’
He said, ‘Are you an Iraqi?’938 I said to him, ‘No, but consider me either a
meticulous scholar or an ignorant man seeking to learn.’ He said, ‘This is the
established ordinance (al-sunna), my nephew.’”

937 The term imām may also be used in this context to designate lesser public officials who exer-
cised power delegated to them by the head of the Islamic state.
938 This is a reference to Iraqi scholars’ reputation for the use of analogy, rather than reliance on
historical authority, as a principal method of legal reasoning. The questioner in this report,
Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, was nicknamed “Rabīʿat al-raʾy,” or “Rabīʿa the legal reasoner,”
because of his reputation for preferring legal reasoning to authoritative texts.
Book 40 687

2385. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) regarding the
loss of all the fingers of a hand is that full compensation for the hand is
required. That is because if the five fingers of a hand have been severed,
the compensation for them is the equivalent of the compensation due for
the loss of the hand itself, which is fifty camels. Ten camels are due for each
finger. Accordingly, the loss of five fingers results in an obligation to pay
fifty camels. In money, that amounts to thirty-three and one-third dinars for
each of a finger’s three joints, and in camels, it is three and one-third camels
for each of a finger’s three joints.”939

Chapter 12. Miscellaneous Reports regarding the Compensation

(ʿAql) Due for the Loss of Teeth
2386. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from Muslim b. Jundub,
from Aslam, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, that he ruled
that the compensation due for the loss of a molar tooth (ḍirs), a broken
collarbone, or a broken rib is a male camel.
2387. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he heard Saʿīd b.
al-Musayyab say, “ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb ruled that the compensation due
for each molar tooth is one camel, whereas Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān ruled
that the compensation due for each molar is five camels. ʿUmar’s judgment
results in undercompensation, while Muʿāwiya’s judgment leads to
overcompensation. Had it been me, I would have given two camels for each
molar, which results in the compensation due for the loss of life of a free
Muslim male (diya).”940

939 The compensation due for the loss of life of a free man is one hundred camels or one thou-
sand dinars. The loss of a hand is half of that, fifty camels or five hundred dinars. Each finger
in its entirety is one-fifth of that amount, so ten camels or one hundred dinars. Each finger,
in turn, according to Mālik’s analysis, consists of three parts, one for each joint of the finger.
The compensation due for severing a part of the finger is determined by how many joints of
the finger have been severed.
940 A normal adult mouth has thirty-two teeth, twenty of which are molars. There is agreement
that the compensation due for the loss of a non-molar is five camels. Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab’s
opinion is based on the assumption that the loss of all thirty-two teeth should result in an
obligation to pay the compensation due for the loss of a life of a free Muslim male, that is,
one hundred camels. From that perspective, ʿUmar’s judgment results in undercompensa-
tion, because he offered only one camel in compensation for each molar. Accordingly, under
ʿUmar’s rule, the loss of all teeth would result in a reimbursement of only eighty camels.
Muʿāwiya’s rule, on the other hand, results in overcompensation, insofar as the loss of all
teeth would result in a reimbursement of 160 camels. Saʿīd’s proposed rule solves this prob-
lem by modifying ʿUmar’s rule so that the compensation due for each molar is two camels
instead of one. As a result, the loss of all teeth produces an obligation to pay exactly one
hundred camels to the victim.
688 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2388. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab

would say, “When a non-molar is struck and blackens from infection, full
compensation for it becomes obligatory. If it is subsequently extracted, full
compensation for it is due yet again.”

Chapter 13. The Practice (ʿAmal) with Respect to Compensation (ʿAql)

Related to Injuries to the Teeth
2389. According to Mālik, Dāwūd b. al-Huṣayn reported that Abū Ghaṭafān
b. Ṭarīf al-Murrī informed him that Marwān b. al-Ḥakam had once
dispatched him (Abū Ghaṭafān) to ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās to ask him about the
compensation due for the loss of a molar. ʿAbd Allāh said, “It is five camels.”
Abū Ghaṭafān said, “Marwān sent me back to ʿAbd Allāh to ask him, “Do you
consider the front teeth the equivalent of the molars?” Ibn ʿAbbās replied,
“Think of teeth the way you think of fingers. The compensation due for each
of the fingers is the same, despite their different functions.”941
2390. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that he
deemed the compensation due for all teeth to be one and the same, making
no distinction among them.
2391. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that the
compensation due for a tooth is the same, whether for the front teeth,
the molars, or the canines. That is because the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, ‘Five camels for a tooth (sinn).’ Molars are also teeth. No tooth is more
valuable than another.”942

Chapter 14. The Compensation (Diya) Due for Injuries Inflicted

on Slaves
2392. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab and
Sulaymān b. Yasār would say, “The compensation due for a wound to a
slave that exposes his skull bone (mūḍiḥa) is one-twentieth of his fair
market value.”

941 Despite the report attributed to the Prophet (pbuh) mentioned at the beginning of the Book
of Compensation, some scholars belonging to the Followers (the generation immediately fol-
lowing the Prophetic generation), such as Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, distinguished between the
compensation due for molars and that due for non-molars on the basis of their different
functions. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 8:110. Marwān, in this report, appears to have been
of that view as well, which explains why he asked his messenger, Abū Ghaṭafān, to return to
Ibn ʿAbbās to clarify his position.
942 Mālik’s argument is that the Arabic term sinn is used generically for teeth, as well as spe-
cifically for non-molars. Therefore, molars, known in Arabic as ḍirs, fall under the apparent
sense of the Prophet’s edict.
Book 40 689

2393. According to Mālik, it reached him that Marwān b. al-Ḥakam would

rule in cases involving wounds inflicted on slaves that the perpetrator
was required to reimburse any resulting diminution in the slave’s fair
market value.
2394. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that the
compensation due for a wound that exposes the skull of a slave is
one-twentieth of his fair market value. The compensation due for a wound
that cracks a slave’s skull but does not expose it (munaqqala) is one-fifteenth
of his fair market value. The compensation due for a wound that pierces the
skull and reaches the slave’s brain (maʾmūma) or for a wound that pierces
the slave’s abdomen (jāʾifa) is one-third of the slave’s fair market value. As
for any injury other than these four, the compensation due is the amount by
which the fair market value of the slave has been diminished. This amount
is determined after the slave recovers and is restored to good health on the
basis of the difference in his fair market value before and after the injury.
The party who injured him is liable for the diminution in the slave’s value.”
2395. Mālik said, regarding a slave whose hand or foot has been broken
but then heals, “The perpetrator is not liable for anything. However, if, as
a result of the injury, the slave is disfigured or his fair market value has
otherwise been diminished, the perpetrator is liable for the diminution in
the slave’s fair market value.”
2396. Mālik said, “The rule in our view regarding retaliation (qiṣāṣ) among
slaves is that the same principles that apply to free men also apply to
them. The life of a handmaiden for the life of a male slave, and her injury
for his injury. If a slave kills another slave intentionally, the master of the
murdered slave is given the choice between having the murderer put to
death and accepting the compensation (ʿaql) due for his murdered slave. If
he elects to receive compensation for the murdered slave, he is entitled to
receive the murdered slave’s fair market value. In this case, if the master of
the murderer wishes to pay the fair market value of the murdered slave, he
may do so. Otherwise, he may surrender his culpable slave to the victim’s
master. If he does so, nothing else may be demanded of him. In this case, if
the victim’s master accepts the culpable slave and is satisfied with him, he
may not then have him killed. That principle applies in all cases involving
retaliation among slaves, whether involving severing of the hands, severing
of the feet, or other similar acts that are the equivalent of killing with
respect to a right of retaliation.”
2397. Mālik said, regarding a slave who injures a Jew or a Christian, “The
slave’s master, if he so wishes, may pay the compensation due to the victim
690 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

on behalf of the slave. Otherwise, he may surrender the slave, have him sold
in a public auction, and give the proceeds of that sale in full (if the proceeds
equal the compensation due) or in part (if they exceed the compensation
due) to the injured Jew or Christian. In no case, however, is he permitted to
hand over a Muslim slave to a Jew or a Christian.”

Chapter 15. The Compensation Due to Protected People (Diyat Ahl

al-Dhimma)
2398. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ruled
that the compensation due when a Jewish or Christian male is killed is half
of that due for the loss of life of a free Muslim male.
2399. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that a Muslim
is not to be killed in retaliation for the death of a non-Muslim, unless the
Muslim killed him with premeditation and in cold blood (ghīla), in which
case he is to be put to death.”943
2400. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Sulayman b. Yasār
would say, “The compensation due for killing a Zoroastrian male is 800
dirhams.” Mālik said, “This is the rule among us (wa-huwa al-amr ʿindanā).”
2401. Mālik said, “The compensation for nonlethal injuries suffered
by Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians is calculated in proportion to the
compensation due for loss of life using the same proportions as those
applying to Muslims for the equivalent nonlethal injuries. The compensation
for a wound that exposes the skull (mūḍiḥa) is therefore one-twentieth
of the compensation that the members of these groups would receive for
loss of life. The compensation for a head wound that pierces the skull and
reaches the brain (maʾmūma) is one-third of their compensation for loss
of life. The compensation for a wound that pierces the abdomen (jāʾifa) is
one-third of their compensation for loss of life. The compensation for any
injuries they suffer is calculated in accordance with this principle.”

Chapter 16. What Renders an Individual Personally Liable to Pay

Compensation (ʿAql)
2402. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father would
say, “The paternal near-relations (ʿāqila) are not under a joint obligation

943 Mālik here makes a distinction between intentional killing, in general, and premeditated,
cold-blooded killing, which he refers to as qatl al-ghīla, in particular. In Mālik’s view, if a Mus-
lim kills a non-Muslim intentionally but without premeditation (e.g., he gets into a fight with a
non-Muslim, and in the course of the fight he draws a weapon and kills him), he is not put to death
but must pay the prescribed compensation. By contrast, were he to lie in wait for the non-Muslim
and kill him unawares, he is put to death, despite the fact that his victim was a non-Muslim.
Book 40 691

to pay compensation for an intentional killing (qatl al-ʿamd) committed

by one of their tribe. They are jointly liable only in cases of unintentional
killing (qatl al-khaṭaʾ).”
2403. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb said, “It has long been the established
ordinance (maḍat al-sunna) that the paternal near-relations are not
responsible for any portion of the compensation due for an intentional
killing. They may, however, voluntarily agree to contribute.”
2404. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd expressed an opinion similar to that.
2405. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb said, “In a case of intentional killing,
if the next-of-kin of the victim waive their right to retaliation, it has long
been the established ordinance that the killer must pay the compensation
due for the loss of life of a free Muslim male (diya) out of his own property,
unless his paternal near-relations agree to assist him voluntarily, of their
own free will.”
2406. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that compensation
does not become a joint obligation of the paternal near-relations unless
the amount due is one-third or more of that required for the loss of life of
a free Muslim male. Any compensation obligation that equals or exceeds
one-third is a joint obligation of the paternal near-relations, but anything
less is the personal obligation of the perpetrator.”
2407. Mālik said, “The rule about which there is no dissent among us (al-amr
alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi ʿindanā) with respect to someone who commits an
intentional killing or intentionally batters another person in a manner
that gives rise to a right of retaliation (qiṣāṣ), but from whom the victim’s
next-of-kin or the victim (as applicable) has accepted compensation in lieu
of retaliation, is that the paternal near-relations are not jointly liable for
the compensation due, unless they voluntarily agree to contribute. Rather,
the compensation due is the exclusive obligation of the person responsible
for the killing or the injury, if he has property. If he does not have property,
however, it is a debt that he owes. The paternal near-relations bear no
responsibility for its payment, unless they voluntarily agree.”
2408. Mālik said, “The paternal near-relations are not liable to contribute
to the compensation for any self-inflicted wound, whether intentional or
unintentional. That is the opinion of those with discernment among us
(raʾy ahl al-fiqh ʿindanā). I have also never heard anyone (lam asmaʿ anna
aḥadan) hold the paternal near-relations responsible for any part of the
compensation due in respect of any intentional battery. This position is
corroborated by the statement of God, Blessed and Sublime is He, in His
Book, ‘But for one who receives pardon from his brother, let the victim
692 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

pursue payment fairly, and let the perpetrator make restitution to him as
best he can.’944 This means, as we see it, and God knows best, that whoever
has agreed to accept compensation from his fellow should only pursue it
fairly, and the perpetrator should pay it to him as best he can.”
2409. Mālik said, “If a minor child or a woman, in each case without property
of his or her own, commits a battery (jināya) for which the compensation
due is one-third or less than that due for the loss of life of a free Muslim
male, he or she is nevertheless personally liable to pay what is due to the
victim out of his or her own personal property, if he or she has any. If he or
she has no property, the obligation becomes a personal debt for which the
paternal near-relations bear no responsibility. In addition, a child’s father is
not held responsible for payment of the child’s obligation.”
2410. Mālik said, “The rule about which there is no dissent among us is that
the liability for killing a slave is determined by the slave’s fair market value
as of the day he is killed. Furthermore, the paternal near-relations of the
perpetrator bear no responsibility to contribute anything to the payment of
the slave’s fair market value, be it trivial or substantial. Rather, the payment
of compensation for the slave, whatever the amount may be, is the personal
obligation of the perpetrator. Even if the fair market value of the deceased
slave is greater than or equal to the compensation due for the loss of life of a
free Muslim male, the perpetrator is nevertheless personally obliged to pay
that amount out of his own property. That is because a slave, in this context,
is a commodity.”

Chapter 17. The Inheritance of Compensation (ʿAql) for Battery and

Accelerated Payment Thereof (Taghlīẓ)
2411. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
exhorted the people at Minā,945 “Whoever knows something regarding the
rules of compensation (diya) for loss of life should come forward and tell
me what he or she knows.” Al-Ḍaḥḥāk b. Sufyān al-Kilābī came forward and
said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) sent me instructions to give Ashyam
al-Ḍibābī’s widow her share of the compensation due for the loss of her
husband’s life as part of her inheritance rights.” ʿUmar said to him, “Enter
the tent and wait for me there.” When ʿUmar entered the tent and met him,
al-Ḍaḥḥāk informed him about what had happened. Thereafter, ʿUmar
applied that precedent to similar cases. Ibn Shihāb said, “The killing of
Ashyam was unintentional (qatl al-khaṭaʾ).”

944 Al-Baqara, 2:178.

945 Minā was the gathering point of the pilgrims and thus a convenient place to benefit from the
collective knowledge of the community.
Book 40 693

2412. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from ʿAmr b. Shuʿayb that
Qatāda, a man of the Banū Mudlij, once threw a sword at his son, striking
him in the thigh. The child bled to death as a result. Surāqa b. Juʿshum went
to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb and told him what had happened. ʿUmar said to him,
“Bring 120 camels to Qudayd946 and meet me there.” When ʿUmar arrived,
he selected out of the 120 camels that Surāqa brought a group of thirty
three-year-old female camels (ḥiqqa), thirty four-year-old camels (jadhaʿa),
and forty pregnant camels (khalifa). He then said, “Where is the brother of
the deceased?” The brother said, “Here I am.” ʿUmar said to him, “Take these
camels. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘A killer receives nothing.’”947
2413. According to Mālik, it reached him that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab and
Sulaymān b. Yasār were both asked, “Is the compensation due for a killing
committed during one of the sacred months accelerated?” They both said,
“No, but the compensation should be increased on account of the violation
of the month’s sanctity.” Then Saʿīd was asked, “Should the compensation
due for wounds be increased, just as that for loss of life is?” He said, “Yes.”
Mālik said, “I think they both intended to do as ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb had
done regarding the compensation demanded of the man of Banū Mudlij
who struck his son.”
2414. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr
that a Medinese man by the name of Uḥayḥa had a paternal uncle who was a
minor. In fact, that paternal uncle was younger than Uḥayḥa. At the time, the
paternal uncle was living with his maternal uncles. Uḥayḥa grabbed hold
of him and killed him. His maternal uncles said, “We raised him from the
time he was a baby until he could stand on his own two feet, through thick
and thin, and then one of his paternal relations comes along and wrests
him from us against our will.” ʿUrwa then said, “That is why a killer may not
inherit from the one he killed.”
2415. Mālik said, “The rule about which there is no dissent among us (al-amr
alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi ʿindanā) is that whoever kills another intentionally
(qatl al-ʿamd) may not inherit any of the compensation due for the loss of
life, or any of the victim’s estate. Nor does he preclude from the inheritance
a more distant heir who would otherwise not inherit. Furthermore, anyone

946 Qudayd is a well between Mecca and Medina. ʿUmar made this request of Surāqa because he
was apparently the chief of the Banū Mudlij, which was jointly responsible for payment of the
compensation due for the unintentional killing of the child.
947 In other words, the father of the deceased boy is not entitled to share in the compensation
due for the child’s life, because he was responsible for killing him. What would have been
the father’s share goes to the other legal heirs of the deceased. In this case, it appears that
the deceased’s only other heir was his brother. Therefore, ʿUmar gave him the entirety of the
compensation due for the loss of his brother’s life.
694 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

who kills another unintentionally is also prohibited from inheriting any of

the compensation due for the victim’s loss of life. There is disagreement,
however, as to whether he may inherit his share of the decedent’s estate.
That is because there is no reason to believe that he killed him so that
he might inherit his estate or take his property. The view that I prefer is
that he be allowed to inherit from the decedent’s estate but not from the
compensation due for the loss of his life.”

Chapter 18. Miscellaneous Reports regarding Compensation (ʿAql)

for Battery
2416. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
and Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger
of God (pbuh) said, “No liability (jubār) arises out of damage caused by an
animal; nor is there any liability in cases in which someone falls into a well
or suffers an accident in a mine, and dies as a consequence. Anyone who
finds treasure that was hidden away prior to the advent of Islam (rikāz)
must pay one-fifth thereof to the public treasury.” Mālik said, “Jubār means
that no liability is attached to any of these cases.”
2417. Mālik said, “Anyone leading a beast of burden by its tether, driving it
along, or riding it is liable for whatever injuries the animal causes, unless
the animal kicks spontaneously. ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb ruled that a person who
released his horse, which subsequently injured another person, was liable
to pay compensation. A fortiori, an even stronger case exists for holding
liable a person leading, driving, or riding a beast of burden compared to a
person who releases his horse.”
2418. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) regarding someone
who digs a well, tethers his animal, or does anything similar to that on a
public highway (ṭarīq al-muslimīn) is that he is liable for any resulting loss,
whether injury or death, insofar as he was not permitted to use the public
highway in that fashion. The compensation due for any resulting injury, as
long as it is one-third or less of that due for the loss of life of a free Muslim
male, is paid personally by the responsible party out of his own property.
Liability for anything in excess of that is borne by his paternal near-relations
(ʿāqila). If, however, he was permitted to do any of these things on the public
highway, he is not liable for any injuries or deaths, nor must he pay any
compensation. Examples of permitted usage include a man digging a well
to collect rainwater and a man alighting from his beast of burden for some
need and leaving it standing on the public highway momentarily. No one
is required to pay compensation for any damages that might result from
actions such as these.”
Book 40 695

2419. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a man falls into a well, and
another man attempts to save him, following him down into the well, but
the first man pulls the second man down, and they both fall to the bottom
of the well and perish, “The first man’s paternal near-relations are required
to pay the compensation due for the loss of life of the second man (diya).”
2420. Mālik said, regarding a man who sends a child down a well or up
a date palm, and the child falls to his death or is otherwise injured, “The
one who sent the child is liable for what befell him, whether death or
anything else.”
2421. Mālik said, “The rule about which there is no dissent among us
(al-amr alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi ʿindanā) is that neither women nor children
are obliged to contribute to the payment of any obligatory compensation
that falls on the paternal near-relations in respect of a battery committed
by one of their paternal near-relations. The obligation to pay compensation
falls solely on the adult male members of the paternal near-kin.”
2422. Mālik said, “Paying compensation in respect of batteries committed
by freedmen (mawālī) is the responsibility of their paternal near-relations,
if they freely agree to pay them. If they refuse, and they have a right to a
pension through the public registry (dīwān), their obligations will be
deducted from their stipends. Even if they do not have a right to a pension
through the public registry, the paternal near-relations are still bound to
pay the compensation due. Before the public registry existed, as was the
case during the time of the Messenger of God (pbuh) and that of Abū Bakr,
the paternal near-relations would nevertheless pay the obligations arising
out of batteries committed by their freedmen. The public registry was
established only during the time of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb. No one is required
to pay compensation for batteries committed by another person except for
those committed by his own people and his own freedmen, because the right
of patronage (walāʾ) is non-transferable, and because the Prophet (pbuh)
said, ‘The right of patronage belongs to the one who manumits the slave.’
The right of patronage is thus a permanent form of affiliation (nasab).”
2423. Mālik said, “The rule in our view regarding someone who injures
a domesticated animal is that the perpetrator is liable for any resulting
diminution in the fair market value of the animal.”
2424. Mālik said, regarding a man who is condemned to death but who,
before the sentence is carried out, commits a crime subject to a mandatory
penalty (ḥadd), “He is not subject to punishment for the second crime.
His execution preempts any subsequent criminal punishment that may
become due, unless he has committed slander. In this case, it is the right
696 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

of the victim of slander to have the punishment enforced. People would

otherwise say to the victim, ‘Why didn’t you have this person flogged, if
indeed he slandered you?’ Accordingly, I believe the slanderer must be
flogged for his slander before he is executed. I do not believe, however,
that he ought to be subject to any retaliation arising out of wounds that
he may have inflicted on others, because the death sentence preempts
everything else.”
2425. Mālik said, “The rule in our view is that when a slain body is found in
the territory of a people, whether in a village or anywhere else, the people
living in closest proximity to where the body was found are not to be held
responsible for the killing. That is because it is possible that a person may
be killed and his corpse left at the door of the people, so that suspicion is
cast on them. No one can be held responsible for a killing on the basis of
such evidence.”
2426. Mālik said, regarding a group of men consisting of contending
sides who get involved in a brawl and, when it is over, discover that some
of them are dead or wounded but no one knows who was responsible
for what, “The best view that has been reported about this case is that
payment of compensation is required, and it is the collective obligation of
the side that fought those who were slain or wounded, as applicable, to
pay it. However, if the slain or injured person is a bystander, all of them
are collectively responsible for payment of the compensation due for the
loss of his life.”

Chapter 19. What Has Come Down regarding Premeditated, Cold-

Blooded Killing (Ghīla) and Sorcery (Siḥr)
2427. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb executed five or seven people who, acting in
concert, killed a man with premeditation and in cold blood. ʿUmar said,
“Had all the people of Sanaa conspired in his murder, I would have put all
of them to death.”
2428. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Saʿd b. Zurāra
reported that it reached him that Ḥafṣa, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), had
a handmaiden of hers who had used sorcery against her killed. Ḥafṣa had
previously designated her for freedom after her death (mudabbara), but
she nevertheless ordered that the handmaiden be killed.948

948 The plain sense of the Arabic report suggests that Ḥafṣa herself killed the handmaiden.
The commentators themselves are uncertain as to whether she complained of the wom-
an’s sorcery to the ruler and the ruler had her put to death, or whether she acted on her
Book 40 697

2429. Mālik said, “The sorcerer who uses sorcery, but not his client, is like
the one about whom God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says in His Book, ‘And
they knew that whoever chooses magic will have no share in the next life.’949
Therefore, I believe that a sorcerer—that is, the one who practices sorcery
himself—must be put to death.”950

Chapter 20. What Acts Are Sufficient to Prove Intent (ʿAmd)

2430. According to Mālik, ʿUmar b. Ḥusayn, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿĀʾisha
bt. Qudāma, reported that ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān ruled that the next-of-
kin of a man beaten to death with a stick were entitled to retaliate against
the killer. The next-of-kin beat him to death with a stick.
2431. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule about which there is no dissent
among us (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi ʿindanā) is
that whenever a man beats another with a stick or a rock, or strikes him
intentionally, and the victim dies as a result of that blow, the killer has acted
with intent, and as a result, retaliation (qiṣāṣ) applies.”
2432. Mālik said, “Intentional killing, in our view, occurs whenever a man
strikes another until he dies. Intentional killing also takes place when a man
strikes another in the midst of a quarrel and departs while the other person
is still alive, but he then bleeds to death. In a case like that, collective oaths
(qasāma)951 are required.”
2433. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that a group of
free men may be put to death for the intentional killing of a single free male.
Likewise, a group of free women may be put to death for the intentional
killing of a single free woman. The same rule applies for slaves.”

Chapter 21. Retaliation (Qiṣāṣ) for Intentional Killing

2434. According to Mālik, it reached him that Marwān b. al-Ḥakam wrote
to Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān, informing him that someone who had killed
another while inebriated had been arrested and brought to him. Muʿāwiya
replied, instructing Marwān, “He is to be put to death in retaliation.”

own initiative, either directly or by asking a close relative to carry out the punishment. Bājī,
al-Muntaqā, 7:116.
949 Al-Baqara, 2:102.
950 Mālik’s rationale for putting a sorcerer to death is based on the notion that practicing sor-
cery, in and of itself, is a kind of unbelief.
951 Collective oaths (qasāma) refer to a procedure that Mālik applies to cases of intentional kill-
ing in which there is only circumstantial evidence of culpability. In this case, the next-of-kin
would have to swear fifty oaths that the cause of death of the deceased was the injury suf-
fered at the hands of the defendant before they would have the right to retaliate.
698 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2435. Mālik said, “The best view I have heard regarding the meaning of the
statement of God, Blessed and Sublime is He, ‘The free for the free, and the
slave for the slave,’952 is that it refers to males. The meaning of ‘The woman
for the woman’953 is that the rule of retaliation also applies to females, just
as it applies to males. Accordingly, a free woman is put to death for killing
another free woman, just as a free man is put to death for killing another free
man. Likewise, a handmaiden is put to death for killing another handmaiden,
just as a slave is put to death for killing another slave. The rule of retaliation
applies to killing among women just as it applies to killing between men and
women. This is because God, Blessed and Sublime is He, says in His Book, ‘We
ordained therein for them a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose,
an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and wounds like for like.’954 God, Blessed
and Sublime is He, stated the rule as ‘a life for a life.’ Therefore, the life of a free
woman is due for the life of a free man, and her injury for his injury.”
2436. Mālik said, regarding a man who restrains another so that a third
man can beat him, and then the third man kills him on the spot, “If the first
man restrained the second believing that the third man intended to kill
him, both of them are put to death. If, on the other hand, he restrained him
thinking that the third man only intended to give the second man a good
beating and not realizing that the third man intended to kill him, only the
third man is put to death. The first man, who restrained the victim, must
nevertheless be punished severely and imprisoned for a year, because he
restrained him. He may not, however, be put to death.”
2437. Mālik said, regarding a man who intentionally kills another or gouges
out his eye but then is himself killed or has his own eye gouged out before
retaliation can take place, “In this case, both the right to retaliation and
the right to compensation for the loss of life (diya) lapse. That is because
the right of the original victim was attached to the very thing that has now
disappeared (that is, the perpetrator’s life or eye). This is no different from
a case in which a man intentionally kills another and then dies. In this case,
the next-of-kin have no rights, neither to compensation nor to anything
else. This is because of the statement of God, Blessed and Sublime is He,
‘Equality is prescribed for you in cases involving killing: the free for the free,
and the slave for the slave.’955 The victim is entitled to retaliate only against
the perpetrator. Consequently, should the perpetrator die, the victim has no
claim to retaliation or compensation.”

952 Al-Baqara, 2:178.

953 Al-Baqara, 2:178.
954 Al-Māʾida, 5:45.
955 Al-Baqara, 2:178.
Book 40 699

2438. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘Retaliation (qawad) does not apply for injuries
occurring between a slave and a free man. A slave may be put to death if he
intentionally kills a free man, but a free man is not to be put to death if he kills
a slave, even if he does so intentionally. This is the best view that I have heard.’”

Chapter 22. Pardons (ʿAfw) in Cases of Intentional Killing

(Qatl al-ʿAmd)
2439. According to Mālik, he found that the people of knowledge whose
views he found satisfactory (annahu adraka man yarḍā min ahl al-ʿilm)
would say that if a man who has sustained grievous wounds from an
intentional assault declares on his deathbed that should he die of his
wounds, he pardons his killer, “His declaration is valid, and he has a greater
claim to his right of retaliation than do his next-of-kin after his death.”
2440. Mālik said, regarding a man who pardons the perpetrator of an
intentional killing (qatl al-ʿamd) after acquiring the right to put the
perpetrator to death, “In this case, the perpetrator is not responsible to
pay compensation (ʿaql) for the lost life, unless the party who pardons him
imposes that as a condition of the pardon.”
2441. Mālik said, regarding the perpetrator of an intentional killing, “If he is
pardoned, he must be given one hundred lashes and imprisoned for a year.”
2442. Mālik said, “If a man is the victim of an intentional killing, and the
crime is proven before a judge with eyewitness testimony, and the victim
has sons and daughters, and the sons agree to pardon the perpetrator but
the daughters refuse, the sons’ pardon binds the daughters. The daughters
have no standing to object to the sons’ decisions regarding whether to seek
retaliation or to pardon the perpetrator.”

Chapter 23. Retaliation (Qiṣāṣ) for Battery (Jirāḥ)

2443. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr
al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā) is that whoever breaks another person’s
hand or leg intentionally is subject to retaliation, but there is no
monetary compensation.’”
2444. Mālik said, “However, retaliation is not to be taken against a perpetrator
until the victim’s injuries heal. Only then may retaliation be exacted. If it
turns out that the injury inflicted on the perpetrator after he recovers from
it is similar to the injury that he inflicted on the victim, retaliation has been
satisfied. On the other hand, if the injury of the perpetrator turns out to be
worse than that which he inflicted on the victim, or even if he should die, the
700 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

original victim, the one exercising the right of retaliation, bears no liability.
If, after the victim exercises his right of retaliation, the perpetrator’s wound
heals completely whereas the original victim has been left paralyzed as a
result of the perpetrator’s original action, or the victim’s wound has healed
but left him disfigured, scarred, or maimed, the perpetrator is not subjected
to a second round of retaliation. Rather, he is held liable for compensation
to the extent that he has diminished the usefulness of the victim’s hand. All
other wounds to the body are treated in accordance with that principle.”
2445. Mālik said, “If a man seeks out his wife and gouges out her eye, breaks
her hand, severs her finger, or does anything like that to her, intending that
outcome, she has the right to seek retaliation against him. If, on the other
hand, a man strikes his wife with a rope or a whip and as a result harms her
in a way that he did not desire or intend, he is liable to pay compensation
for the injury that he has caused her but is not subject to retaliation.”
2446. According to Mālik, it reached him that Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad b.
ʿAmr b. Ḥazm authorized retaliation for someone whose thigh was broken.956

Chapter 24. The Compensation (Diya) Due for the Life of an Abandoned
Freedman (Sāʾiba) and the Liability for Batteries That He Commits
2447. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from Sulaymān b. Yasār
that a slave whom a pilgrim had manumitted and then abandoned killed the
son of a man of the Banū ʿĀʾidh. The father of the deceased went to ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb, seeking compensation (diya) for the loss of life of his son. ʿUmar
said, “He is not entitled to compensation.” The father retorted, “What if it
were my son who killed the man?” ʿUmar replied, “In that case, you would
be obliged to pay compensation for his life.” The father then said, “In that
case, he is like a poisonous snake—if you leave it be, it devours you; and if it
is killed, it seeks vengeance.”957

The Book of Compensation (ʿUqūl) for Battery Has

Been Completed, with Praise Due to God.

956 Bājī reports that this is a controversial position among Mālikīs because it is difficult to ensure
proportionality in exercising such a right, and the retaliatory action is likely to destroy the
perpetrator’s thigh or perhaps even kill him. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 7:131.
957 This is a case involving unintentional killing. A freedman abandoned by his former master
lacks a relationship of patronage (walāʾ). Ordinarily, liability for batteries committed by a
freedman is borne by the paternal near-relations of his patron, but in this case, the aban-
doned freedman had no such relationship. Therefore, ʿUmar did not authorize compensation
for the loss of the child’s life. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr reports that ʿUmar’s decision in this case is a
matter of controversy among Muslim jurists. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 8:188–90.
 Book 41
The Book of Collective Oaths (Qasāma)

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family
and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.

Chapter 1. The Parties Claiming the Right to Retaliation Begin the

Collective Oaths (Qasāma)
2448. According to Mālik, Abū Laylā b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
b. Sahl reported from Sahl b. Abī Ḥathma that some eminent men of his
people informed him that ʿAbd Allāh b. Sahl and Muḥayṣa had once set out
for Khaybar on account of their extreme poverty. While they were there,
someone came to Muḥayṣa and reported to him that ʿAbd Allāh b. Sahl had
been killed and thrown into a shallow well (faqīr biʾr).958 Muḥayṣa went to
the Jews of Khaybar and said, “By God, you killed him!” They said, “By God,
we certainly did not!” He then departed and journeyed until he reached his
people in Medina and told them what had happened. He, his brother Huwayṣa
(who was the elder of the two), and his other brother ʿAbd al-Raḥmān then
set out together to see the Messenger of God (pbuh). Muḥayṣa prepared to
speak, because he was the one who had been to Khaybar, but the Messenger
of God (pbuh) interrupted him and said, “The eldest, the eldest,” meaning
the eldest should speak first. So Ḥuwayṣa spoke, and then Muḥayṣa did. The
Messenger of God (pbuh) then said, “Either they pay the compensation due
for the loss of your companion’s life, or they should prepare for war.” The
Messenger of God (pbuh) wrote to the Jews of Khaybar, demanding they
accept responsibility for what happened. They sent him a reply, saying, “By
God, we did not kill him.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to Ḥuwayṣa,
Muḥayṣa, and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, “Are you prepared to swear oaths to
vindicate your claims regarding the loss of your companion’s life?” They

958 The text states that the narrator is uncertain whether the word was “a well” or “a spring”
(ʿayn).

701
702 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

said, “No.” He said, “Are the Jews prepared to swear for you oaths affirming
their innocence?” They said, “But they are not Muslims.” As a result, the
Messenger of God (pbuh) decided to pay the compensation due for the loss
of their companion’s life himself, out of the public treasury. He dispatched
one hundred she-camels to them as compensation, instructing that they be
delivered to them in their own territory. Sahl remarked, “One of the red
ones kicked me.” Mālik said, “The term faqīr means well.”
2449. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Bushayr b. Yasār
informed him that ʿAbd Allāh b. Sahl al-Anṣarī and Muḥayṣa b. Masʿūd set
out together for Khaybar. When they arrived there, each went his separate
way to see to his own affairs. Then ʿAbd Allāh b. Sahl was killed. Muḥayṣa
departed from Khaybar and went with his brother Ḥuwayṣa and ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. Sahl to the Messenger of God (pbuh). ʿAbd al-Raḥmān was
about to speak on account of his relationship with his deceased brother,
but the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “The eldest, the eldest,” so Muḥayṣa
and Ḥuwayṣa spoke instead, and they recounted what had happened to
ʿAbd Allāh b. Sahl. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to them, “Are you
prepared to swear fifty oaths to vindicate your claims regarding the loss
of your companion’s life (or ‘to vindicate your right to retaliate against
the perpetrator’)?” They said, “Messenger of God, we neither witnessed
the killing nor were present, so we cannot swear.” The Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, “If the Jews swear fifty oaths denying responsibility, will it
convince you of their innocence?” They said, “Messenger of God, how can
we accept the oaths of nonbelievers?” Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “Bushayr said that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) then paid the compensation due for the loss of
ʿAbd Allāh’s life out of the public treasury.”
2450. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us and that which I have
heard from those whom I find agreeable (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ ʿalayhi ʿindanā
wa’lladhī samiʿtu mimman arḍā) regarding collective oaths, and the rule on
which the rulers of the past and the present have agreed (wa’lladhī ijtamaʿat
ʿalayhi al-aʾimma fī al-qadīm wa’l-ḥadīth), is that the accusers who seek to
impose liability are given the first chance to swear their oaths. Collective
oaths apply in only two circumstances. The first is when a dying man
declares, ‘So-and-so killed me.’ The second is when the next-of-kin are able
to produce some inconclusive circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s
guilt. These are the only two circumstances in which accusers are entitled
to swear collective oaths to prove the accused’s guilt. Collective oaths are
not applied, in our view, in any but these two circumstances.”
2451. Mālik said, “The established ordinance about which there is no dissent
among us and in respect of which the people’s practice has been continuous
Book 41 703

(al-sunna allatī lā ikhtilāfa fīhā ʿindanā wa’lladhī lam yazal ʿalayhi ʿamal
al-nās) is that when the accusers accuse someone of responsibility for a
killing, whether intentional or unintentional, they are the first to take the
collective oaths. The Messenger of God (pbuh) allowed the tribesmen of
Banū Ḥārith to take the oath first in the case of their kinsman who was killed
in Khaybar. If the accusers take the oath, they are entitled to seek retaliation
against the defendant. Only one person, however, may be put to death
pursuant to collective oaths, not two or more. Fifty of the deceased’s male
next-of-kin swear fifty oaths. If they are fewer than fifty, or some of them
refuse to swear the oath, others can take substitute oaths on their behalf to
complete the required number, unless one of those refusing to swear the
oath is a relative who is entitled to grant a pardon to the perpetrator. If one
of them refuses to swear the oath, the right to retaliation will not arise.
Substitute oaths are permitted only if the next-of-kin who refuses to take
the oath is not one of those male relatives of the deceased entitled to grant
the perpetrator a pardon. Therefore, if even one such next-of-kin refuses to
swear the oath, none of the remaining next-of-kin is entitled to swear in his
place. In this situation, the obligation to swear the oaths is transferred to the
defendants. Fifty of their men should swear fifty oaths. If they are not fifty,
those who have already sworn are permitted to swear additional oaths to
complete the required number. If there is no one to take the oath other than
the accused himself, he may swear fifty times himself and be acquitted. The
reason there is a difference between the procedure governing oath-taking in
connection with accusations of killing, on the one hand, and that governing
oath-taking in connection with claims of property, on the other, is that when
a man extends credit to another, he takes steps to secure his claim by, for
example, bringing witnesses to attest to the transaction, whereas when a
man desires to kill another, he does not kill him in the presence of a group of
people but rather tries to do it surreptitiously. If the procedure for collective
oaths were applied only in cases in which there was eyewitness testimony,
and were the same rules to apply to these cases as apply to cases involving
property, it would be impossible to establish liability for killing, and people
would be emboldened to kill one another once they knew the applicable
rules of evidence. Instead, it is the case that the right to take collective oaths
has been given first to the deceased’s next-of-kin, so that people may be
deterred from killing one another and that someone contemplating killing
another may be deterred from doing so, knowing that he may be held
responsible for that act by virtue of the dying man’s declaration.”
2452. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which one person in a group
of people is suspected of responsibility for a killing, and the deceased’s
next-of-kin refuse to swear their oaths and instead transfer the obligation
704 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

to swear the oaths to the defendants, who constitute a numerous group,

“Each member of the group must swear individually fifty oaths that he is
innocent. The oaths are not to be allocated among them on the basis of their
number; rather, the members of the group are exonerated only if each one
of them swears fifty times. This is the best view that I have heard regarding
that issue.”
2453. Mālik said, “The right to swear the collective oaths belongs to the
male paternal near-relations (ʿaṣaba) of the slain person. They are the
next-of-kin who take the oaths that establish the perpetrator’s guilt, and
the ones by whose oaths the perpetrator is put to death.”

Chapter 2. Those Among the Deceased’s Next-of-Kin Who Participate

in Collective Oaths (Qasāma) in Connection with Proving an
Intentional Killing (Qatl al-ʿAmd)
2454. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule about which there is no dissent
among us (al-amr alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi ʿindanā) is that the oaths of women
are not admissible in a collective oath proceeding to prove an intentional
killing, even if the slain person’s only next-of-kin are females. Women have
no right either to participate in the collective oath proceeding regarding an
intentional killing or to grant a pardon.’”
2455. Mālik said, regarding the victim of an intentional killing, “If his male
paternal near-relations (ʿaṣaba) or his freedmen (mawālī) declare, ‘We are
prepared to swear oaths in order to vindicate his life by exercising our right
of retaliation,’ that is their right.”
2456. Mālik said, “Even if some of the female relations wish to pardon the
killer, they are not entitled to do so. The slain man’s paternal near-relations
and his freedmen have a stronger claim to that right than the female
relations do, because the former are the ones who vindicated his life by
securing the right to retaliate for his death and who swore oaths in order
to do so.”
2457. Mālik said, “If, after the perpetrator’s guilt has been proven, the
paternal near-relations and the freedmen agree to pardon him, but the slain
man’s female relations refuse, saying, ‘We shall not abandon our right to
retaliation against the one who killed our kinsman,’ the latter’s objection
is more worthy and of greater effect than the former’s pardon. That is
because someone who wishes to exercise the right of retaliation (qawad)
has a stronger claim than those who wish to waive it once guilt has been
conclusively established and the right to retaliation has been granted,
whether or not those willing to pardon are male or female.”
Book 41 705

2458. Mālik said, “The minimum number of accusers required for a

collective oath proceeding in a case of intentional killing is two. The oaths
may be divided between the two as they wish, provided that they swear
fifty oaths altogether. Once they have done so, they have proven their claim
and are entitled to exercise the right of retaliation against the perpetrator.
That is the rule among us (dhālika al-amr ʿindanā).”
2459. Mālik said, “If a group of people beat a man to death with their own
bare hands, all of them may be put to death. But if the victim dies after
having been beaten, collective oaths are required to prove guilt. If collective
oaths take place, only one member of the group can be charged, and only he
may be put to death for the killing. We have never heard of a case involving
collective oaths that involved more than one accused.”

Chapter 3. Collective Oaths (Qasāma) in Cases of Unintentional

Killing (Qatl al-Khaṭaʾ)
2460. Mālik said, “In a collective oath proceeding to establish liability for a
unintentional killing, the next-of-kin—the accusers, the ones who vindicate
their claim by taking the collective oaths—must swear fifty oaths, each of
them swearing a number of individual oaths determined in accordance
with his proportionate share of the compensation due for the loss of the
victim’s life, this share being determined by the laws of inheritance. If,
after the oaths are allocated among them, there are fractions of oaths that
must be taken, the claimant to whom the greatest portion of the unsworn
fractional oaths has been allocated is required to take them.”959
2461. Mālik said, “If the slain person has only female heirs, they may
swear the required collective oaths and become entitled to receive the
compensation due for the loss of his life (diya). If the decedent has only one
male heir, the heir may swear fifty times and become entitled to receive the
compensation due. This rule applies only in cases involving unintentional
killing, not in cases of intentional killing (qatl al-ʿamd).”

959 For example, if a man is killed leaving behind a son and a daughter as his only heirs, the
son is entitled to receive two-thirds of the compensation due for the loss of his father’s life,
and the daughter is entitled to one-third. Accordingly, the son would be required to swear
two-thirds of the fifty oaths, that is, thirty-three and one-third oaths, and the daughter would
be required to swear one-third of the fifty oaths, that is, sixteen and two-thirds oaths. In this
case, since the daughter has been allocated two-thirds of the final oath, she, not her brother,
is obligated to swear it.
706 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 4. Inheritance in a Collective Oath Proceeding (Qasāma)

2462. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘If the victim’s next-of-kin accept
compensation for the loss of his life in lieu of retaliation, it is divided as
inheritance in accordance with the Book of God, Mighty and Exalted is
He. The decedent’s daughters, sisters, and other female heirs inherit their
shares of it. If the claims of the female heirs do not exhaust the entirety
of the compensation paid for the loss of his life, what remains goes to the
decedent’s nearest male relations.”
2463. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘If an heir of someone who died as a result
of an unintentional killing wishes to collect his share of the compensation
due for the loss of the decedent’s life, but the other heirs are absent, he
is not entitled to do so. He is not entitled to any of the compensation
due, be it small or great, until the collective oath proceeding has been
completed and fifty oaths have been taken. If he takes the fifty oaths
himself, he is entitled to his share of the compensation due. That is because
responsibility for the killing is established only once the fifty oaths have
been taken, and no compensation is due until responsibility for the killing
has been established. If another of the deceased’s heirs shows up later, he
swears a number of oaths in accordance with his share in the decedent’s
estate, and once he does so, he takes his share of the compensation. This
procedure is followed until all the heirs have taken their respective shares.
Accordingly, if a maternal half-brother shows up, he is entitled to one-sixth
of the compensation and must swear one-sixth of the requisite fifty oaths.
Whoever swears is entitled to his share of the compensation, and whoever
refuses to swear loses his right to his share of the compensation. If some
of the heirs are absent, or minors who have not yet reached puberty, the
present heirs swear fifty oaths to establish the perpetrator’s responsibility;
then, if an absent heir later shows up or a minor heir reaches puberty, the
heir swears a number of oaths in accordance with his proportional right to
the compensation due as determined by his share in the decedent’s estate.
This is the best view I have heard.’”

Chapter 5. Collective Oaths (Qasāma) in Cases That Involve Slaves

2464. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik said, ‘The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
regarding slaves is that if a slave is killed, whether intentionally or
unintentionally, and his master is able to produce an eyewitness to the act,
he swears one oath corroborating the testimony of his witness and is then
entitled to the fair market value of his slave. A collective oath proceeding
is not carried out in a case involving the killing of a slave, be it intentional
or unintentional. I have not heard any of the people of knowledge (lam
Book 41 707

asmaʿ aḥadan min ahl al-ʿilm) claim that a collective oath proceeding
should be carried out on behalf of a slain slave. If a slave kills another slave,
intentionally or unintentionally, the master of the slain slave is not obliged
to institute a collective oath proceeding, nor is he obligated to take an oath
at all. He is entitled to receive compensation for his deceased slave only if
he has two eyewitnesses to establish responsibility for the slave’s death or
if he has one witness but is prepared to swear an oath corroborating that
witness’s testimony. This is the best view I have heard.’”

The Book of Collective Oaths (Qasāma)

Has Been Completed, with Praise Due to God,
and with His Assistance.
 Book 42
The Book of Lapidation (Rajm) and Mandatory
Criminal Punishments (Ḥudūd)
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate
May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family
and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.

Chapter 1. What Has Come Down regarding Lapidation (Rajm)

2465. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “The
Jews of Medina came to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and told him that a
man and a woman had engaged in illicit intercourse (zinā). The Messenger
of God (pbuh) said to them, ‘What does the Torah say about lapidation
(rajm)?’ They said, ‘We publicly shame them, and then they are flogged.’
ʿAbd Allāh b. Salām960 said, ‘You are lying. It speaks of lapidation.’ They
brought the Torah scroll and they unwound it, and one of them placed his
hand over the verses of lapidation961 and then recited what came before
and after it. ʿAbd Allāh b. Salām said to him, ‘Remove your hand!’ The man
removed his hand, and the lapidation verses appeared. They said, ‘He told
the truth, Muḥammad. The Torah contains the verses on lapidation.’ The
Messenger of God (pbuh) ordered that they be lapidated, and they were.”
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “I saw the man lean over the woman to protect her
from the stones.” Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘In other words, he placed
his body over hers so that the stones would fall on him.’”
2466. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that a man of the Aslam tribe962 came to Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq and said to him,
“This miserable soul has committed illicit intercourse.” Abū Bakr said to
him, “Have you mentioned this to anyone else?” He replied, “No, I have

960 A Jewish convert to Islam, ʿAbd Allāh b. Salām is reported to have been knowledgeable of
the Torah.
961 Cf. Deuteronomy 22:22–24.
962 Other sources identify this person as Māʿiz b. Mālik.

709
710 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

not.” Abū Bakr said to him, “In that case, conceal it with the veil of God’s
protection, for God accepts the repentance of His servants.” But his soul
remained unsettled, so he went to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb and repeated what
he had previously told Abū Bakr. ʿUmar told him the same thing as Abū
Bakr had done, but the man’s soul remained unsettled, so he decided to
go to the Messenger of God (pbuh). He said to him, “This miserable soul
has committed illicit intercourse.” Saʿīd said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh)
turned his back on him three times, but the man would not stop. Finally,
the Messenger of God (pbuh) summoned his family and asked them, “Is
he suffering from illness? Is he mad?” They said, “Messenger of God, he is
certainly of sound health and mind.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) asked,
“Has he ever been married?” They said, “Yes indeed, he has married,
Messenger of God.” Accordingly, the Messenger of God (pbuh) ordered that
he be lapidated, and he was.”
2467. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
said, “It reached me that the Messenger of God (pbuh) once said to a man
of the tribe of Aslam who went by the name Hazzāl, ‘Hazzāl, if only you
had covered up your sin with your cloak, that would have been better for
you.’” Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “I reported this statement in a gathering that
included Yazīd b. Nuʿaym b. Hazzāl al-Aslamī, and Yazīd said, ‘Hazzāl is my
grandfather, and this statement is true.’”
2468. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb informed him that a man confessed
to having engaged in illicit intercourse during the time of the Messenger of
God (pbuh). He repeated his confession four times, and then the Messenger
of God (pbuh) ordered that he be lapidated, and he was. Ibn Shihāb said, “On
the basis of that precedent, a man’s confessions are admissible evidence
against him.”
2469. According to Mālik, Yaʿqūb b. Zayd b. Ṭalḥa reported from his father,
Zayd b. Ṭalḥa, that ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Mulayka informed him that a woman
once went to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and told him that she had
engaged in illicit intercourse and that she was pregnant. The Messenger
of God (pbuh) told her, “Go away until you give birth.” After she gave birth
to the child, she returned. The Messenger of God (pbuh) told her, “Go away
until you have suckled and weaned the child.” After she finished suckling
the child and weaned him, she returned. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
“Go away until you find someone to take care of the child, and entrust the
child to him.” Zayd said, “She found someone to take care of the child and
entrusted the child to him, whereupon she returned to the Messenger of
God (pbuh), who ordered that she be lapidated, and so she was.”
Book 42 711

2470. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUtba that Abū Hurayra and Zayd b. Khālid al-Juhanī informed him
that two men were quarreling and brought their dispute to the Messenger
of God (pbuh). One of them said, “Messenger of God, resolve our dispute in
accordance with God’s Book!” The other man, who was the more learned of
the two, said, “Indeed, Messenger of God, resolve our dispute in accordance
with God’s Book, and allow me to speak first.” The Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “Speak,” so the man said, “My son was an employee (ʿasīf) of this man,
and he engaged in illicit intercourse with his employer’s wife. He told me
that my son is subject to lapidation, so I ransomed him with a hundred
yearlings (shāt) and a handmaiden of mine. I then asked the people of
knowledge about this case, and they told me that my son is in fact only
subject to one hundred lashes and exile for a year. They also informed me
that it is only the man’s wife who is subject to lapidation.” The Messenger
of God (pbuh) then said, “By Him whose hand holds my soul, I will certainly
resolve your dispute in accordance with God’s Book. Your sheep (ghanam)
and your handmaiden must be returned to you.” He also ordered that the
man’s son be given one hundred lashes and that he be exiled for a year. He
ordered Unays al-Aslamī to go to the employer’s wife and, if she confessed
to having engaged in illicit intercourse, to lapidate her. She confessed, and
therefore he lapidated her. Mālik said, “ʿAsīf means ‘employee.’”
2471. According to Mālik, Suhayl b. Abī Ṣāliḥ reported from his father,
from Abū Hurayra, that Saʿd b. ʿUbāda said to the Messenger of God (pbuh),
“What do you propose I do if I find a stranger alone with my wife? Shall I
leave him be until I can find four witnesses and bring them to the scene?”
The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Yes.”
2472. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās said, “I heard ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb say, ‘Lapidation is in God’s Book; it is the obligatory punishment
for males and females who engage in illicit intercourse, provided they have
previously been married and proof has been provided. Either pregnancy or
a confession can establish guilt.’”
2473. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Sulaymān b. Yasār,
from Abū Wāqid al-Laythī, that a man came to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb while
he was in the Levant and complained to him that he had found a stranger
alone with his wife. ʿUmar dispatched Abū Wāqid al-Laythī to the man’s
wife to investigate what had happened. When he arrived to question her,
she was surrounded by a group of women. He told her what her husband
had reported to ʿUmar. He then informed her that she could not be punished
on the basis of her husband’s accusation. She began to confess, however,
712 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

and he attempted to interrupt her, reminding her of what he had told her
previously, so as to get her to abandon her confession. She refused, however,
and held fast to it. Therefore, ʿUmar ordered that she be lapidated, and so
she was.
2474. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he heard Saʿīd
b. al-Musayyab say, “When ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb departed from Minā, he
alighted with his camel at al-Abṭaḥ. He then gathered a pile of pebbles,
made a pillow by casting his cloak over them, and lay down on his back. He
then raised his hands toward the heavens and said, “O God! I have become
old and decrepit. My flock has scattered. Return me to You, without having
missed or neglected anything.” He then returned to Medina and gave a
sermon to the people, saying, “People! Rules have been laid down for you;
specific entitlements have been granted to you. You have been given a
clear path, lest you wander astray, going to the right or the left.” He then
wrung his hands and said, “Take care that you not forget the lapidation
verse, lest someone say, ‘We do not see two punishments in God’s Book,’
for it is certainly the case that God’s Messenger (pbuh) ordered lapidation,
as did we. By Him whose hand holds my soul, if it were not the case that
people would say, ‘ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb has inserted something into the
Book of God,’ I would have written in God’s Book, ‘The old man and the
old woman, lapidate them until they die.’ It is certainly the case that we
recited that.”
2475. Mālik said, “Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab said, ‘Hardly
had Dhū al-Ḥijja passed when ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb was murdered, may God
have mercy on him.’” Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘ʿUmar’s statement “the
old man and the old woman” refers to a man and a woman who have been
married prior to commiting illicit intercourse: lapidate them until they die.’”
2476. Mālik said that it reached him that ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān was brought
a woman who had given birth to a child six months after her marriage, so
he ordered that she be lapidated. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib said to him, “Lapidation
does not apply to her. God says in His Book, ‘Pregnancy and weaning last
thirty months,’963 and He says, ‘Mothers may nurse their children for up to
two whole years, for whoever desires to complete the period of nursing.’964
Accordingly, pregnancy can last six months, so she is not subject to
lapidation.” ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān sent a messenger to track her down and to
halt enforcement of the punishment, but by the time the messenger caught
up with her, the sentence had already been carried out.

963 Al-Aḥqāf, 46:15.

964 Al-Baqara, 2:233.
Book 42 713

2477. Mālik asked Ibn Shihāb about a person who performs the act of the
people of Lot.965 Ibn Shihāb said, “He is to be lapidated, whether or not he is
‘chaste’ from a legal perspective (muḥṣan).”966

Chapter 2. Someone Who Confesses to Having Committed Illicit

Intercourse (Zinā)
2478. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that a man confessed
to having committed illicit intercourse (zinā) in the time of the Messenger
of God (pbuh). The Messenger of God called for a whip, and a broken one
was brought to him. He said, “Stronger than this.” He was brought a newly
fashioned whip whose knots were still taut and crisp. He said, “Weaker than
this.” Then he was brought a whip whose knots had frayed and softened.
The Messenger of God (pbuh) then ordered that the man be flogged, and
he was. He then said, “People! The time has come for you to observe God’s
limits. Whoever commits a foul act such as this should seek cover in God’s
protection and not disclose what he has done. But if he reveals his actions to
us, we shall impose on him the punishment specified in God’s Book.”
2479. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that Ṣafiyya bt. Abī ʿUbayd told
him that a man who had never been married (bikr) was brought to Abū Bakr
al-Ṣiddīq. He was accused of having had intercourse with a handmaiden,
making her pregnant. He confessed to having committed illicit intercourse.
Because the man had not been previously married, Abū Bakr ordered that
he be flogged as required by the mandatory punishment (ḥadd) specified in
God’s Book, and so he was. He was then exiled to Fadak.967
2480. Mālik said, regarding someone who confesses to illicit intercourse
but then retracts his confession and says, “I didn’t do it. I only said it because
of this and that,” and mentions some reason, “His retraction is acceptable,
and the mandatory penalty is not imposed on him. That is because the
mandatory punishment that is due to God becomes applicable only through
two means. The first is the testimony of upright witnesses establishing
the perpetrator’s guilt. And the second is the perpetrator’s unretracted
confession. If he refuses to retract his confession, the mandatory punishment
is imposed on him.”

965 The “act of the people of Lot” is a euphemism for homosexual anal sex.
966 The penalty of lapidation applies exclusively to people who satisfy the legal condition of chas-
tity. A person attains this status only through having previously engaged in certain forms of
licit intercourse. Accordingly, even if a person is not married at the time of committing illicit
heterosexual intercourse, he or she may still be subject to lapidation if he or she has previously
engaged in licit intercourse. Homosexual anal intercourse, according to this report, is always
punished by lapidation, regardless of the defendant’s current or former marital status.
967 An oasis approximately 140 kilometers from Medina.
714 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2481. Mālik said, “What I found the people of knowledge (alladhī adraktu
ʿalayhi ahl al-ʿilm) saying regarding slaves who commit illicit intercourse is
that exile does not apply to them.”

Chapter 3. Miscellaneous Reports regarding the Mandatory

Punishment (Ḥadd) for Illicit Intercourse (Zinā)
2482. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd, from Abū Hurayra and Zayd b. Khālid al-Juhanī,
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) was asked about a handmaiden who
had never been married and who engaged in illicit intercourse (zinā). He
said, “If she engaged in illicit intercourse, flog her; if she then engages in
illicit intercourse again, flog her; and if she engages in illicit intercourse
yet again, sell her, even if only for a rope (ḍafīr).” Ibn Shihāb said, “I do not
know whether it was the third or fourth time.” Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik
say, ‘Ḍafīr means a rope.’”
2483. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from Ṣafiyya that a slave who
was supervising the slaves belonging to the public treasury forced one
of the handmaidens under his supervision to have intercourse with him.
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb had him flogged and exiled him, but he did not flog the
handmaiden, because the slave had raped her.
2484. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Sulaymān b. Yasār
informed him that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAyyāsh b. Abī Rabīʿa al-Makhzūmī said,
“ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb ordered me and some other youths of the Quraysh to
flog handmaidens who were the property of the public treasury fifty lashes
each for illicit intercourse.”

Chapter 4. What Has Come Down regarding a Woman Who Has Been
Raped (Mughtaṣaba)
2485. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) regarding an
unmarried woman who is found to be pregnant and who says, ‘I was raped,’
or ‘I was married,’ is that her statement is not credited and she is subject
to the mandatory punishment (ḥadd) for illicit intercourse, unless she has
evidence proving her claimed marriage or proving that she was raped, such
as evidence that she came to the authorities bleeding, if she was a virgin, or
that she was crying out for help against her rapist when she was discovered,
or something similarly public that would entail deliberately exposing
herself to embarrassment. If she is unable to show any of these things, she
is subject to the mandatory punishment for illicit intercourse, and none of
her proffered excuses is credited.”
Book 42 715

2486. Mālik said, “A raped woman may not marry until three menstrual
periods have passed following the rape to exclude the possibility of
pregnancy. If she has doubts regarding the regularity of her period, she may
not marry until she resolves her doubts with certainty.”

Chapter 5. What Has Come Down regarding the Mandatory

Punishment (Ḥadd) for Slander (Qadhf), Denial of Paternity, and
Indirect Slander (Taʿrīḍ)
2487. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād said, “ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz flogged
a slave eighty lashes for slander.” Abū al-Zinād said, “I asked ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿĀmir b. Rabīʿa about that case, and he said, ‘I was alive during the terms of
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān, and the rest of the caliphs, and I never
saw any of them punish a slave for slander with more than forty lashes.”
2488. According to Mālik, Ruzayq b. Ḥakīm reported that a man named
Miṣbāḥ asked his son for help, but the son was slow to respond. When
he finally showed up, his father yelled at him, saying, “You fornicator!”
Ruzayq said, “The son brought him to me to complain about what he had
said, but when I was about to flog the father for slander, the son said, ‘If
you do actually intend to flog him, I will confess to having committed illicit
intercourse (zinā) in order to prevent the punishment from being carried
out.’ When he said that, I was confused about what to do, so I wrote to ʿUmar
b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, who was the governor at the time, asking for his opinion.
ʿUmar wrote back, telling me to give effect to the son’s pardon of the father.
I also wrote to ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, asking him, “What is your view
regarding a man who is slandered, or a man whose parents are slandered
and one or both of them are dead?” ʿUmar wrote to me in response, “If the
son grants a pardon, his pardon is effective with respect to himself. But if
his parents were slandered, and one or both of them are already dead, apply
the punishment that is specified in God’s Book, unless the son wishes to
keep the matter hidden.”
2489. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘That is because the slandered man might
fear that if the matter were made public, witnesses might come forward. If
the circumstances are as I describe them, the son’s pardon is effective.’”
2490. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father said,
regarding a man who has slandered a group of people, “He is to be punished
for slander only once.” Mālik said, “Even if they disperse, he is still to be
punished only once.”
2491. According to Mālik, Abū al-Rijāl Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
b. Ḥāritha b. al-Nuʿmān al-Anṣārī of the Banū al-Najjār reported from
716 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

his mother, ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, that two men cursed each other
during the time of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb. One of them said to the other, “By
God, at least my father is not a fornicator, nor is my mother.”968 ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb consulted others to get their view on whether such a statement
was slanderous. One person said, “All he has done is praise his father and
his mother,” whereas others said, “Certainly his father and his mother had
other characteristics for which they could have been praised. We believe
that you should punish him for slander.” ʿUmar then ordered the man to be
flogged the mandatory punishment for slander, eighty lashes.
2492. Mālik said, “In our opinion, the mandatory punishment (ḥadd) for
slander is applicable only when the defendant has denied the plaintiff’s
paternity (nafy), engaged in explicit slander (qadhf), or engaged in indirect
slander (taʿrīḍ) by making a statement by which he intends to call into
doubt the plaintiff’s paternity or to slander the plaintiff. Whoever makes
such a statement is subject to the mandatory punishment for slander.”
2493. Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā) is that when
a man denies another man’s paternity, he is subjected to the mandatory
punishment for slander. Even if the mother of the slandered plaintiff is
a handmaiden, the mandatory punishment nonetheless applies to the
defendant.”

Chapter 6. Actions That Do Not Result in the Application of a

Mandatory Punishment (Ḥadd)
2494. Mālik said, “The best view that has been reported regarding a man
who has intercourse with a handmaiden whom he owns in part is that the
mandatory punishment for illicit intercourse does not apply to his actions,
and any child that results is affiliated to him. The handmaiden, however, is
subject to a mandatory appraisal to determine her fair market value, and
he is required to give his co-owners the fair market value of their pro rata
shares in the handmaiden, upon which he becomes her sole owner. The rule
among us is in accordance with this (ʿalā hādhā al-amr ʿindanā).”
2495. Mālik said, regarding a man who hands over his handmaiden to
another man and gives him permission to have intercourse with her, “If the
one to whom she was given has intercourse with her, he becomes responsible
for paying her fair market value as of the day he had intercourse with her,
as determined by expert appraisal, whether or not she becomes pregnant
as a result. The man is not subject to the mandatory punishment for illicit
intercourse because her owner gave him permission to have intercourse

968 By implication, he is suggesting that his opponent’s parents were fornicators.

Book 42 717

with her. If she becomes pregnant as a result, however, the child is affiliated
to him, not to her owner at the time.”
2496. Mālik said, regarding a man who has intercourse with a handmaiden
belonging to his son or daughter, “The mandatory punishment for illicit
intercourse does not apply to him, but he becomes responsible for paying
the fair market value of the handmaiden, as determined by expert appraisal,
whether or not she becomes pregnant as a result.”
2497. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported that
a man set out on a journey with a handmaiden belonging to his wife and
had intercourse with her, angering his wife, who complained to ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb, who then asked the man about what had happened. He said,
“My wife gave her to me as a gift.” ʿUmar said, “Either give me evidence
supporting your claim, or I will have stones rain down on you.” Rabīʿa said,
“The wife admitted that she had given him the handmaiden.”
 Book 43
The Book of Theft (Sariqa)

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

Chapter 1. Conduct That Necessitates Amputation of the Hand

2498. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) once amputated the hand of a thief who stole a
shield whose price was three dirhams.
2499. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Ḥusayn
al-Makkī reported that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Amputation is
not appropriate for the theft of fruit still hanging on the tree or for that of
an animal grazing in the mountains; however, if an animal is taken from its
enclosure or fruit is taken from a secure compartment, and the fair market
value of what is taken reaches the fair market value of a shield, amputation
is applicable.”
2500. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr reported from his father,
from ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, that during the term of ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān, a
thief stole a lemon. ʿUthmān ordered that its fair market value be appraised.
Its appraised value was three dirhams on the basis of the current exchange
rate of twelve dirhams for a dinar. Accordingly, ʿUthmān ordered that the
thief’s hand be amputated.
2501. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said, “I’m not quite
so old as to have forgotten that amputation is applicable for the theft of
any item whose fair market value is greater than or equal to a quarter of
a dinar.”
2502. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Ḥazm reported that
ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said, “ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), set
out for Mecca accompanied by two of her freedwomen (mawlātān) and a
slave belonging to the sons of her nephew ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr al-Ṣiddīq.

719
720 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

She sent a cloak from Mecca with the freedwomen. The cloak was wrapped
in a piece of green cloth that had been stitched closed. The slave took the
bundle, unstitched it, and took out the cloak. He put some matted wool, or
a fur, in its place and sewed the bundle up again. When the freedwomen
arrived in Medina, they gave the bundle to its owners. When they opened it,
they found only the hide, not the cloak. They asked the two women what had
happened, and they in turn asked ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), or
they wrote to her, accusing the slave of having taken the cloak. The slave
was interrogated about what had happened, and he confessed. ʿĀʾisha, the
wife of the Prophet (pbuh), therefore ordered that his hand be amputated,
and so it was. ʿĀʾisha said, ‘Amputation is applicable for the theft of any item
whose fair market value is greater than or equal to a quarter of a dinar.’”
2503. Mālik said, “The view I prefer most is that amputation is obligatory
only if the fair market value of the stolen item is three dirhams or more,
regardless of whether silver’s rate of exchange with gold is high or low.
That is because the Messenger of God (pbuh) amputated the hand of a thief
who stole a shield whose fair market value was three dirhams, and because
ʿUthmān amputated the hand of a thief who stole a lemon whose price was
three dirhams. Of all the views I have heard regarding this question, this is
the one I prefer most.”

Chapter 2. What Has Come Down regarding Amputation of the Hand

of a Runaway Slave Who Steals
2504. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that a runaway slave belonging
to ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar stole something. After the slave returned, ʿAbd Allāh
sent him to Saʿīd b. al-ʿĀṣī, who was the governor of Medina at the time, to
have his hand amputated for the theft. But Saʿīd refused to amputate the
slave’s hand. He said, “The hand of a runaway slave who steals is not to
be amputated.” ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said to him, “Where in God’s Book did
you find this condition?” ʿAbd Allāh then ordered the slave’s hand to be
amputated, and so it was.
2505. According to Mālik, Ruzayq b. Ḥakīm informed him that he once
arrested a runaway slave who had stolen. He said, “I was unsure as to the
rule that applied to him, so I sent a letter to ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, who was
the governor of Medina at the time, asking him about the case and telling
him that I had heard that the hand of a runaway slave is not to be amputated
if he steals while he is a fugitive. ʿUmar wrote back contradicting what I had
stated in my letter, saying, “You wrote to me saying that you have heard
that when a runaway slave steals, his hand is not to be amputated. But God,
Blessed and Sublime is He, says in His Book, ‘As to the thief, male or female:
Book 43 721

amputate their hands, an exemplary punishment from God for what they
have done, and God is Powerful, Wise.’969 If the fair market value of what
he has stolen is greater than or equal to a quarter of a dinar, his hand is to
be amputated.”
2506. According to Mālik, it reached him that al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad,
Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh, and ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr would say, “If a runaway slave
steals something, and the item’s fair market value necessitates amputation
of the hand, amputation is applicable.” Mālik said, “That rule, namely, that
the hand of a runaway slave is amputated if the fair market value of the
stolen item necessitates amputation, is a rule about which there is no
dissent among us (al-amr alladhī lā ikhtilāfa fīhi ʿindanā).”

Chapter 3. The Impermissibility of Interceding on Behalf of a Thief If

the Case Has Reached the Ruler (Sulṭān)
2507. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Ṣafwān b. ʿAbd Allāh
b. Ṣafwān that someone told Ṣafwān b. Umayya, “Whoever fails to emigrate
to Medina is lost.” Therefore, Ṣafwān set out for Medina. When he arrived
there, he went to sleep in the mosque, using his cloak as a pillow. While he
was asleep, a thief came and tried to steal his cloak from under him, but
Ṣafwān grabbed the thief and took him to the Messenger of God (pbuh). The
Messenger of God (pbuh) then ordered that the thief’s hand be amputated,
but Ṣafwān said, “This is not what I wanted, Messenger of God. I hereby
give it to him freely in charity (ṣadaqa).” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
“Why didn’t you do that before you brought him to me?”
2508. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported that
al-Zubayr b. al-ʿAwwām once encountered a man who had caught a thief
and intended to take him to the ruler. Al-Zubayr pleaded with the man to let
him go, but the man said, “No, not until I take him to the ruler.” Al-Zubayr
said, “Once you take him to the ruler, it will be too late to plead for him. In
that circumstance God curses the intercessor and the one who accepts the
plea for intercession.”

Chapter 4. Miscellaneous Matters Related to Amputation of the Hand

2509. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim reported from his
father that a man from Yemen who had lost a hand and a foot to amputation
came to Medina and presented himself to Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq. He complained
to him that the governor of Yemen had unjustly punished him for theft. The
man would observe the Night Prayer (ṣalāt al-layl), which led Abū Bakr

969 Al-Māʾida, 5:38.

722 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

to say, “By your father’s life, you do not pass your nights in the manner of
a thief.” Then a necklace of Asmāʾ bt. ʿUmays, the wife of Abū Bakr, went
missing. The man accompanied the group of people looking for the missing
necklace, saying, “O God! May Your punishment fall on whoever violated
the sanctity of the home of these good people.” They found the missing
necklace with a goldsmith, who claimed that a one-handed, one-legged
man had brought it to him. The man confessed to the theft, or there were
witnesses who testified against him. Consequently, Abū Bakr ordered that
his left hand be amputated. Abū Bakr then said, “By God, his invocation of
God against himself is more damning in my my eyes than his theft.”
2510. Yaḥyā said that Mālik said, “The rule in our view (al-amr ʿindanā)
regarding a thief who steals on multiple occasions before being arrested
and brought to court is that the punishment of amputation of the hand
is applied to him only once for all the prior instances of theft, provided
that the mandatory punishment (ḥadd) for theft has not been previously
applied to him. If it has been previously applied to him, however, and
he then steals property that necessitates amputation, he is subject to
amputation a second time.”
2511. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād informed him that a governor of
ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz arrested some people for the crime of brigandage
(ḥirāba). However, the defendants had not killed anyone. The governor was
undecided between amputating their hands or putting them to death for
their crime, so he sent ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz a letter about the case. ʿUmar
replied, “It is better to apply the lesser punishment.”
2512. Mālik said, “The rule in our view regarding a person who steals
the property of others, if the stolen property was securely stored in
the marketplace, its owner had secured it in an appropriate, secure
compartment, and its fair market value equals the minimum amount that
necessitates amputation of the hand, is that whoever steals any property
like this from a secure compartment (ḥirz) is subject to amputation for the
crime, whether or not the owner of the goods was present with his property
when it was stolen, and whether it was stolen by night or by day.”
2513. Mālik said, regarding a scenario in which a person steals something in
an amount that necessitates amputation, and then the stolen item is found
in his possession and returned to its true owner, “His hand is still subject to
amputation. If someone were to ask, ‘How can his hand be amputated given
that the stolen property has been taken from him and returned to its true
owner?’ it is because he is no different from someone who has drunk wine
and on whose breath one can still smell the wine, even if he is no longer
Book 43 723

drunk. Such a person is subject to the mandatory punishment of flogging

(ḥadd). The mandatory punishment for consuming alcoholic beverages is
applied simply for drinking them, even if one does not become inebriated
as a result. The drinker is punished because he drank such a drink for its
intoxicating qualities. The same reasoning applies to support amputating
the hand of a thief who has had the stolen item taken from him and restored
to its true owner and who has not had the opportunity to benefit from it.
Indeed, it was certainly the case that when he stole it, he stole it with the
purpose of permanently taking it away from its owner.”
2514. Mālik said, regarding a gang that breaks into a home and robs it,
leaving with a bundle, a chest, a piece of wood, a basket, or something
similar and carrying off the stolen loot together, “If they together remove the
stolen items from where they were stored and carry them off, and the fair
market value of what they make off with is equal to the minimum amount
that necessitates amputation, namely, three dirhams or more, each one of
them is subject to having his hand amputated. On the other hand, if each
one of them individually makes off with some stolen property, only those
who leave with stolen property whose fair market value is three dirhams or
more are subject to amputation of the hand. However, any one of them who
makes off with stolen property worth less than three dirhams is not subject
to amputation.”
2515. Mālik said, “The rule in our view is that if a man’s house is locked
up and he lives alone in it, a thief who steals from him is not subject to
amputation until he exits the house completely with the stolen item. That
is because in this case, the house itself is the item’s secure compartment.
Accordingly, the act of theft is not complete until the thief exits the house
with the stolen item. If, on the other hand, someone else also lives in
the house, and each one of them locks the door to his own room, each
room constitutes a separate secure compartment for the property
of each resident. Therefore, whoever steals anything necessitating
amputation from a room in such a house and takes it into the common
areas of the house has removed the stolen item completely from its secure
compartment, thereby rendering the act of theft complete. He is thus
liable for amputation of the hand.”
2516. Mālik said, “The rule in our view regarding a slave who steals property
belonging to his master is that even if the slave neither is a personal servant
of the master nor has been entrusted with entry to the master’s house but
rather enters it surreptitiously and steals property from his master in an
amount necessitating amputation, he is not subject to amputation.”
724 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2517. Mālik said, regarding a slave who neither is a personal servant of his
master nor has been entrusted with entry to the master’s house but rather
enters it surreptitiously and steals property belonging to the master’s wife
in an amount necessitating amputation, “His hand is subject to amputation.
The same rule applies to the wife’s handmaiden: If she is neither her
personal servant nor her husband’s, nor has she been entrusted with entry
to the house but rather enters her mistress’s home surreptitiously and steals
property belonging to her mistress in an amount necessitating amputation,
her hand is not subject to amputation. But if the wife’s handmaiden neither
is her personal servant nor has been entrusted with entry to the house
but then enters the home surreptitiously and steals property belonging to
her mistress’s husband in an amount necessitating amputation, her hand
is subject to amputation. The same rule applies to a husband who steals
property belonging to his wife, or a wife who steals property from her
husband, in each case in an amount necessitating amputation: if the item
stolen from the spouse’s property was stored in a room other than their
common residence or was secured in some place other than their common
residence, and its amount necessitates amputation, the spouse who steals
it is subject to amputation.”
2518. Mālik said, regarding a minor slave-boy or a foreigner incapable of
speaking Arabic, “If a stranger kidnaps such a person from his home, the
kidnapper is subject to amputation. If, however, the person is kidnapped
while outside his home, the kidnapper is not subject to amputation. In this
case, the person is equivalent to animals grazing in the mountains and fruit
hanging in the trees.”970
2519. Mālik said, “The rule in our view regarding a graverobber is that if the
fair market value of what he removes from the grave necessitates amputation,
he is subject to amputation. That is because the grave is a storage facility
for what is contained inside it, just as homes are secure compartments for
what is contained in them. He is not subject to amputation, however, until
he removes the stolen item from the grave.”

970 The penalty of amputation for theft does not apply if the property’s owner has not secured
his possession through appropriate steps, such as placing the property under lock and key.
In the case of minor slaves who cannot fend for themselves, this condition is satisfied only if
their owner keeps them inside his home. If he allows them to wander about unprotected in
public, and someone kidnaps them, the penalty for theft does not apply because the master
has failed to secure his possession of his property. Kidnapping in such a case is still a crime,
but it is not punished through amputation of the thief’s hand.
Book 43 725

Chapter 5. What Does Not Merit Amputation

2520. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā
b. Ḥabbān that a slave stole a date palm sapling from a man’s orchard and
planted it in his master’s. The sapling’s owner went out looking for it and
found it in the other man’s orchard. He had the slave brought before Marwān
b. al-Ḥakam and accused him of theft. Marwān put the slave in jail and had
resolved to amputate the slave’s hand, when the slave’s master rushed off
to consult Rāfiʿ b. Khadīj and obtain his opinion. Rāfiʿ informed him that he
heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) say, “There is no amputation for taking
either fruit or palm pith.” The man said, “Marwān b. al-Ḥakam has arrested
a slave of mine and wants to amputate his hand. I beseech you to come with
me and inform him of what you heard from the Messenger of God (pbuh).”
Rāfiʿ agreed and went with him to Marwān. When he arrived, he said, “Did
you arrest a slave of this man?” Marwān replied, “Yes.” Rāfiʿ then said, “What
do you plan to do with him?” Marwān said, “I intend to amputate his hand
as punishment for his theft.” Rāfiʿ then said, “I heard the Messenger of God
(pbuh) say, “There is no amputation for taking either fruit or palm pith.”
Upon hearing this, Marwān ordered the slave to be released, and so he was.
2521. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from al-Sāʾib b. Yazīd that
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr b. al-Ḥadramī took a slave of his to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
and said to him, “Amputate the hand of this slave of mine, for he is a thief.”
ʿUmar said to him, “What did he steal?” He said, “He stole a mirror belonging
to my wife, the value of which is sixty dirhams.” ʿUmar said, “Release him.
He is not subject to amputation. He is nothing other than a servant of yours
who took some of your property.”
2522. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that a man who had
embezzled some goods was brought before Marwān b. al-Ḥakam, who
resolved to amputate his hand. But first he summoned Zayd b. Thābit to
ask him for his opinion about the proper punishment. Zayd said to him,
“Amputation does not apply for embezzlement.”
2523. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad b.
ʿAmr b. Ḥazm informed me that he once had a Nabatean man arrested for
stealing some iron rings. He had the man imprisoned until such time as the
Nabatean’s hand could be amputated. ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān got wind of
this, so she dispatched her freedwoman (mawlāt), Umayya, with a message
for him. Abū Bakr said, ‘She arrived while I was sitting with a group of people
and said, “Your maternal aunt, ʿAmra, says to you, ‘My dear nephew, it has
been brought to my attention that you have had a Nabatean man arrested
for stealing a trifle, and now you seek to have his hand amputated.’” I said,
726 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

“Yes, indeed!” Umayya said, “ʿAmra says to you, ‘Amputation is applicable

only for the theft of something whose fair market value is greater than or
equal to a quarter of a dinar.’” Upon hearing this, I released the Nabatean.’”
2524. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us (al-amr al-mujtamaʿ
ʿalayhi ʿindanā) regarding slaves who confess to theft is that if a slave
confesses to an act that necessitates the mandatory punishment for theft
(ḥadd) or some other corporal punishment, his confession is effective. There
is no suspicion that he would falsely subject himself to criminal punishment.”
2525. Mālik said, “As for a slave who confesses to an act that results in
his master’s bearing monetary liability, such a confession is not effective
against the master.”
2526. Mālik said, “Neither a laborer nor a servant who is in the service
of others and steals from his employers is subject to amputation. That is
because such a person’s situation is different from that of a thief. He is in the
position of someone who has betrayed a trust, but a person is not subject to
amputation for breach of trust.”
2527. Mālik said, regarding someone who borrows a thing but then denies
it, “He is not subject to amputation. Rather, he is is similar to a man to whom
another man has extended credit, and then the debtor denies owing him
that debt. The debtor, in such a situation, is not subject to amputation.”
2528. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us regarding a thief who
is discovered in a home, having gathered up property belonging to the
homeowner but not having yet made off with it, is that his hand is not
subject to amputation. Rather, his case is like that of a man who is found
grasping a bottle of wine, intending to drink it, but who has yet to do so,
and who is consequently not subject to the mandatory punishment for
wine-drinking. It is also similar to the case of a man who approaches a
woman, desiring to have illicit intercourse with her but not doing so, or
not going so far as that with her. He, too, is not subject to the mandatory
punishment for illicit intercourse.”
2529. Mālik said, “The agreed-upon rule among us is that amputation does
not apply for embezzlement, whether or not the fair market value of what
has been taken reaches the amount necessitating amputation in the case of
a theft.”

The Book of Lapidation (Rajm) and Mandatory

Punishments (Ḥudūd) Has Been Completed, with
Praise to God As He Is Entitled to Be Praised.
 In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate
May God Grace Muḥammad and His Family
and Grant Them Perfect Tranquility.

Book 44
The Book of Beverages

Chapter 1. The Mandatory Punishment (Ḥadd) for Wine-Drinking

(Khamr)
2530. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that al-Sāʾib b. Yazīd informed
him that one day, ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb came out and declared, “I caught
so-and-so with the smell of wine on his breath, but he claims that what he
drank was mulled grape juice. I am investigating what he drank. If it was
something that intoxicates, I will have him flogged.” Once he confirmed that
it was intoxicating, Umar had the man flogged the mandatory punishment
for wine-drinking.
2531. According to Mālik, Thawr b. Zayd al-Dīlī reported that ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb sought the community’s advice regarding the punishment for
wine-drinking. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib told him, “In our opinion, we should flog
a person who drinks wine eighty times. When a man drinks, he becomes
intoxicated, and when he becomes intoxicated, he rants, and when he rants,
he slanders,”971 or something similar to that. ʿUmar then imposed eighty
lashes as the mandatory punishment for wine-drinking.
2532. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that he was asked about
the mandatory punishment applicable to a slave who drinks wine. He said,
“It has reached me that he receives half of the punishment of a free man
(and that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān, and ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar

971 ʿAlī’s reasoning analogizes wine-drinking to slander on the theory that intoxication leads to
the occurrence of slander. Because the mandatory punishment for slander is eighty lashes,
he advised that the same penalty be applied for wine-drinking. In this report, ʿUmar accepts
his advice.

727
728 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

applied to their slaves half of the punishment due to a free man if they
drank wine).972
2533. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that he heard Saʿīd b.
al-Musayyab say, “God loves for everything to be pardoned, as long as it is
not a mandatory punishment.”
2534. Mālik said, “The long-established ordinance among us (al-sunna
ʿindanā) is that whoever drinks an intoxicating beverage, even if he does
not become intoxicated, is subject to the mandatory punishment for
wine-drinking.”

Chapter 2. Containers That Should Not Be Used for Steeping

Dried Fruit
2535. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) once addressed the people during one of his
forays. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “I approached him, but he turned away
before I reached him. I inquired about what he had said, and I was told, ‘He
prohibited steeping dried fruit in a gourd or a jug smeared with pitch.’”
2536. According to Mālik, al-ʿAlāʾ b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Yaʿqūb reported from
his father, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited
steeping dried fruit in a gourd or a jug smeared with pitch.

Chapter 3. Combinations of Fruit That Are Not to Be Steeped Together

2537. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited steeping unripened dates together
with fresh ones, and dried dates together with raisins.
2538. According to Mālik, a source that he deemed reliable reported
from Bukayr b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Ashajj, from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Ḥubāb
al-Anṣārī, from Abū Qatāda al-Anṣārī, that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
prohibited drinking water in which dried dates and raisins had been
steeped together, and water in which brightly colored dates and fresh dates
had been steeped together. Mālik said, “That prohibition is the rule that the
people of knowledge in our town have always followed (al-amr alladhī lam
yazal ʿalayhi ahl al-ʿilm bi-baladinā). That is because the Messenger of God
(pbuh) prohibited it.”

972 The editors of the RME inserted the parenthetical language on the basis of a marginal note in
the manuscript.
Book 44 729

Chapter 4. What Has Come Down regarding the Prohibition of Wine

(Khamr)
2539. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said, “The Messenger
of God (pbuh) was asked about mead (bitʿ), and he said, ‘Every beverage
that intoxicates is prohibited.’”
2540. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) was asked about a beverage called ghubayrāʾ.
He said, “There is no good in it,” and prohibited it. Mālik said, “I asked Zayd
b. Aslam, ‘What is ghubayrāʾ?’ He said, ‘It is usukruka.’”973
2541. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Whoever drinks wine in this life and does
not turn away from it in repentance before his death will be deprived of it
in the Hereafter.”

Chapter 5. Miscellaneous Reports regarding the Prohibition of

Wine-Drinking
2542. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from Ibn Waʿla al-Miṣrī
that he asked ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās about juice pressed from grapes. ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿAbbās said, “A man once gave the Messenger of God (pbuh) a small
skin of wine. The Messenger of God (pbuh) turned to him and said, ‘Don’t
you know that God has prohibited it?’ The man said, ‘No,’ but the man sitting
next to him whispered something to him. The Messenger of God (pbuh)
asked him, ‘What did you whisper to him?’ The man replied, ‘I advised
him to sell it.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘The One who prohibited
drinking it also prohibited selling it.’ The man then opened the two skins
and emptied their contents out.”
2543. According to Mālik, Isḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa reported that
Anas b. Mālik said, “I used to serve to Abū ʿUbayda b. al-Jarrāḥ, Abū Ṭalḥa
al-Anṣārī, and Ubayy b. Kaʿb an intoxicating beverage that was produced
from a combination of crushed mature dates and dried dates. One day, a
man came to them and said, ‘Wine-drinking has been prohibited.’ Abū Ṭalḥa
said, ‘Anas, go break these jars.’ I stood up and grabbed a mortar of ours and
struck them with its base until they broke into pieces.”
2544. According to Mālik, Dāwūd b. al-Ḥuṣayn reported that Wāqid b. ʿAmr
b. Saʿd b. Muʿādh informed him from Maḥmūd b. Labīd al-Anṣārī that when
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb went to the Levant, the people there complained to him

973 An intoxicating beverage made by steeping either rice or corn in water.

730 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

about the epidemics endemic to that country and its unbearable conditions.
They said, “The only thing that preserves our health is this intoxicating
beverage.” ʿUmar said, “Drink honey instead.” They said, “Honey does
us no good.” A man of that region said, “Would you object if we made a
non-intoxicating version of this beverage?” He said, “No.” So they boiled
the beverage until two-thirds of its liquid had evaporated, leaving only
one-third. They then brought that to ʿUmar, who dipped his finger in it, then
lifted up his hand and fully extended his fingers. ʿUmar said, “This mulled
juice—it is like the tar that is applied to a camel’s scabies!” ʿUmar allowed
them to drink it. ʿUbāda b. al-Ṣāmit said, “By God, you have rendered this
intoxicant lawful!” ʿUmar replied, “No, indeed, by God! O God! I will never
permit them anything that You have prohibited them; nor will I prohibit
them anything that You have made licit for them.”974
2545. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that
some men from Iraq said to him, “Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, we purchase freshly
harvested dates and freshly picked grapes, and then we press them to
produce wine to sell.” ʿAbd Allāh said, “I call on God and His Angels and
whoever hears me, be they jinn or human, to witness that I prohibit you
from selling it, purchasing it, pressing it, drinking it, or serving it to others.
It is an abomination, Satan’s handiwork.”

The Book of Beverages Has Been Completed,

with Praise to God, the Lord of the Worlds.

974 By boiling the liquid until it became concentrated, they caused all the alcohol to evaporate, so
the beverage was no longer an intoxicant.
 In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

Book 45
The Book of Miscellaneous Matters

Chapter 1. Supplication (Duʿāʾ) for Medina and Its People

2546. According to Mālik, Isḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa al-Anṣārī reported
from Anas b. Mālik that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “O God! Bless
them in their dealings, and grant them prosperity in everything they weigh
and measure.” He meant the people of Medina.
2547. According to Mālik, Suhayl b. Abī Ṣāliḥ reported from his father that
Abū Hurayra said, “When the first fruit of the season had been harvested,
the people would bring it to the Messenger of God (pbuh). He would then
say, ‘O God! Bless us in our fruit, in our city, in our dealings, and in everything
we weigh and measure. O God! Abraham is Your servant, Your intimate
companion (khalīl), and Your Prophet. I, too, am Your servant and Your
Prophet. He supplicated You for the sake of Mecca, and I hereby supplicate
You for the sake of Medina, with the very same supplication that he made
for the sake of Mecca, twice over.’ He would then call the youngest child he
saw nearby and give him that fruit to eat.”

Chapter 2. What Has Come Down regarding Residing in Medina and

Departing from It
2548. According to Mālik, Qaṭan b. Wahb b. ʿUmayr b. al-Ajdaʿ reported that
Yuḥannas, the freedman (mawlā) of al-Zubayr b. al-ʿAwwām, informed him
that he had been sitting with ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar during the time of the strife
that broke out between Yazīd b. Muʿāwiya and ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr.975 A
freedwoman (mawlāt) of ʿAbd Allāh’s came and greeted him and said, “Abū
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, I wish to leave Medina. Times are tough for us.” ʿAbd Allāh
said to her, “Stay put, you fool! I heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) say,

975 Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 4:346.

731
732 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

‘Anyone who endures Medina’s trials and tribulations shall have me as his
witness or intercessor on the Day of Judgment.’”
2549. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. al-Munkadir reported from Jābir
b. ʿAbd Allāh that a bedouin man pledged his loyalty to the Messenger
of God (pbuh), promising to lead his life in accordance with the rules of
Islam. The man was then overcome by a fever in Medina, so he went to the
Messenger of God (pbuh) and said to him, “Messenger of God, release me
from my pledge.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) refused. The man then went
to him again, and said, “Messenger of God, release me from my pledge.” The
Messenger of God (pbuh) again refused. The man came yet again and said,
“Release me from my pledge,” but the Prophet (pbuh) again refused. The
bedouin then left Medina without the permission of the Prophet (pbuh).
The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Medina is like a blacksmith’s bellows;
it drives out the dross and lusters the good.”
2550. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said that he heard Abū al-Ḥubāb
Saʿīd b. Yasār say that he heard Abū Hurayra say, “The Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, ‘I was ordered to migrate to a town that will devour all other
towns. They call it Yathrib,976 and it is Medina: it banishes the wicked, just
as the blacksmith’s bellows drives out the iron’s dross.’”
2551. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “If anyone leaves Medina out of spite for
it, God replaces him with someone better.”
2552. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father,
from ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr, that Sufyān b. Abī Zuhayr said, “I heard the
Messenger of God (pbuh) say, ‘Soon Yemen will be conquered, and people
will rush to take up residence there, moving with their families and with
whoever chooses to follow them there, even though Medina would have
been better for them, if only they understood. Soon the Levant will be
conquered, and people will rush to take up residence there, moving with
their families and with whoever chooses to follow them there, even though
Medina would have been better for them, if only they understood. Soon Iraq
will be conquered, and people will rush to take up residence there, moving
with their families and with whoever chooses to follow them there, even
though Medina would have been better for them, if only they understood.’”
2553. According to Mālik, Ibn Ḥimās reported from his uncle, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Medina shall persist in
its present beautiful condition until a day comes when it is so decrepit that

976 Yathrib was the pre-Islamic name of Medina before the immigration of the Prophet (pbuh).
Book 45 733

a dog or a wolf is left to urinate on a pillar of the mosque or on its pulpit.”

They said, “Messenger of God, to whom will its fruit belong at that time?” He
replied, “To foraging animals—birds and predators.”
2554. According to Mālik, it reached him that when ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz
left Medina for Damascus when he became caliph, he turned back to look at
Medina and wept. Then he said, “Muzāḥim!977 Do you share my fear that we
might be among those whom Medina has expelled?”

Chapter 3. What Has Come Down regarding Declaring Medina to Be a

Sanctuary
2555. According to Mālik, ʿAmr, the freedman (mawlā) of al-Muṭṭalib,
reported from Anas b. Mālik that when Mount Uḥud came into the view of
the Messenger of God (pbuh), he said, “This is a mountain that loves us, and
one we love in return. O God! Abraham declared Mecca to be a sanctuary. I
hereby declare all that lies between Medina’s two lava fields a sanctuary.”
2556. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
that Abū Hurayra would say, “If I were to see gazelles in Medina grazing, I
would not even dare to frighten them. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
‘Whatever is between Medina’s two lava fields is sacrosanct.’”
2557. According to Mālik, Yūnus b. Yūsuf reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār, from
Abū Ayyūb al-Anṣārī, that he once ran into some boys who had driven a fox
into a corner, so he drove them away from the fox. Mālik said, “All that I know
about this incident is that he said, ‘Is such a thing done in the sanctuary of
the Messenger of God (pbuh)?’”
2558. According to Mālik, a man said, “Zayd b. Thābit ran into me while I
was at al-Aswāf,978 where I had captured a shrike. He removed it from my
hands and set it free.”

Chapter 4. What Has Come Down regarding the Medinese Fever

2559. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, said, “When the Messenger of God
(pbuh) came to Medina, Abū Bakr and Bilāl fell ill with fever. I visited each
of them and said, ‘Dearest father, how are you feeling?’ and, ‘Bilāl, how are
you feeling?’ When Abū Bakr came down with a fever, he would recite the
following couplet:

977 Muzāḥim was a freedman of ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 4:356.
978 A place near al-Baqīʿ, Medina’s cemetery, which lies on the outskirts of the town.
734 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Every man awakes content in the morning, in the pleasant company

of his people,
But death is nearer to him than his sandal’s strap.
Whenever Bilāl recovered from a fever, he would raise his voice and say in
a plaintive tone:
Would that I knew whether I will spend another night in Mecca’s
valley,
With its sweet-smelling grasses around me!
Will I one day again quench my thirst from the waters of Majanna?
Will the mountains of Shāma and Ṭafīl ever again appear before me?979
I then went to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and informed him of their
condition and their longing for Mecca. He said, ‘O God! Make Medina beloved
to us, just as Mecca is, or even more so. Make it a place of good health for
us, bless us in our dealings and in everything we weigh and measure, and
banish its fever to al-Juḥfa.’”980
2560. Mālik said, “Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd told me that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet
(pbuh), said that ʿĀmir b. Fuhayra would recite:
I saw death up close before tasting it;
The coward’s death comes and he is cowering with fear.”
2561. According to Mālik, Nuʿaym b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Mujmir reported that
Abū Hurayra said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Angels guard the
gates of Medina; neither the plague nor the Antichrist will enter it.’”

Chapter 5. What Has Come Down regarding the Jews

2562. According to Mālik, Ismāʿīl b. Abī Ḥakīm reported that he heard
ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz say, “One of the last things that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) said was, ‘God strike the Jews and the Christians! They prayed to
the graves of their prophets. Two religions shall not remain in Arab lands.’”
2563. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that the Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, “Two religions will not live side by side in the Arabian
Peninsula.” Mālik said, “Ibn Shihāb said, ‘ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb investigated
this report diligently until he was absolutely certain that the Messenger of
God (pbuh) had said it. After becoming satisified that the Prophet (pbuh)
had indeed made this statement, ʿUmar ordered the Jews of Khaybar to

979 Majinna is a marketplace a few mīls outside of Mecca; Shāma and Ṭafīl are two mountains
about thirty mīls outside of Mecca. Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 4:362.
980 A village on the caravan route between Mecca and Medina.
Book 45 735

leave. He also ordered the Jews of Najrān and Fadak to leave. When the Jews
of Khaybar left, they were not entitled to any of the fruit or the land. As
for the Jews of Fadak, they were entitled to half of the fruit and half of the
land, because the Messenger of God (pbuh) made peace with them on those
terms. Accordingly, ʿUmar appraised the fair market value of half the fruit
and half the land in terms of gold, silver, camels, ropes, and saddlebags. He
gave them the fair market value of all of that, and then he ordered them
to leave.’”

Chapter 6. Miscellaneous Reports regarding What Has Come Down

about Medina

2564. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
when Mount Uḥud came into the view of the Messenger of God (pbuh), he
said, “This is a mountain that loves us, and one we love in return.”

2565. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān

b. al-Qāsim that Aslam, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb,
informed him that he once visited ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAyyāsh al-Makhzūmī,
who was en route to Mecca. He noticed that ʿAbd Allāh had with him
some water in which dried fruit had been steeped (nabīdh). Aslam said to
him, “ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb loves this beverage.” ʿAbd Allāh then poured a
draught of it into a large goblet and gave it to ʿUmar. ʿUmar raised it to his
mouth and took a sip. He then lifted his head up and said, “What a great
drink!” He drank some more and then passed it to a man on his right.
When ʿAbd Allāh turned away to leave, ʿUmar called him over and said,
“Are you the one who claims that Mecca is better than Medina?” ʿAbd Allāh
said, “I merely said, ‘It is God’s sacred precinct (ḥaram), His sanctuary,
and the place of His House.’” ʿUmar said, “I have no objections to what
you have said about the House of God, or His sacred precinct.” ʿUmar then
asked him again, “But are you the one who said that Mecca is better than
Medina?” ʿAbd Allāh again said, “I merely said, ‘It is God’s sacred precinct,
His sanctuary, and the place of His House.’” ʿUmar then said again, “I have
no objections to what you have said about the House of God, or His sacred
precinct,” and he left.

Chapter 7. What Has Come Down regarding the Plague (Ṭāʿūn)

2566. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. Zayd b. al-Khaṭṭāb, from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Ḥārith b.
Nawfal, from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās, that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb once set out for
736 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

the Levant. When he reached Sargh,981 he met the commanding officers of

his armies, Abū ʿUbayda b. al-Jarrāḥ and his fellow officers. They informed
him of an epidemic that had struck the Levant. Ibn ʿAbbās said, “ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb said, ‘Summon the earliest Emigrants (muhājirūn) to meet with
me.’ He summoned them so he could hear their advice, after informing
them that an epidemic had struck the Levant. They disagreed among
themselves about what to do. Some of them said, ‘You set out to achieve a
goal, and we do not believe that you should abandon it.’ Others said, ‘The
rest of the army and the Companions of the Messenger of God (pbuh) are
in your care. We do not think it right that you should plunge them into the
midst of an epidemic.’ ʿUmar said, ‘Leave me!’ He then said, ‘Summon the
Medinese (anṣār) to meet with me.’ He summoned them so he could hear
their advice, but they reacted in the same way as the Emigrants had. They
disagreed among themselves, just as the Emigrants had done. ʿUmar said,
‘Leave me.’ He then said, ‘Summon whoever is present here of the senior
Qurayshī statesmen of the Emigrants, those who were present at Mecca’s
surrender.’ He summoned them, and they were unanimous. They said,
‘We think you should retreat and not plunge the army into the midst of an
epidemic.’ ʿUmar then summoned all the men and said, ‘I shall certainly be
departing in the morning, and so should you.’ Abū ʿUbayda retorted, ‘Are
you fleeing from God’s decree?’ ʿUmar replied, ‘It is not fitting that someone
like you should say something like this, Abū ʿUbayda! Yes, indeed, we are
fleeing from God’s decree, but to nothing other than God’s decree. Is it not
the case that if you had a herd of camels and brought them to a valley with
two slopes, one fertile and the other barren, and grazed them in the fertile
one, you would be doing so in accordance with God’s decree? Or if you
pastured them on the barren slope instead, wouldn’t you also have done
that in accordance with God’s decree?’ ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf, who had
absented himself during this debate to attend to a personal matter, said,
‘I know a teaching of the Prophet (pbuh) that is relevant to this matter. I
heard him say, “If you hear that the plague has struck a land, do not go there.
But if it strikes a land where you are already present, stay and do not flee.”’
So ʿUmar praised God and left.”
2567. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. al-Munkadir and Sālim b. Abī
al-Naḍr, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿUmar b. ʿUbayd Allāh, reported from
ʿĀmir b. Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ that ʿĀmir heard his father, Saʿd, ask Usāma
b. Zayd, “Did you ever hear the Messenger of God (pbuh) speak about the
plague?” Usāma said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘The plague is an

981 Sargh is a village in the Tabūk valley on the way to the Levant from Medina. Bājī, al-Muntaqā,
7:198.
Book 45 737

affliction that was sent down on a group of Israelites, or some other group
before them. If you hear of it striking a land, do not go there. If it strikes a
land where you are already present, however, stay and do not flee.’”
2568. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿĀmir b.
Rabīʿa that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb set out for the Levant, and when he reached
Sargh, he heard that an epidemic had struck the Levant. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b.
ʿAwf informed him that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “If you hear of an
outbreak in a land in which you are already present, stay and do not flee.”
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb retreated from Sargh.
2569. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh that
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb decided to retreat on the basis of the report of ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf.
2570. Mālik said, “It reached me that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, ‘I would
rather have a single house in Rukba982 than ten houses in the Levant.’” Mālik
said, “He is referring to the assuredness of long life in the Hijaz relative to
the precariousness of life in the Levant on account of the severity of the
latter’s epidemics.”

Chapter 8. The Prohibition of the Doctrine of Free Will (Qadar)

2571. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Adam and Moses debated
one another, and Adam got the better of Moses. Moses said to Adam, “Aren’t
you the Adam who led humanity astray and cast them out of Paradise?” Adam
replied, “And aren’t you the Moses to whom God gave knowledge of all things
and whom God selected over all the rest of humanity to be the recipient of
His message?” Moses said, “Yes, indeed!” Adam said, “So do you blame me for
doing something that was decreed for me before I was even created?”
2572. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Abī Unaysa reported that ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd
b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Zayd b. al-Khaṭṭāb informed him from Muslim b. Yasār
al-Juhanī that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb was asked about this verse of the Quran:
“And when your Lord took from the children of Adam, from their loins,
their future descendants and made them bear witness against themselves,
saying to them, ‘Am I not your Lord?’ to which they replied, ‘Yes, indeed,
we do so testify!’—so that you should not say on the Day of Resurrection,
‘Truly, we were heedless of this.’”983 ʿUmar said, “I heard someone ask the

982 A place near Ṭāʾif, on the way to Iraq. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 7:200.
983 Al-Aʿrāf, 7:172. The primordial covenant between God and humanity cited in this verse is
popularly referred to among Muslims as “The Day of ‘Am I Not’ (alastu),” a reference to God’s
rhetorical question in the verse, “Am I not your Lord?”
738 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Messenger of God (pbuh) about the meaning of this verse, and he said, ‘God,
Blessed and Sublime is He, created Adam; then he rubbed His right hand on
Adam’s back, bringing forth from thence some of Adam’s descendants. God
then said, “These I created for Paradise, and they shall certainly perform
the deeds of those destined for Paradise.” God then rubbed Adam’s back
again, bringing forth from thence more of Adam’s descendants. God then
said, “These I created for Hell, and they shall certainly perform the deeds of
those destined for Hell.” A man said, “Messenger of God, what point is there,
then, in man’s actions?” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “When God
creates a soul intended for Paradise, He fashions it in such a way that it acts
in conformity with the deeds of those destined for Paradise. When such a
soul dies, therefore, it does so while acting in conformity with the actions of
those destined for Paradise. As a result, God admits it to Paradise by virtue
of its actions. When God creates a soul intended for Hell, He fashions it in
such a way that it acts in conformity with the deeds of those destined for
Hell. When such a soul dies, therefore, it does so while acting in conformity
with the actions of those destined for Hell. As a result, God consigns it to
Hell by virtue of its actions.”
2573. According to Mālik, it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “I have left you two things; if you hold fast to both, you will never go
astray: the Book of God and the ordinances (sunna) of His Prophet.”
2574. According to Mālik, Ziyād b. Saʿd b. ʿAmr b. Muslim reported that
Ṭāwūs al-Yamānī said, “In my encounters with the Companions of the
Messenger of God (pbuh), some of them would say, ‘Everything is by virtue
of God’s decree.’ I heard ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar say, ‘The Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, “Everything is by virtue of God’s decree, including disability
and capacity (or ‘capacity and disability’).”’”
2575. According to Mālik, Ziyād b. Saʿd reported that ʿAmr b. Dīnār said, “I
heard ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr once say in a sermon of his, ‘God is both the
Guide and the Tempter.’”
2576. According to Mālik, his paternal uncle Abū Suhayl b. Mālik said, “Once
I was walking with ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and he said, ‘What is your opinion
of the proponents of free will (qadariyya)?’ So I said, ‘I think that you should
ask them to recant their false doctrine, and if they do not, they should be
put to the sword.’ ʿUmar said, ‘That is my opinion, too.’” Mālik said, “That is
my opinion, too.”
Book 45 739

Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Reports That Have Come Down regarding

People Who Uphold the Doctrine of Free Will
2577. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “A woman must not
demand, as a condition of her marriage, that her prospective husband first
divorce his current wife so that she may take everything for herself. She
should marry him without making such demands, and she will get whatever
has been decreed for her.”
2578. According to Mālik, Yazīd b. Ziyād reported that Muḥammad b. Kaʿb
al-Quraẓī said, “Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān once said from the pulpit, ‘People,
nothing can hold back what God gives, and no one can give what God holds
back. The good fortune of the fortunate avails him not against God. When
God wishes good for a man, He grants him deep insight into the affairs of this
religion.’ Muʿāwiya then said, ‘I heard those very words from the Messenger
of God (pbuh) while he stood on these very planks of wood.’”
2579. According to Mālik, it reached him that people would use the following
expressions in describing God: “Praise be to God, the One who created
everything in the fashion appropriate to it, the One whose deliberation and
design is preceded by no existing thing”; “God suffices me and fulfills my
needs”; “God hears those who supplicate”; and finally, “Beyond God there
is nothing.”
2580. According to Mālik, it reached him that people used to say, “No one
dies without having exhausted whatever worldly provisions have been
granted to him, so seek out your worldly provisions in a dignified manner.”

Chapter 10. What Has Come Down regarding Good Character

2581. According to Mālik, Muʿādh b. Jabal said, “The last piece of advice that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) offered me just as I was putting my foot in the
stirrup was, ‘Be upright in your interactions with people, Muʿādh b. Jabal.’”984
2582. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr that
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said, “Whenever the Messenger of
God (pbuh) was given a choice between two things, he always chose the
easier of the two, as long as it did not entail sin. If it entailed sin, no one
shunned it more than he. Nor did the Messenger of God (pbuh) ever act to
avenge a wrong done to himself. He acted only to avenge transgressions
against God. In such cases, he would punish only for the sake of God.”

984 Muʿādh was about to set off for Yemen, where he was to serve as the governor on behalf of the
Prophet (pbuh).
740 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2583. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿAlī b. Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b.
Abī Ṭālib that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Part of the excellence of a
man’s Islam is that he minds his own business.”
2584. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the
Prophet (pbuh), said, “A man once sought an audience with the Messenger
of God (pbuh) while I was in the house with him. The Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, ‘What an ill-mannered fellow he is!’ but then he let him in. It
was not long before I heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) laughing with
him. When the man departed, I said, ‘Messenger of God, you made that
uncomplimentary remark about him, but then you had a hearty laugh
with him?’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘The most wicked of people
are certainly those with whom people interact cautiously because of
their wickedness.’”
2585. According to Mālik, his paternal uncle Abū Suhayl b. Mālik reported
from his father that Kaʿb al-Aḥbār said, “If you wish to know how God
regards a man, look to whether he has a good reputation among his fellows.”
2586. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “It has reached me that
through the excellence of his character a man attains the same station
before God as does someone who stands for the night prayer and is thirsty
from fasting during the heat of the day.”
2587. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “I heard Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
say, ‘Do you know what is better than performing many prayers and giving
much in charity?’ They said, ‘Do tell us.’ He said, ‘Mending strained relations
and being wary of hatred, for its cut is deep indeed.’”
2588. According to Mālik, it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “I was sent to perfect good character.”

Chapter 11. What Has Come Down regarding Modesty

2589. According to Mālik, Salama b. Ṣafwān b. Salama al-Zuraqī reported
that Zayd b. Ṭalḥa b. Rukāna said, attributing it to the Prophet (pbuh), “The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Every religion has a distinctive virtue, and
the distinctive virtue of Islam is modesty.’”
2590. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh,
from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) once passed
by a man who was admonishing his brother about his excessive modesty.
The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Leave him be, for modesty is a part
of faith.”
Book 45 741

Chapter 12. What Has Come Down regarding Anger

2591. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Ḥumayd b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf that a man went to see the Messenger of God (pbuh) and
said, “Messenger of God, teach me some words to live by, but be brief, for I
am forgetful.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Do not get angry.”
2592. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab,
from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “A man’s strength
does not lie in his ability to throw his adversary to the ground; rather, it lies
in his ability to control himself when angered.”

Chapter 13. What Has Come Down regarding Shunning Others

2593. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Zayd al-Laythī,
from Abū Ayyūb al-Anṣārī, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “It is not
lawful for a Muslim to shun his brother for more than three nights, with
each of the two turning away when he sees the other. The better of the two
is the first one to greet the other.”
2594. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Anas b. Mālik that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Do not get angry at one another; do not
envy one another; do not turn your backs on one another (lā tadābarū);
rather, be brothers, all of you, servants of God. It is not lawful for a Muslim
to shun his brother for more than three nights.” Mālik said, “I think that
tadābur is nothing other than turning your back on your Muslim brother
when you see him.”
2595. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Beware of suspicion, for
suspicion is the falsest speech. Do not spy or eavesdrop on one another;
do not compete with one another; do not envy one another; do not hate
one another; and do not shun one another. Rather, be brothers, all of you,
servants of God.”
2596. According to Mālik, ʿAṭāʾ b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Khurasānī said, “The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Shake hands, and rancor will disappear.
Exchange gifts, and you will love one another, and enmity will disappear.’”
2597. According to Mālik, Suhayl b. Abī Ṣāliḥ reported from his father,
from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “The gates of
the Garden are thrown open every Monday and Thursday and forgiveness
is given to every Muslim who does not associate any partners with God,
except for those between whom there is enmity. It is said, ‘Leave these two
be until they make peace. Leave these two be until they make peace.’”
742 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2598. According to Mālik, Muslim b. Abī Maryam reported from Abū Ṣāliḥ
al-Sammān that Abū Hurayra said, “People’s deeds are reviewed twice a
week, once on Monday and once on Thursday. Every believer is forgiven for
his sins, except for those between whom there is enmity. For them it is said,
‘Leave these two be until they make peace with one another.’”

Chapter 14. What Has Come Down regarding Wearing

Beautiful Clothes
2599. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh
al-Anṣārī said, “We set out with the Messenger of God (pbuh) for the raid
on the Banū Anmār. While I was resting under a tree, the Messenger of God
(pbuh) showed up, so I said to him, ‘Messenger of God, please come into the
shade.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) came and stopped in the shade. I stood
up and reached for a sack of ours to find something for him. I found a small
cucumber and broke it in half. I offered it to the Messenger of God (pbuh).
The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Where did you get this?’ I said, ‘We
brought it with us from Medina.’ There was with us another fellow who was
responsible for the care of our camels. We would equip him with everything
his task required, so I pulled out his equipment and gave it to him. He then
turned away and set out for the camels, wearing two ragged cloaks. The
Messenger of God (pbuh) took one look at him and said, ‘He doesn’t have
any other clothes?’ I said, ‘Yes, indeed, Messenger of God! He has in the bag
another pair of garments, which I gave him.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, ‘Summon him, and tell him to put them on.’ I told him to come back,
and he put them on. He then turned around and left. The Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, ‘May God smite his neck!985 What is wrong with him? Isn’t this
much better?’ The man overheard him and said, ‘Messenger of God, for
God’s sake!’986 The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘For God’s sake!’ The man
was killed fighting for the sake of God.”
2600. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said,
“It gives me much pleasure to see the Quran reciter resplendent, wearing
white garments.”
2601. According to Mālik, Ayyūb b. Abī Tamīma reported that Ibn Sīrīn said,
“ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said, ‘When God is generous to you, be generous to

985 A pre-Islamic Arabian expression used to express astonishment.

986 When the man heard the Prophet (pbuh) say “May God smite his neck!” he responded to the
phrase’s literal meaning and added “for God’s sake” so that the Prophet (pbuh) could confirm
that he would die a martyr. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 7:219.
Book 45 743

yourselves.’ A man then donned several of his garments and prayed wearing
them all.”987
Chapter 15. What Has Come Down regarding Wearing Dyed Garments
and Gold
2602. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
wear garments dyed with red ocher and those dyed with saffron.
2603. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘I disapprove of young male slaves
wearing gold of any sort. That is because it reached me that the Messenger of
God (pbuh) prohibited the wearing of gold rings. Accordingly, I disapprove
of that for men, be they young or old.’”
2604. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, regarding wraps dyed with saffron
that men would wear in their houses and courtyards, ‘I know nothing about
them that would lead me to believe that it is prohibited to wear them, but I
would rather that other garments be worn.’”

Chapter 16. What Has Come Down regarding Wearing Silk

2605. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father, from
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that she once dressed ʿAbd Allāh b.
al-Zubayr in a silk shawl that she used to wear.’”

Chapter 17. Clothes That Women Are Prohibited from Wearing

2606. According to Mālik, ʿAlqama b. Abī ʿAlqama reported that his mother
said, “Ḥafṣa bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān paid a call to ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet
(pbuh). Ḥafṣa was wearing a delicate, translucent head covering. ʿĀʾisha
tore it and gave her a thick one.”
2607. According to Mālik, Muslim b. Abī Mūsā reported from Abū Ṣāliḥ
that Abū Hurayra said, “Women who are dressed yet naked and who sashay
about, drawing men’s attention to themselves, shall not enter Paradise nor
enjoy its scent, even though its scent may be enjoyed from a distance that
requires five hundred years of travel to complete.”
2608. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Ibn Shihāb that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) woke up in the middle of the night, looked to the

987 According to the commentators, this report was prompted by someone asking the Prophet
(pbuh) whether it was permissible to perform a required prayer while wearing only one
garment, to which the Prophet (pbuh) replied, rhetorically, “And does everyone possess two
garments?” A man later asked ʿUmar the same question, and ʿUmar gave the reply stated in
this report, implying that if one has more than garment, one should wear them when per-
forming a required prayer.
744 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

horizon, and said, “What blessings have been granted this evening, and what
tribulations? How many a well-dressed woman in this world shall be naked
on the Day of Resurrection? Arouse the womenfolk from their bedrooms.”988

Chapter 18. What Has Come Down regarding a Man Trailing

His Garment
2609. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported from ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “On the Day of Resurrection,
God shall not look on anyone who drags the train of his garment out of pride.”
2610. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “On the Day of Resurrection,
God does not look on someone who drags the train of his garment with
pride and arrogance.”
2611. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār and Zayd
b. Aslam informed him from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, “On the Day of Resurrection, God shall not look on anyone who
drags the train of his garment out of pride.”
2612. According to Mālik, al-ʿAlāʾ b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported that his
father said, “I asked Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī about the length of a believer’s
garment (izār). He said, ‘I will tell you what I know about that. I heard the
Messenger of God (pbuh) say, “A Muslim’s garment should reach the middle
of his calves. There is no sin if it reaches down to his ankles, but anything
in excess of that is sinful! Anything in excess of that is sinful! On the Day
of Resurrection, God will not look on someone who drags the train of his
garment with pride and arrogance.”’”

Chapter 19. What Has Come Down regarding a Woman Trailing

Her Garment
2613. According to Mālik, Abū Bakr b. Nāfiʿ reported from his father Nāfiʿ,
the freedman (mawlā) of Ibn ʿUmar, that Ṣafiyya bt. Abī ʿUbayd informed
him that Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), said, on an occasion
when the issue of the undergarment (izār) was brought up, “And what about
a woman, Messenger of God?” He said, “She should unroll it the length of an
additional handspan.” Umm Salama said, “But that would leave her partially
exposed.” He said, “The length of a forearm, then, but no more.”

988 Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr suggests that this report took place on the Night of Power (laylat al-qadr)
and that the Prophet (pbuh) desired that his wives witness the night’s blessings. Ibn ʿAbd
al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 8:308–9.
Book 45 745

Chapter 20. What Has Come Down regarding Wearing Sandals

2614. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “No one should walk
around in one sandal. Either wear both of them or go barefoot.”
2615. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “When you put on sandals,
begin with the right foot. When you take them off, begin with the left foot.
The right foot should be the first in and the last out.”
2616. According to Mālik, his paternal uncle Abū Suhayl b. Mālik reported
from his father, from Kaʿb al-Aḥbār, that a man once removed his sandals.
Kaʿb said to him, “Why did you take off your sandals? Perhaps you did so in
reliance on your understanding of the verse ‘Remove your sandals, for you are
in the sacred valley of Ṭuwā.’989 But do you have any idea what Moses’ sandals
were made of?” Mālik, Abū Suhayl’s father, said, “I don’t know what the man
said in reply. Kaʿb said, ‘They were made from the skin of a dead donkey.’”

Chapter 21. What Has Come Down regarding Clothing

2617. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj that Abū
Hurayra said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited two ways of
dressing and two kinds of trades. The prohibited trades are those based
on touch (mulāmasa) and those done by tossing (munābadha).990 As
for manners of dress, he prohibited a man from sitting down with his
legs drawn up to his chest, covered by only one piece of cloth, without
another piece of cloth covering his genitals. He also prohibited a man
from draping a single cloth over one of his shoulders down to the rest
of his body.”991
2618. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that ʿUmar
b. al-Khaṭṭāb once saw a striped silk robe offered for sale at the entrance to the
mosque. He said, “Messenger of God, you should buy this robe to wear on public
occasions, such as the day of the Friday Congregational Prayer (ṣalāt al-jumuʿa),

989 Ṭāhā, 20:12. This verse describes God speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai. Cf. Exodus 3:5.
990 A trade based on touch is when a man purchases a piece of cloth after merely touching it,
without first unfolding it or examining it, or when he purchases it in the darkness of the
night, without knowing what is in it. A trade done by tossing takes place when a man tosses
a piece of cloth of his to another man and the latter throws his own piece of cloth to the first
man, with neither of them examining the cloth each has taken. See hadith no. 2064.
991 Bājī and Zurqānī state that this manner of dressing was prohibited because it required a man
to use one of his hands to hold up his garment, which meant that it was impossible for him
to do anything useful with his hands without exposing his genitals. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 7:228;
Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 4:437.
746 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

and when ambassadors come to meet with you.” The Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “Only someone who has no share in the next life wears such a garment.”
Then some robes of the very same material were given to the Messenger of
God (pbuh), and he gave one of them to ʿUmar. ʿUmar then said, “Messenger of
God! Are you giving me this robe after saying what you said about the robe of
ʿUṭārid?”992 The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “I did not give it to you to
wear.” ʿUmar consequently gave it to a brother of his in Mecca who was still
a polytheist.
2619. According to Mālik, Isḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa said, “Anas b.
Mālik said, ‘I saw ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb when he was the Commander of the
Faithful. The shoulders of his garment had had been patched up three times,
one patch on top of the other.’”

Chapter 22. The Physical Appearance of the Prophet (pbuh)

2620. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported that he
heard Anas b. Mālik say, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) was of moderate
height, neither short nor tall. He was neither pale nor dark. His hair was
neither curly nor straight. God commissioned him as His Messenger at
the beginning of his fortieth year. He remained in Mecca thereafter for ten
years, then was in Medina for another ten. God claimed his soul when he
was sixty, and there were not twenty white hairs in his hair and beard. May
God grace him and grant him His mercy and His blessings.”

Chapter 23. The Physical Appearance of Jesus, the Son of Mary, and
the Antichrist (al-Dajjāl)
2621. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “I dreamed this evening that I was at
the Kabah. I saw a tawny-colored man, and behold, you have never seen a
tawny-colored man more handsome than he! His hair had locks that flowed
down past his ears and onto his shoulders, and behold, you have never seen
locks of hair as exquisite as his! He had just washed and combed his hair,
and it was dripping water. He was leaning on two men (or ‘on the shoulders
of two men’) as he circumambulated the Kabah. I asked, ‘Who is this?’ and
I was told, ‘The Messiah, the son of Mary.’ Then I found myself with a man
whose hair was tight and curly and who had lost his right eye, which gave
it the appearance of a floating grape. I then asked, ‘Who is this?’ and I was
told, ‘This is the Antichrist.’”

992 His full name is ʿUṭāriḍ b. Ḥājib b. Zurāra b. ʿAdī. He was a member of the delegation sent by
the tribe of Tamīm to the Prophet (pbuh). He embraced Islam and is considered one of the
Companions of the Prophet (pbuh). Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 4:438.
Book 45 747

Chapter 24. What Has Come Down regarding the Natural Norms of
Grooming (Fiṭra)
2622. According to Mālik, Saʿīd b. Abī Saʿīd al-Maqburī reported from his
father that Abū Hurayra said, “Five practices are characteristic of natural
grooming (fiṭra): clipping the nails, trimming the moustache, shaving the
armpits, shaving pubic hair, and circumcision.”
2623. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
said, “Abraham was the first to establish the law of hospitality, the first to be
circumcised, the first to trim his moustache, and the first to experience gray
hair. He said, ‘My Lord! What is this?’ God, Blessed and Sublime is He, said,
‘It is gravitas, Abraham.’ Abraham said, ‘My Lord! Increase my gravitas!’”
2624. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘Trim the moustache until the edge of
the lip appears—that is, the fleshy part. One should not trim more than that
lest one disfigure oneself.’”

Chapter 25. The Prohibition against Eating with the Left Hand
2625. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zubayr al-Makkī reported from Jābir b.
ʿAbd Allāh al-Salamī that the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited men from
eating with the left hand, walking around in one sandal, draping a single
cloth over one of their shoulders down to the rest of the body, or sitting
down with their legs drawn up to their chests, revealing their genitals.
2626. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Abū Bakr b. ʿUbayd
Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, from Ibn ʿUmar, that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, “When you eat, eat and drink with your right hand, for it is
Satan who eats and drinks with his left.”

Chapter 26. What Has Come Down regarding the Meaning of “the
Bereft” (Masākīn)
2627. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “The ‘bereft’ (masākīn) are
not those who wander about among the people and who are satisfied if
they get a bite or two to eat, or a couple of dates.” They said, “In that case,
who are the ‘bereft,’ Messenger of God?” He said, “Someone is ‘bereft’ if he
lacks the means to take care of himself, but the peple are unaware that he
is needy. Therefore, they do not give him charity (ṣadaqa), and neither does
he himself ask for their help.”
2628. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from Bujayd al-Anṣārī
al-Ḥārithī, from his grandmother, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
“Give something to the bereft, even if only a roasted hoof.”
748 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 27. What Has Come Down regarding the Gluttony of

the Nonbeliever
2629. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj that Abū
Hurayra said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘The Muslim eats enough
for only one stomach, whereas the nonbeliever eats enough for seven.’”
2630. According to Mālik, Suhayl b. Abī Ṣāliḥ reported from his father, from
Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) once extended hospitality
to a nonbeliever. The Messenger of God (pbuh) ordered that a yearling
(shāt) be milked for the guest, and he drank its milk. Then a second one
was milked, and he drank its milk, too; then a third one was milked, and he
drank that milk, too. He did not stop until he had drunk the milk of seven
yearlings. The next morning, the man embraced Islam. The Messenger of
God (pbuh) again ordered that a yearling be milked for the man, and it
was, and he drank its milk. Then the Messenger of God (pbuh) ordered a
second one to be milked for him, but the man was unable to finish its milk,
whereupon the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “The believer drinks with
one stomach, and the nonbeliever drinks with seven.”

Chapter 28. The Prohibition against Drinking from Silver Goblets and
Blowing into a Beverage
2631. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from Zayd b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
b. al-Khaṭṭāb, from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakr al-Ṣiddīq, from
Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, “Whoever drinks from a silver goblet pours the fire of Hell into
his belly.”
2632. According to Mālik, Ayyūb b. Ḥabīb, the freedman (mawlā) of Saʿd
b. Abī Waqqāṣ, reported that Abū al-Muthannā al-Juhanī said, “I was with
Marwān b. al-Ḥakam when Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī showed up. Marwān asked
him, ‘Did you ever hear from the Messenger of God (pbuh) that he prohibited
someone from blowing into a beverage?’ Abū Saʿīd replied, ‘Yes. A man once
said to him, “Messenger of God, my thirst is not quenched in a single gulp.”
The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to him, “In that case, remove the cup
from your mouth and take a breath.” The man said, “What if I see something
floating in the cup?” He said, “In that case, pour that part out.”’”

Chapter 29. What Has Come Down regarding Drinking While

Standing Up
2633. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, ʿAlī b. Abī
Ṭālib, and ʿUthmān b. ‘Affān would all drink while standing.
Book 45 749

2634. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that neither ʿĀʾisha, the
Mother of the Believers, nor Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ saw anything objectionable
in drinking while standing.
2635. According to Mālik, Abū Jaʿfar al-Qārī said, “I saw ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
drink while he was standing.”
2636. According to Mālik, ʿĀmir b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr reported from his
father that he would drink while standing.

Chapter 30. The Long-Established Ordinance (Sunna) of Drinking and

Passing the Vessel to the Right
2637. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Anas b. Mālik that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) was brought some milk that had been diluted
with water. Seated to his right was a bedouin, while Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq was
on his left. He drank and then passed the vessel to the bedouin and said,
“Always pass it to the one on your right.”
2638. According to Mālik, Abū Ḥāzim b. Dīnār reported from Sahl b. Saʿd
al-Anṣārī that the Messenger of God (pbuh) was brought a beverage, so he
drank from it. A boy was seated on his right, and some old men were seated
on his left. He said to the young boy, “Do I have your permission to give it to
these men on my left?” The boy said, “No, Messenger of God. By God, I will
not let anyone take my share of what is due to me from you.” Sahl said, “The
Messenger of God (pbuh) therefore passed the beverage to the boy.”

Chapter 31. Miscellaneous Reports on What Has Come Down

regarding Food and Beverages
2639. According to Mālik, Isḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa reported that he
heard Anas b. Mālik say, “Abū Ṭalḥa said to Umm Sulaym, ‘The voice of the
Messenger of God (pbuh) is weary; I’m certain he’s hungry. Do you have
anything to give him?’ She said, ‘Yes!’ She pulled out some loaves of barley
bread, then wrapped them using part of a scarf of hers, and then placed
the bundle in my hands. She then sent me to the Messenger of God (pbuh).
I set off with the bundle and found the Messenger of God (pbuh) sitting
in the mosque along with the people. I approached them, whereupon the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Has Abū Ṭalḥa sent you?’ I said, ‘Yes!’ He
said, ‘To invite us for food?’ I said, ‘Yes!’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) said
to those around him, ‘Get up!’ He left, and I went on ahead of them. I came to
Abū Ṭalḥa and informed him of what had happened. Abū Ṭalḥa said, ‘Umm
Sulaym! The Messenger of God (pbuh) and the people are coming, and we
have nothing to feed them.’ She said, ‘God and His Messenger know best.’ Abū
750 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Ṭalḥa left in haste and kept going until he intercepted the Messenger of God
(pbuh). The Messenger of God (pbuh) continued on his way, and Abū Ṭalḥa
joined him, until they finally arrived at his house. The Messenger of God
(pbuh) then said, ‘Umm Sulaym, what is it that you intend to give us?’ She
brought out the bread. He commanded that the bread be divided into small
pieces, and so it was. Umm Sulaym then squeezed some fat out of a leather
vessel onto the bread and added some seasoning to it. The Messenger of
God (pbuh) supplicated God, using whatever phrases God wished him to
use, and then said, ‘Let ten people come in and eat.’ Abū Ṭalḥa therefore
invited ten men in, and they came in, ate their fill, and left. He then said,
‘Let in another ten!’ Abū Ṭalḥa invited another ten in, and they came in, ate
their fill, and left. He then said, ‘Let in another ten men!’ Abū Ṭalḥa invited
another ten in, and they came in, ate their fill, and left. He then said, ‘Let in
another ten!’ Abū Ṭalḥa invited another ten in, and they came in, ate their
fill, and left. He then said, ‘Let in another ten!’ Abū Ṭalḥa invited another ten
in, and they came in, ate their fill, and left. The Prophet (pbuh) continued in
this fashion until everyone had eaten his fill. They were around seventy or
eighty men in total.”
2640. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Food that is enough for
two is enough for three, and food that is enough for three is enough for four.”
2641. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zubayr al-Makkī reported from Jābir b.
ʿAbd Allāh that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Lock the doors, tie the
waterskins, turn empty vessels upside down, cover them if they are not
empty, and put out the lamps. Satan does not open a locked door, untie a
sealed waterskin, or remove a vessel’s cover. A mouse can cause a house to
burn down with its inhabitants inside.”
2642. According to Mālik, Saʿīd b. Abī Saʿīd al-Maqburī reported from Abū
Shurayḥ al-Kaʿbī that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Whoever believes
in God and the Last Day should speak well or remain silent. Whoever
believes in God and the Last Day should honor his neighbor. Whoever
believes in God and the Last Day should honor his guest. For the first day
and night, the host should provide his guest with the best that he possesses,
but the duty of hospitality extends to no more than three days. Anything
beyond that is charity (ṣadaqa). It is not permissible for a guest to burden
his host by staying with him beyond that.”
2643. According to Mālik, Sumayy, the freedman (mawlā) of Abū Bakr,
reported from Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Sammān, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger
of God (pbuh) said, “A man was walking along a road when suddenly he
Book 45 751

became extremely thirsty. He came across a well, so he descended to its

depths, drank, and emerged. When he came out, he found a dog panting and
eating the moist dust at the edge of the well because of its extreme thirst.
The man said, ‘This dog is as thirsty as I was.’ He went back down the well,
took off his leather sock, filled it with water, and then, holding the sock in
his teeth, climbed back up and gave the water to the dog. God appreciated
his deed and forgave his sins.” The Companions asked, “Messenger of God,
are we rewarded for our compassion toward animals?” He said, “There is a
reward in aiding anything that has flesh and blood.”993
2644. According to Mālik, Wahb b. Kaysān reported that Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh
said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) dispatched a company to the coast,
appointing Abū ʿUbayda b. al-Jarrāḥ as its commanding officer. They were
around three hundred in number, and I was one of them. We set out, but
before we had reached our destination, our provisions ran extremely low. Abū
ʿUbayda ordered that all of the company’s remaining provisions be collected.
They amounted to no more than two bags of dates. Each day, he would give
us a very small amount. Finally, the provisions were nearly exhausted, and
we were rationed one date each day. Frustrated, I said, ‘What good is there
in one date?’ He said, ‘You will miss it when none are left!’ We finally reached
the coast, where we found a whale994 the size of a small hillock (ẓirb). The
company ate from it for eighteen nights. Abū ʿUbayda then ordered that two
of its ribs be planted upright into the earth. He ordered a camel to be released
underneath them, and it was able to pass through without touching either of
them.” Mālik said, “A ẓarib995 is a small hillock.”
2645. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAmr b. Saʿīd b.
Muʿādh, from his grandmother, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
“Believing women, there is nothing that is too trivial to give your neighbor,
even if it is only a roasted hoof.”
2646. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr said, “The Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, ‘May God strike the Jews. Although they were prohibited
from eating the fat, they sold it and consumed the price.’”996
2647. According to Mālik, it reached him that Jesus, the son of Mary, would
say, “Children of Israel! Stick to pure water, wild greens, and barley bread.
Stay clear of wheat bread, for you will fail to be sufficiently grateful.”

993 The literal expression is “There is a reward for anything that has a moist liver,” presumably
referring to vertebrates as a class.
994 The Arabic word used here is the same as that for fish, ḥūt.
995 The word for “small hillock” is first vocalized as ẓirb and then as ẓarib. Both are recognized
vocalizations of this word. See Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 4:489, and the RME, 311 n. 6.
996 Compare to Leviticus 7:23–24.
752 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2648. According to Mālik, it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
once entered the mosque and found Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq and ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb there. He asked them why they were there, and they both said,
“We were hungry.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) then said, “And I’m hungry,
too.” Therefore, they all set off together to Abū al-Haytham al-Tayyihān
al-Anṣārī. He had some barley, so he ordered that it be prepared for them,
and he got up to slaughter a yearling (shāt) for them. The Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, “Do not slaughter a lactating female!” He slaughtered a
yearling for them and poured out fresh, cold water for them out of a jug
that had been hanging on a palm tree. He then brought them that food and
water, and they ate and drank from it. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
“You shall be asked about the blessings of this day.”
2649. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
would eat bread with clarified butter. He once invited a man from the
countryside to eat with him, and the man took the bread and used it to soak
up every drop of clarified butter on the plate. ʿUmar said, “It is as though
you were starving.” The man said, “By God, I have not eaten clarified butter,
nor have I seen any food cooked in it, since such-and-such a date.” ʿUmar
said, “I shall not eat clarified butter again until this drought is lifted and the
people are able to eat as they did in former days.”
2650. According to Mālik, Isḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa reported that
Anas b. Mālik said, “I saw ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, when he was the Commander
of the Faithful, be given a measure (ṣāʿ) of dates. He would eat all of them,
even the ones of inferior quality.”
2651. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported that ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar said, “ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb was asked about eating locusts. He said, ‘I
wish that we had a basket of them that we could eat.’”
2652. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b. Ḥalḥala reported that
Ḥumayd b. Mālik b. Khutham said, “I was sitting with Abū Hurayra at his
land in al-ʿAqīq. Some Medinese arrived, riding on their mounts. They
dismounted, and Abū Hurayra said to me, ‘Go to my mother and tell her,
“Your son greets you and asks you to give us some food.”’ She set down
three loaves on a plate, with some oil and salt. I then put the plate on my
head and brought it out to them. When I served them the plate, Abū Hurayra
magnified God (said ‘God is great,’ Allāhu akbar) and said, ‘Praise belongs
to God who satiated us with bread after we previously had only water and
dates for food.’ The strong, however, did not eat of the food. When they left,
Abū Hurayra said, ‘My nephew, be good to your flock, wipe the snot from
their noses, and clean out their pen. Perform your prayers in their presence,
Book 45 753

for they are among the animals that reside in Paradise. By Him whose hand
holds my soul, a time is about to come when a small group of sheep will be
more beloved to their owner than Marwān’s palace is to him.’”997
2653. According to Mālik, Abū Nuʿaym Wahb b. Kaysān said, “The Messenger
of God (pbuh) was with his stepson, ʿUmar b. Abī Salama, when a plate of
food was brought to him. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to the boy, ‘Say
“In God’s name” (Bismi ’llāh), and then eat the food that is closest to you.’”
2654. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “I heard al-Qāsim b.
Muḥammad say, ‘A man came to ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās and said to him, “I take
care of an orphan who has camels. Can I drink of their milk?” Ibn ʿAbbās
said, “If you track down his camels when they go missing, wipe tar on those
infected with scabies, repair the water basin from which they drink, and
see to it that they are given enough to drink, then you may drink of their
milk, so long as you cause no harm to their calves nor harm the mothers by
excessive milking.”’”
2655. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that he
would never consume food or drink or even a medicine without first saying,
“Praise be to God who guided us, fed us, satiated our thirst, and gave us the
good things of the world. God is great. O God, for every evil, a blessing of
Yours has found us. We therefore awake in the morning and sleep in the
evening in prosperity. We ask that You perfect it and that You make us
grateful for it. There is no prosperity except the prosperity You provide.
There is no god except You, God of the righteous and the Lord of the worlds.
Praise be to God. There is no god except God. Whatever God wills, is, and
there is no power except through God. O God, bless us in what You have
provided us and protect us from the punishment of Hellfire.”998
2656. Mālik was asked, “Can a woman eat with a man other than a close
relation to whom marriage is prohibited (maḥram) or a slave of hers?”
He said, “There is nothing objectionable in that, if it is consistent with the
manner in which a woman eats with men. A woman may sometimes eat with
her husband and his companions who eat with him, or with her brother and
his companions, in a similar fashion. It is not permissible, however, for a
woman to be alone with a man whom she could potentially marry.”

997 A reference to Marwān b. al-Ḥakam, who was the governor of Medina at that time.
998 Al-ḥamdu lillāhi ’lladhī hadānā wa-aṭʿamanā wa-saqānā wa-naʿʿamanā. Allāhu akbar.
Allāhumma alfatnā niʿmatuka bi-kulli sharr. Fa-aṣbaḥnā minhā wa-amsaynā bi-kulli khayr.
Nasʾaluka tamāmahā wa-shukrahā. Lā khayra illā khayruk. Wa-lā ilāha ghayruk, ilāha
’l-ṣāliḥīna wa-rabbi ’l-ʿālamīn. Al-ḥamdu lillāh. Wa-lā ilāha illā ’llāh. Mā shāʾa ’llāh wa-lā quw-
wata illā billāh. Allāhumma bārik lanā fīmā razaqtanā wa-qinā ʿadhāba ’l-nār.
754 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 32. What Has Come Down regarding Eating Meat

2657. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
said, “Avoid eating meat habitually, for it is addictive like wine.”
2658. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
came upon Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh, who was in the company of a porter carrying
meat. ʿUmar said, “What is this?” He said, “Commander of the Faithful, we
longed to have some meat, so I bought some for a dirham.” ʿUmar said,
“Shouldn’t you rather deprive yourselves for the sake of your neighbor
and your cousin? Have you thought of the meaning of this verse, ‘You have
squandered all of the good things given to you in this immediate life of
yours, seeking enjoyment therein’?”999

Chapter 33. What Has Come Down regarding Wearing Rings

2659. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported from ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar that the Messenger of God (pbuh) at one time used to wear a gold
ring. Then the Messenger of God (pbuh) decided to discard it and said, “I
shall never wear it again.” ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said, “Subsequently, everyone
discarded their gold rings.”1000
2660. According to Mālik, Ṣadaqa b. Yasār said, “I asked Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab
about wearing a ring. He said, ‘Wear one, and tell people that I expressly
gave you permission to do so.’”

Chapter 34. What Has Come Down regarding Removing Necklaces

and Bells out of Fear of the Evil Eye (al-ʿAyn)
2661. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr reported from ʿAbbād
b. Tamīm that Abū Bashīr al-Anṣārī informed him that he was with the
Messenger of God (pbuh) on one of his trips. Abū Bashīr said, “The Messenger
of God (pbuh) sent a representative” (ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr interrupted the
report and said, “I think that Abū Bashīr said, ‘and the people were already
napping’”), and the representative said, “Any necklace draped around
the neck of a camel, whether made of bowstring or otherwise, should be
removed and broken.”1001

999 Al-Aḥqāf, 46:19. Bājī suggests that this incident took place during a time of great want during
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb’s term as caliph. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 7:253.
1000 Although the text uses the word al-nās, which literally means “the people,” the prohibition
against wearing gold rings applies only to men.
1001 The commentators disagree as to the reason for this prohibition, with many, including Mālik,
relating it to the pre-Islamic practice of hanging charms with the intent of warding off the evil
eye. Under this interpretation, if a necklace is draped around the neck of an animal purely
for the purpose of ornamentation, the prohibition does not apply. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 7:255.
Book 45 755

2662. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘I think that was to ward off the
evil eye.’”

Chapter 35. Performing Ablutions (Wudūʾ) as Protection against the

Evil Eye (al-ʿAyn)
2663. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. Abī Umāma b. Sahl b. Ḥunayf
reported that he heard his father say, “My father, Sahl b. Ḥunayf, once
bathed at al-Kharrār.1002 He removed the cloak that he was wearing as ʿĀmir
b. Rabīʿa was looking on. Sahl had beautiful white skin. Upon seeing it,
ʿĀmir said to him, ‘I have never seen skin as beautiful as yours, not even that
of a young girl.’ Sahl became severely ill on the spot, falling to the ground.
Someone went to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and informed him that Sahl
had fallen ill and that he would consequently not be able to set out with
him. The Messenger of God (pbuh) went to see him, and Sahl informed him
of what had happened with ʿĀmir. The Messenger of God (pbuh) then said,
‘Why do some of you kill your brethren? You should instead bless them (by
saying Tabāraka ’llāh). The evil eye is real. ʿĀmir, wash yourself to ward off
its effects from Sahl.’ ʿĀmir washed himself in order to dissipate its effects.
Sahl recovered completely and was then able to set out with the Messenger
of God (pbuh).”
2664. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported that Abū Umāma b. Sahl b.
Ḥunayf said, “ʿĀmir b. Rabīʿa once saw Sahl b. Ḥunayf bathing, whereupon
he said, ‘I have never seen skin so beautiful, not even on a maiden cloistered
away in her tent.’ Sahl immediately collapsed. Someone went to the
Messenger of God (pbuh) and asked him, ‘Messenger of God, can you do
anything for Sahl b. Ḥunayf? By God, he cannot even raise his head.’ He said,
‘Do you suspect that someone is responsible for this?’ They said, ‘Indeed, we
suspect ʿĀmir b. Rabīʿa.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) therefore summoned
ʿĀmir and scolded him, saying, ‘Why do some of you kill your brethren? You
should instead bless them (by saying Tabāraka ’llāh). ʿĀmir! Wash yourself
to ward off its effects from Sahl.’ ʿĀmir therefore washed his face, hands,
elbows, knees, the entirety of his feet, and his groin out of a goblet. Then he
poured the remaining water over himself. Sahl recovered completely and
was able to set out with the people.”

However, other commentators, as the editors of the RME note, believe the prohibition to be
intended to minimize the risk that the animal might choke, particularly if the necklace was
made of the string of a bow, as was commonly the case before Islam.
1002 A place in Medina or its environs.
756 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 36. Using Pious Supplications (Ruqya) to Ward Off the Evil
Eye (al-ʿAyn)
2665. According to Mālik, Ḥumayd b. Qays al-Makkī said, “The two sons of
Jaʿfar b. Abī Ṭālib were brought to the Messenger of God (pbuh). He said
to their nursemaid, ‘Why do they appear so weak and emaciated?’ Their
nursemaid said, ‘Messenger of God, the evil eye easily finds its way to them.
The only reason we have not sought to protect them with supplications is
that we do not know what supplications would be agreeable to you.’ The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Protect them with appropriate supplications
to God. If anything were to defy fate, it would be the evil eye.’”1003
2666. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Sulaymān b. Yasār
that ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr told him, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) once
entered the house of Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh). There
was a child weeping there, and they said that he was crying because of the
evil eye.” ʿUrwa said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Why haven’t you
attempted to remove its effects with appropriate supplications?’”

Chapter 37. What Has Come Down regarding the Reward of the Ill
2667. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “When a servant of His falls ill, God,
Blessed and Sublime is He, dispatches two angels to him. They pay careful
attention to what the man says to his well-wishers. If, when they come to
see him, he praises God and exalts Him, the angels report that to God—and
He knows best. God says, ‘If I claim his soul, I am obliged to deliver him to
Paradise. If I choose to heal him, however, I am obliged to renew his flesh
and blood and to efface his foul deeds.’”
2668. According to Mālik, Yazīd b. Khuṣayfa reported that ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr
said, “I heard ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), say, ‘The Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, “Whenever an injury befalls a believer, even if only a thorn,
it offsets (or ‘erases’) a sin of his.”’” Yazīd was uncertain as to which of the
two expressions ʿUrwa used.
2669. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṣaʿṣaʿa said
that he heard Abū al-Ḥubāb Saʿīd b. Yasār say that he heard Abū Hurayra
say, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Whenever God wishes to bless
someone, He first inflicts suffering on him.’”

1003 The specific Arabic term for supplications intended to ward off the effects of the evil eye or to
cure someone of an illness is ruqya. Bājī reports that reciting verses of the Quran or the beau-
tiful names of God in such a context is uncontroversial. Use of non-Islamic references or any-
thing that smacks of polytheism (shirk), however, is prohibited. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 7:257–58.
Book 45 757

2670. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that during the time of
the Messenger of God (pbuh), a man died, and someone said, “Good for him.
He died peacefully, without suffering the pain of an illness.” The Messenger
of God (pbuh) said, “Woe unto you! It may have been the case that had God
tried him with an illness, it would have effaced his evil deeds.”

Chapter 38. Seeking Protection and Treating Illness with Pious

Supplications (Ruqya)
2671. According to Mālik, Yazīd b. Khuṣayfa reported that ʿAmr b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. Kaʿb al-Sulamī informed him that Nāfiʿ b. Jubayr informed him from
ʿUthmān b. Abī al-ʿĀṣī that he went to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and
said, “I am in extreme pain.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Rub the
area with your right hand seven times and say, ‘I seek refuge in God’s glory
and might from the evil of what I suffer.’” ʿUthmān said, “When I said it,
God removed my pain. Ever since, I have told my family and others to use it
when they are in pain.”
2672. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUrwa, from ʿĀʾisha,
the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that when the Messenger of God (pbuh) was
ill, he would recite the last three chapters of the Quran1004 and then breathe
from his mouth onto his hands, with a little spittle, and rub his body. She
said, “When his pain was too intense for him to do so, I would recite them
over him, and I would rub his body with his right hand, seeking its blessing.”
2673. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-
Raḥmān that Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq once went to visit ʿĀʾisha at a time when she
was ill, and he found a Jewish woman there, treating her with a supplication.
Abū Bakr said, “Treat her with a supplication from the Book of God.”

Chapter 39. Treating the Sick

2674. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that a man suffered a wound
in the time of the Messenger of God (pbuh). The blood flowed profusely from
the wound, and the man called for two men from the Banū Anmār tribe. The
two looked at the wound, and then said that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
asked them, “Which of you is the more skilled in healing?” They said, “Of
what use is healing, Messenger of God?” Zayd said that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) said in reply, “The One who created diseases also created their cure.”

1004 Each of the last two chapters of the Quran begins with a verse in which the worshipper
expressly seeks God’s protection against various sources of evil. The third to last chapter of
the Quran, al-Ikhlāṣ, is included here with the last two because it is regularly recited with the
last two chapters of the Quran and because of its teachings regarding God’s oneness. Zurqānī,
Sharḥ al-Zurqānī, 4:517.
758 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2675. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “It reached me that during
the time of the Messenger of God (pbuh), Saʿd b. Zurāra suffered from pain
in his throat that made it difficult for him to breathe, so he cauterized the
wound. He then died.”
2676. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar was
cauterized for palsy, but he was treated for the sting of a scorpion with
appropriate supplications.

Chapter 40. Washing the Ill with Water to Treat Fever

2677. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from Fāṭima bt.
al-Mundhir that whenever a woman who was suffering from fever was
brought to Asmāʾ bt. Abī Bakr in order for her to supplicate on the ill
woman’s behalf, Asmāʾ would pour water over the woman’s head and down
to her collar. She said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) would tell us to bring
down a fever with water.”
2678. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported from his father that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Fever is from the heat of Hell, so cool it
with water.”

Chapter 41. Visiting the Ill, and Augury (Ṭiyara)

2679. According to Mālik, it reached him from Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “When a person sets off to visit someone
ill, he plunges into the depths of divine mercy. When he arrives at his
destination and sits with the ill person, divine mercy settles there (or
something like that).”
2680. According to Mālik, it reached him from Bukayr b. ʿAbd Allāh b.
al-Ashajj, from Ibn ʿAṭiyya, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “There
are no such things as contagion (ʿadwā), ill fortune because of birds (hām),
and serpents in a hungry belly (ṣafar). A sick herd should not alight with a
healthy one, but a healthy herd may alight wherever it wishes.” The people
asked him, “Messenger of God, why is that so?” The Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, “It is harmful.”

Chapter 42. The Long-Established Ordinance (al-Sunna) regarding

Hair
2681. According to Mālik, Abū Bakr b. Nāfiʿ reported from his father Nāfiʿ,
from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, that the Messenger of God ordered that the
moustache be trimmed and the beard be grown.
Book 45 759

2682. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Ḥumayd b. ʿAbd

al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf that he heard Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān say from the pulpit,
in the year in which he performed the Pilgrimage (ḥajj), while holding a
hair extension that he took from one of his guards, “People of Medina!
Where are your learned men? I heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibit
such things, saying, ‘The Israelites perished when their womenfolk took up
such habits.’”
2683. According to Mālik, Ziyād b. Saʿd reported that he heard Ibn Shihāb
say, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) would at one time let his hair drape over
his forehead, at whatever length God willed, but later he started to part
it instead.”
2684. Mālik said, “There is nothing objectionable in a man seeing the hair
of his daughter-in-law or his mother-in-law.”
2685. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that he
prohibited castration and said, “It mutilates the perfected form of God’s
handiwork.”
2686. According to Mālik, Ṣafwān b. Sulaym reported that it reached him
that the Prophet (pbuh) said, “Someone who cares for an orphan, provided
he is mindful of God, and whether the orphan is his relative or a stranger
to him, shall join me in Paradise, the way these two are joined.” He was
gesturing with his middle and index fingers.

Chapter 43. Grooming the Hair

2687. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Abū Qatāda al-Anṣārī
said to the Messenger of God (pbuh), “I have a lot of hair that comes down
to my shoulders. Should I comb it?” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Yes,
and honor it.” Abū Qatāda thereafter applied oil to it twice a day, because
the Messenger of God (pbuh) had told him, “Honor it.”
2688. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār
informed him, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) was in the mosque when a
man with disheveled hair and a disheveled beard came in. The Messenger
of God (pbuh) motioned for the man to leave the mosque, as if to tell him
not to come back until he had groomed his hair and beard. The man did so
and returned. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Isn’t it better to come
to the mosque looking well-groomed, rather than disheveled as if one
were Satan?”
760 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 44. What Has Come Down regarding Dyeing the Hair
2689. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm
al-Taymī informed me, from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, that ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. al-Aswad b. ʿAbd Yaghūth, who, Abū Salama said, used to sit
with them in their gatherings and whose beard and hair were grey, one day
showed up, having dyed them both red. Abū Salama said, ‘Everyone said to
him, “This is much better.” He said, “My mother, the Mother of the Believers,
ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), sent her handmaiden, Nukhayla, to
me yesterday. She told me that ʿĀʾisha insisted that I dye my hair, and that
she had taken a solemn oath that I would indeed dye my hair. She also let
me know that Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq would dye his hair.”’”
2690. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, regarding dyeing the hair black, ‘I have
not heard anything definitive about that, but I prefer the use of other colors.
There is great latitude in whether or not to dye one’s hair, God willing, and
the people are not subject to any constraint with respect to it.’” Yaḥyā said, “I
heard Mālik say, ‘This report is proof that the Messenger of God (pbuh) did not
dye his own hair. Had the Messenger of God (pbuh) dyed his own hair, ʿĀʾisha
would certainly have informed ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Aswad of that fact.’”

Chapter 45. Occasions That Necessitate Seeking God’s Protection

2691. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “It reached me that Khālid b.
al-Walīd said to the Messenger of God (pbuh), ‘I suffer from nightmares.’
The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to him, ‘Say, “I seek protection in the
perfect words of God from His wrath, from His punishment, from the evil
of His servants, and from the whispering of demons, lest they afflict me.”’”
2692. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “When the Messenger of God
(pbuh) was taken on the Night Journey, he saw an afreet chasing him with
a fiery torch. Whenever the Messenger of God (pbuh) turned, he saw him.
The Archangel Gabriel said to him, “Shall I teach you some words through
which, were you to say them, the torch would be extinguished and the afreet
would fall on his face?” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Yes, indeed!” Ga-
briel said, “Say: ‘I seek refuge in God’s noble countenance and in God’s per-
fect words, which neither the pious nor the wicked can transgress, from the
evil that descends from the heavens, from the evil that ascends into them,
from the evil that moves about on the earth, from the evil that emerges from
underneath it, from the tribulations of both the night and the day, and from
the evil of unexpected nighttime visitors, save for one that comes with good
news, O Merciful One!’”1005

1005 Aʿūdhu bi-wajhi ’llāhi ’l-karīm wa-bi-kalimāti ’llāhi ’l-tāmmāti ’llatī lā yujāwizuhunna bar-
run wa-lā fājir, min sharri mā yanzilu min al-samāʾi wa-sharri mā yaʿruju fīhā, wa-sharri
Book 45 761

2693. According to Mālik, Suhayl b. Abī Ṣāliḥ reported from his father, from
Abū Hurayra, that a man of the tribe of Aslam said, “I could not sleep last
night.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to him, “Why not?” He said, “A
scorpion stung me.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “If only you had said
when you laid down to sleep in the evening, ‘I seek protection in God’s perfect
words from the evil of His handiwork,’ it would have caused you no harm.”
2694. According to Mālik, Sumayy, the freedman (mawlā) of Abū Bakr,
reported from al-Qaʿqāʿ b. Ḥakīm that Kaʿb al-Aḥbār said, “Were it not for
the fact that I recite certain words, the Jews would have transformed me
into a donkey.” Someone asked him, “And what are they?” He said, “I seek
protection in God’s glorious countenance, beyond which there is nothing
greater, and in God’s perfect words, which neither the pious nor the wicked
can transgress, and in God’s beautiful names, all of them, those that I
know and those I do not, from the evil that He has created, originated, and
multiplied.”1006

Chapter 46. What Has Come Down regarding Those Who Love One
Another for God’s Sake
2695. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Maʿmar reported
from Abū al-Ḥubāb Saʿīd b. Yasār that Abū Hurayra said, “The Messenger
of God (pbuh) said, ‘God, Blessed and Sublime is He, will say on the Day of
Resurrection, “Where are those who love one another for the sake of My
majesty? I shall protect them in My shade today, a day on which there is no
shade except Mine.”’”
2696. According to Mālik, Khubayb b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Anṣārī reported
from Ḥafṣ b. ʿĀṣim that either Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī or Abū Hurayra said,
“The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘There are seven kinds of people whom
God will protect in His shade on the day on which there is no shade except
His: a just ruler (imām); a youth who grows up sincerely worshipping God;
someone whose heart is attached to the mosque, where it abides even
after he departs from it; two souls who love one another for the sake of
God, having met for that purpose and parting with it; a person whose eyes
overflow with tears when he remembers God in his private moments; a
man who refuses the advances of a noble, beautiful woman, saying, “I fear
God”; and a person who, when giving charity (ṣadaqa), conceals it, such that
his left hand does not know what his right hand gives.’”

mā dharaʾa fi ’l-arḍi wa-sharri mā yakhruju minhā, wa-min fitani ’l-layli wa’l-nahāri wa-min
ṭawāriqi ’l-layli illā ṭāriqin yaṭruqu bi-khayr, yā raḥmān.
1006 Aʿūdhu bi-wajhi ’llāhi ’l-ʿaẓīmi ’lladhī laysa shayʾun aʿẓama minhu wa-bi-kalimāti ’llāhi
’l-tāmmāti ’llatī lā yujāwizuhunna barrun wa-lā fājirun wa-bi-asmāʾi ’llāhi ’l-ḥusnā kullihā mā
ʿalimtu minhā wa-mā lam aʿlam, min sharri mā khalaqa wa-baraʾa wa-dharaʾa.
762 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2697. According to Mālik, Suhayl b. Abī Ṣāliḥ reported from his father, from
Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “When God loves
a servant of His, He says to Gabriel, ‘I love so-and-so, so you should, too.’
Gabriel therefore comes to love him. Gabriel then calls out to the denizens
of the Heavens, ‘God loves so-and-so, so you should, too.’ The denizens of
Heaven thus come to love him. Then they work to assure his place on earth.
When God despises a servant of His .  .  .” Mālik said, “I am confident that
what the narrator said regarding God’s hatred is essentially the same.”
2698. According to Mālik, Abū Ḥāzim b. Dīnār reported that Abū Idrīs
al-Khawlānī said, “I entered the mosque in Damascus and saw there a
young man whose teeth sparkled and around whom the worshippers had
gathered. Whenever they disagreed about something, they referred it to
him and would rely on his view. I therefore asked who he was, and someone
told me, ‘This is Muʿādh b. Jabal.’ The next day, I set out early after the sun
had risen for the mosque, but I found that Muʿādh had already arrived and
was busy in the performance of prayer. I thus waited for him to complete
his prayers. When he did, I walked straight up to him and greeted him. I
said, ‘By God, I certainly do love you for the sake of God.’ He said, ‘Do you
indeed swear that it is for the sake of God?’ I said, ‘Certainly, I do swear
that it is for the sake of God!’ He said, ‘Do you indeed swear that it is for
the sake of God?’ So I said, ‘Certainly, I do swear that it is!’ He then took
me by the middle of my cloak, pulled me toward him, and said, ‘Rejoice!
For I heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) say, “God, Blessed and Sublime is
He, said, ‘Those who love one another for My sake, those who sit with one
another in remembrance of Me, those who visit one another for My sake,
and those who sacrifice what they have willingly for one another for My
sake are entitled to My love.’”’”
2699. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās would
say, “Moderation, gentleness, and a goodly appearance are some of the
twenty-five parts of prophethood.”

Chapter 47. Dreams

2700. According to Mālik, Isḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa al-Anṣārī reported
from Anas b. Mālik that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “A righteous
man’s auspicious dream is one of the forty-six parts of prophethood.”
2701. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, a similar report from the Messenger of God (pbuh).
2702. According to Mālik, Isḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa reported from
Zufar b. Ṣaʿṣaʿa b. Mālik, from his father, from Abū Hurayra, that when the
Book 45 763

Messenger of God (pbuh) finished performance of the Morning Prayer

(ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ), he would ask, “Did anyone have a dream last night?” He
would also say, “Nothing will remain of prophethood after me other than
auspicious dreams.”
2703. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Nothing will remain of prophethood
after me other than good tidings (mubashshirāt).” They asked, “What are
these good tidings, Messenger of God?” He said, “An auspicious dream that
a righteous man sees (or is made to see) is one of the forty-six parts of
prophethood.”
2704. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Abū Salama b. ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān said, “I heard Abū Qatāda b. Ribʿī say, ‘I heard the Messenger of
God (pbuh) say, “An auspicious dream is from God, and a nightmare is from
Satan. If someone sees something evil in his sleep, he should blow from his
mouth three times, with some spittle, to his left when he awakes, seeking
God’s protection from the evil of his nightmare. If he does so, it will never
harm him, God willing.”’ I used to see things in my sleep that weighed on
me more heavily than mountains, but after I heard this report, I stopped
worrying about them.”
2705. According to Mālik, Hishām b. ʿUrwa reported that his father would
say, regarding the Quranic verse “To them belong the good tidings of this
life and the next”1007 that it was a reference to auspicious dreams that the
righteous see (or are made to see).

Chapter 48. What Has Come Down regarding Dice

2706. According to Mālik, Mūsā b. Maysara reported from Saʿīd b. Abī Hind,
from Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Whoever
plays games of dice has disobeyed God and His Messenger.”
2707. According to Mālik, ʿAlqama b. Abī ʿAlqama reported from his mother,
from ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that word reached her that a
family who was living with her in a room of her house had some dice. She
sent a message to them, saying, “If you do not get rid of the dice, I will evict
you from my home.” She sternly rebuked them for having dice.
2708. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that
whenever he found anyone in his family playing with dice, he would strike
him and break the dice.”

1007 Yūnus, 10:64.

764 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2709. Yaḥyā said, “I heard Mālik say, ‘There is no good in chess,’ and he
disapproved of it. I heard him express disapproval of the playing of chess
and other such games, condemning them as vain. When asked about them,
he would recite this verse: ‘And what is there after truth but error?’”1008

Chapter 49. The Norms Governing Greetings

2710. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that the Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, “The rider should greet the pedestrian, and when one member
of a group returns a greeting, he does so on behalf of the whole group.”
2711. According to Mālik, Wahb b. Kaysān reported that Muḥammad b. ʿAmr
b. ʿAṭāʾ said, “I was sitting with ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās when a Yemeni man
came in and said, ‘Peace be upon you, and God’s mercy and His blessings.’1009
He then appended some additional words to that greeting. Ibn ʿAbbās, who
by this time had gone blind, asked, ‘Who is this man?’ They said to him, ‘This
is the Yemeni man who came to visit you,’ and they introduced the man to
him. Ibn ʿAbbās told him, ‘When greeting someone, you should add nothing
after the word ‘blessings.’”
2712. Yaḥyā said, “Mālik was asked, ‘Should one greet a woman?’ He said,
“As for an old woman, I do not disapprove of greeting her. If she is young,
however, I do.”

Chapter 50. What Has Come Down regarding Greeting Jews and
Christians
2713. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported that ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘When a Jew greets you
saying, “May death visit you” (al-sāmm ʿalaykum),1010 reply by saying, “And
the same to you!”’”
2714. Mālik was asked about whether someone who greets a Jew or a
Christian should retract it. He said, “No.”

Chapter 51. Miscellaneous Matters regarding Greetings

2715. According to Mālik, Isḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa reported from Abū
Murra, the freedman (mawlā) of ʿAqīl b. Abī Ṭālib, from Abū Wāqid al-Laythī,
that while the Messenger of God (pbuh) was sitting with the people in the

1008 Yūnus, 10:32.

1009 The Arabic transliteration of the customary greeting is Al-salāmu ʿalaykum wa-raḥmatullāhi
wa-barakātuh.
1010 The printed edition of the RME erroneously has al-salām ʿalaykum rather than al-sāmm ʿalay-
kum, which is the only version of the text reported in the sources.
Book 45 765

mosque, three people came in, two of whom approached the Messenger of
God (pbuh) and one of whom went away. When the two men stopped near
the Messenger of God (pbuh), they greeted him. One of them saw room in
the circle of the congregants and joined it. The second man sat down behind
the circle. As for the third, he turned around and walked away. When the
Messenger of God (pbuh) finished what he was doing, he said, “Shall I inform
you of the fate of these three? The first of them sought refuge with God, so
God sheltered him. The second was bashful, so God was indulgent toward
him. The third turned away, so God turned away from him.”
2716. According to Mālik, Isḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa reported from
Anas b. Mālik that he heard ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, after replying to a man who
had greeted him, ask the man, “How are you?” The man said, “I declare God’s
praise to you.” ʿUmar said, “That is exactly what I wished to hear from you.”
2717. According to Mālik, Isḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa reported that
al-Ṭufayl b. Ubayy b. Kaʿb informed him that he would go to ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar and accompany him to the market in the morning. Al-Ṭufayl said,
“While we were out, ʿAbd Allāh would not cross paths with anyone, whether
a purveyor of undesirable merchandise, a person selling goods, a pitiable
soul, or anyone else, without greeting him. One day I came to ʿAbd Allāh,
and he asked me to go with him to the market. I said to him, ‘What are you
planning to do there, inasmuch as you never stop to buy or sell merchandise,
haggle, or sit with the market’s merchants?’ He said, ‘Let’s sit down here
and talk.’ Then ʿAbd Allāh said to me, ‘Abū Baṭn!’1011—because al-Ṭufayl had
a plump belly—‘We set out in the morning only to greet others. We greet
everyone we meet.’”
2718. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that a man greeted
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, saying, “Peace be upon you, and God’s mercy and His
blessings, and all that goes and comes.”1012 ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said to the
man, “And to you, a thousand times the like,” as if that annoyed him.
2719. According to Mālik, it reached him that when one enters an
abandoned home, one should say, “Peace be upon us, and on God’s righteous
servants.”1013

1011 Baṭn is an Arabic word for the belly.

1012 The commentators disagree as to what the speaker intended by the statement “all that goes
and comes” (al-ghādiyāt wa’l-rāʾiḥāt), with one saying that he intended the birds and others
suggesting that he meant the angels who record human deeds. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 7:283.
1013 Al-salāmu ʿalaynā wa-ʿalā ʿibādi ’llāhi ’l-ṣāliḥīn.
766 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 52. Asking Permission to Enter

2720. According to Mālik, Ṣafwān b. Sulaym reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār
that a man asked the Messenger of God (pbuh), “Messenger of God, must I
ask my mother’s permission before I enter the house?” He said, “Yes.” The
man said, “But I live with her there.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
“Nevertheless, ask her permission.” The man said, “But I serve her.” The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said to him, “Nevertheless, ask her permission.
Do you wish to see her naked?” The man said, “No.” The Messenger of God
(pbuh) then said, “In that case, always ask her permission to enter.”
2721. According to Mālik, a source he deemed reliable reported from
Bukayr b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Ashajj, from Busr b. Saʿīd, from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī,
that Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī said, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Ask
permission to enter three times. If permission is granted, you may enter,
but if it is not, go away.’”
2722. According to Mālik, Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān reported from
several of their scholars that Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī sought permission to see
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb. He asked to enter three times, heard no response, and
left. ʿUmar sent someone after him, and when ʿUmar saw Abū Mūsā, ʿUmar
said to him, “Why didn’t you enter?” Abū Mūsā said, “I heard the Messenger of
God (pbuh) say, ‘Ask permission to enter three times. If permission is granted,
you may enter, but if it is not, go away.’” ʿUmar said, “Who else is aware of this?
If you cannot bring forth anyone else to corroborate this, I will see to it that
you are punished.” Abū Mūsā left and kept going until he found assembled in
the mosque some people who were meeting. This group was known as “the
Medinese assembly” (majlis al-anṣār). Abū Mūsā said, “I informed ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb that I had heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) say, ‘Ask permission
to enter three times. If permission is granted, you may enter, but if it is not,
go away.’ ʿUmar said, ‘If you cannot bring forth anyone else to corroborate
this, I will see to it that you are punished.’ If any of you has also heard this,
he should come with me.” They said to Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī, “Get up and go
with him.” Abū Saʿīd was the youngest of them. He got up and went with Abū
Mūsā and informed ʿUmar about that report. ʿUmar said to Abū Mūsā, “In fact,
I never doubted you, but I fear that people may attribute statements to the
Messenger of God (pbuh) that he never made.”

Chapter 53. Invoking Blessings When a Person Sneezes

2723. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr reported from his father
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “If someone sneezes, bless him. If he
sneezes again, bless him again. If he sneezes a third time, bless him a third
Book 45 767

time. If he sneezes a fourth time, however, say to him, ‘You have a cold.’”
ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr said, “I do not know whether it was after the third or
the fourth sneeze.”
2724. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that when ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar
sneezed, people would say, “God show mercy on you.”1014 He would reply,
“God show mercy on us and on you, and may He forgive us and you.”1015

Chapter 54. What Has Come Down regarding Statues

2725. According to Mālik, Isḥāq b. Abī Ṭalḥa reported that Rāfiʿ b. Isḥāq, the
freedman (mawlā) of al-Shifāʾ, informed him, “ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa and I
went to visit Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī when he was ill. Abū Saʿīd said to us, ‘The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said to us that the angels do not enter a house in
which there are statues (or “figures”).’” Isḥāq was uncertain which word
Abū Saʿīd used, “statues” or “figures.”
2726. According to Mālik, Abū al-Naḍr reported from ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd that he went to visit Abū Ṭalḥa al-Anṣārī when he
was ill. He said, “I found Sahl b. Ḥunayf there with him. Abū Ṭalḥa called for
a man and asked him to remove a rug on which Sahl had been sitting. Sahl
said to him, “Why are you having it removed?” Abū Ṭalḥa replied, “Because
there are figures on it, and you know what the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said about them.” Sahl said, “But didn’t the Messenger of God (pbuh) exclude
drawings on a garment?” Abū Ṭalḥa said, “Yes, indeed, but removing the
carpet puts me at ease.”1016
2727. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad,
from ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that she purchased a small
cushion that had pictures on it. When the Messenger of God (pbuh) saw
it, he stopped at the door and did not enter. She realized from his facial
expression that there was something bothering him. She said, “Messenger
of God! I turn in repentance to God and to His Messenger, but what did I do
wrong?” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “What is this cushion doing
here?” She said, “I purchased it for you, so that you may sit on it or recline
on it.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Those who made these pictures
will be punished on the Day of Resurrection. It will be said to them, ‘Bring
to life what you have created.’” Then he said, “Angels do not enter a room in
which there are images.”

1014 Yarḥamuka ’llāh.

1015 Yarḥamunā ’llāh wa-iyyākum, wa-yaghfir lanā wa-iyyākum.
1016 Sahl was analogizing the Prophet’s permission to have images on cloth to the case of images
on a carpet. Abū Ṭalḥa granted the validity of the analogy but preferred to remove the carpet
out of precaution.
768 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 55. What Has Come Down regarding Eating Lizards

2728. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
b. Abī Ṣaʿṣaʿa reported that Sulaymān b. Yasār said, “The Messenger of God
(pbuh) once entered the house of Maymūna bt. al-Ḥārith, who had with her
some lizard meat and eggs. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās and Khālid b. al-Walīd were
with him at the time. The Messenger of God (pbuh) asked her, “Where did
you get this from?” She replied, “My sister Huzayla bt. al-Ḥārith gave them
to me.” He then told ʿAbd Allāh and Khālid, “Go ahead and eat, if you wish.”
The two of them said, “Won’t you eat with us, Messenger of God?” He said,
“Heavenly visitors from God frequent me.” Maymūna then said, “Messenger
of God, in that case, shall we give you some of our milk to drink?” He said,
“Yes.” When he finished drinking it, he said, “Where did you get this from?”
She said, “My sister Huzayla gave it to me.” The Messenger of God (pbuh)
then said, “Do you remember your handmaiden, the one about whose
manumission you sought my advice? Give her to your sister and make her
available to your maternal relatives, so that she may take care of them. That
would be better for you than manumitting her.”
2729. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Abū Umāma b. Sahl
b. Ḥunayf, from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās, from Khālid b. al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra,
that he once entered the house of Maymūna, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh),
in the company of the Messenger of God (pbuh). A roasted lizard was
served. The Messenger of God (pbuh) stretched out his hand toward it, but
some of the women of the house said, “Let the Messenger of God (pbuh)
know what he is about to eat.” Someone said, “It is lizard, Messenger of
God,” whereupon he withdrew his hand. Khālid said, “Is eating it prohibited,
Messenger of God?” He said, “No, but I am unaccustomed to it, insofar as it
was unknown to my people, and so I find it disagreeable.” Khālid said, “I
then grabbed it and ate it while the Messenger of God (pbuh) looked on.”
2730. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported from ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿUmar that a man called out to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and asked
him, “Messenger of God, what is your view regarding lizard meat?” The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “I neither eat it nor forbid eating it.”

Chapter 56. What Has Come Down regarding the Rules That Apply
to Dogs
2731. According to Mālik, Yazīd b. Khuṣayfa reported that al-Sāʾib b. Yazīd
informed him that he heard Sufyān b. Abī Zuhayr, who was of the Shanūʾa
tribe, and a Companion of the Messenger of God (pbuh) relate the following
to some people who were standing with him at the entrance to the mosque.
Book 45 769

Sufyān said, “I heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) say, ‘Whoever acquires a
dog that he does not use to guard either his crops or his flock loses a portion
of the reward he would have received that day for his good deeds.’” Someone
interjected, “Did you hear this from the Messenger of God (pbuh)?” Sufyān
said, “Yes, indeed, by the Lord of this mosque.”
2732. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Whoever acquires a dog that is not fit for
hunting or guarding flocks loses two portions of the reward he would have
received that day for his good deeds.”
2733. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) commanded that dogs be killed.

Chapter 57. What Has Come Down regarding Sheep (Ghanam)

2734. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “The heart of disbelief
lies in the east; arrogance and pride are the chief traits of those who breed
horses and camels, the uncouth tent-dwellers; and tranquility is the chief
trait of those who herd sheep.”
2735. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
b. Abī Ṣaʿṣaʿa reported from his father that Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī said, “The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘It will soon be the case that a Muslim’s best
property is sheep, which he follows up and down mountain passes in search
of pasture and rain, fleeing with his religion from the trials and tribulations
of his day.’”
2736. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “No one should milk another’s livestock
without the owner’s permission. Would anyone be happy if someone were
to come to his room, break into his pantry, and remove his food? The udders
of livestock warehouse food for their owners. Therefore, no one should milk
another’s livestock without the owner’s permission.”
2737. According to Mālik, it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “Every prophet has also been a shepherd.” Someone said, “Including
you, Messenger of God?” He said, “Yes.”

Chapter 58. What Has Come Down regarding Mice Falling into
Clarified Butter and regarding Eating before Performing Prayer
2738. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar would
have his supper served to him, even as he could hear, while still sitting at
770 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

home, the imam recite from the Quran. He would continue his meal until he
was finished.
2739. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd
Allāh b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd, from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās, from Maymūna, the wife
of the Prophet (pbuh), that someone asked the Messenger of God (pbuh)
what to do if a mouse falls into a container of clarified butter. He said,
“Extract its body from the butter, along with the butter surrounding it.”

Chapter 59. What May Be Signs of Ill Omen (Shuʾm)

2740. According to Mālik, Abū Ḥāzim b. Dīnār reported from Sahl b. Saʿd
al-Sāʿidī that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Were such things to exist,
it would be in a horse, a woman, or a place of residence,” meaning ill omens.
2741. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Ḥamza b. ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿUmar and Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Ill omens may be found in a house, a
woman, or a horse.”
2742. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “A woman came to the
Messenger of God (pbuh) and said, ‘Messenger of God, we moved into a
house at a time when our numbers were great and our wealth vast. Now our
number has diminished and our wealth has been dissipated.’ The Messenger
of God (pbuh) said, ‘Abandon it, for it certainly deserves blame.’”1017

Chapter 60. Names That Are Disfavored

2743. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that the Messenger of
God (pbuh) once asked about a milch camel, “Who is ready to milk her?”
A man stood up, so the Messenger of God (pbuh) asked him, “What is your
name?” The man said, “Murra.”1018 The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to
him, “Sit down.” He then asked again, “Who is ready to milk her?” and a
different man stood up. The Messenger of God (pbuh) asked him, “And what
is your name?” The man said, “Ḥarb.”1019 The Messenger of God (pbuh) said
to him, “Sit down.” He then said a third time, “Who is ready to milk her?” A
third man stood up. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “And what is your

1017 Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr interprets this statement of the Prophet (pbuh) as a recognition on his part
that the people in question believed in bad omens and that it would be practically impossible
to dissuade them from this belief. Sensing this, the Prophet (pbuh) encouraged them to leave
the place if, in fact, they had become convinced the place was a cause of their misfortune. Ibn
ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 8:512.
1018 Murra means “bitterness.”
1019 Ḥarb means “war.”
Book 45 771

name?” The man said, “Yaʿīsh.”1020 The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to him,
“Go ahead and milk her!”1021
2744. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb
once asked a man, “What is your name?” The man said, “Jamra.”1022 ʿUmar
said, “Who is your father?” He said, “My father is Shihāb.”1023 ʿUmar then
asked him, “Of what tribe?” The man replied, “al-Ḥurqa.”1024 ʿUmar then
asked him, “And where is your people’s territory?” The man said, “At Ḥarrat
al-Nār.”1025 ʿUmar then asked him, “Where within that territory?” The man
replied, “Dhāt al-Laẓā.”1026 ʿUmar said to the man, “Quickly save your family,
lest they be consumed by flames.” Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd said, “It turned out to be as
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb said.”

Chapter 61. What Has Come Down regarding Cupping (Ḥijāma) and
Hiring a Cupper
2745. According to Mālik, Ḥumayd al-Ṭawīl reported that Anas b. Mālik said,
“A man named Abū Ṭayba once cupped the Messenger of God (pbuh). The
Messenger of God (pbuh) ordered that he should be given two kilograms
(one ṣāʿ) of dates as compensation. He also ordered Abū Ṭayba’s people to
reduce what they took from him out of his earnings.”1027
2746. According to Mālik, it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “If there is a remedy that is up to the challenge of an ailment, cupping
(ḥijāma) is certainly the one.”
2747. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Ibn Muḥayṣa al-Anṣārī
of the Banū Ḥāritha that he asked permission from the Messenger of God
(pbuh) to profit from the wage received by a slave of his who was a cupper.
However, the Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited him from doing so. The
man continued to ask him and to seek his permission, until the Messenger

1020 Yaʿīsh means “he lives.”

1021 It was common for pre-Islamic Arabs, like other groups in Late Antiquity, to use ferocious
names as a means of intimidating potential enemies.
1022 Jamra means “ember.”
1023 Shihāb means “comet.”
1024 Ḥurqa means “agony” or “burning.”
1025 Ḥarrat al-nār means “the lava field of the fire.”
1026 Dhāt al-laẓā means “the place consumed by an inferno.”
1027 Zurqānī explains the term kharāj in the report as referring to that portion of a slave’s earnings
that the slave is periodically required to give to his master. He clearly assumes that Abū Ṭayba
was a slave, although the text does not expressly describe him as such. According to Zurqānī,
Abū Ṭayba’s people required him to give them three measures (ṣāʿ) of dates (approximately
six kilograms), but he did not specify how often this transfer was due. If Zurqānī’s interpre-
tation of the report is accurate, it seems that the Prophet (pbuh) believed that their demands
from Abū Ṭayba were unreasonable.
772 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

of God (pbuh) finally said, “Feed it to those who water your camels and date
palms,” meaning his slaves.1028

Chapter 62. What Has Come Down regarding the East

2748. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported that ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar said, “I saw the Messenger of God (pbuh) pointing at the East and
saying, ‘There, that is the origin of strife and tribulation. There is the home
of strife and tribulation from whence Satan’s partisans will emerge.’”1029
2749. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb wanted to
set out for Iraq, but Kaʿb al-Aḥbār said to him, “Do not go there, Commander
of the Faithful, for nine-tenths of all the world’s sorcery resides there, and it is
home to the most wicked of the jinn as well as chronic, untreatable disease.”

Chapter 63. What Has Come Down regarding Killing Snakes, and
What Is Said about That
2750. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from Abū Lubāba that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) prohibited killing snakes found in people’s houses.
2751. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from Sāʾiba, the freedwoman
(mawlāt) of ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), that he prohibited
killing snakes that live in houses, except for those with two stripes on their
backs and those with stub tails. They cause blindness and miscarriages.
2752. According to Mālik, Ṣayfī, the freedman (mawlā) of Ibn Aflaḥ, reported
that Abū al-Sāʾib, the freedman of Hishām b. Zuhra, said, “I went to see Abū
Saʿīd al-Khudrī and found him performing prayer. I sat down to wait for him
until he finished. Then I heard the sound of movement under a chair in his
room. It turned out to be a snake, so I got up to kill it, but he motioned for
me to sit down. When he finished the prayer, he pointed to a room in the
house and said, ‘Do you see that room?’ I said, ‘Yes!’ He said, ‘A newlywed
youth once lived there. He set out with the Messenger of God (pbuh) on
the day of the Battle of the Trench (khandaq). While the Messenger of God
(pbuh) was there, the youth went to him and said, “Messenger of God,
please let me return to visit my wife.” The Messenger of God (pbuh) granted
him leave but said, “Take your weapons with you, for I am concerned that

1028 Jurists find this report problematic since they do not believe that the profession of cupping is
illegal. They consequently interpret the Prophet’s (pbuh) reluctance to permit Ibn Muḥayṣa
to profit from his slave’s cupping wages as reflecting either an initial prohibition that was
subsequently rescinded or the social disrepute of cupping. Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 7:298.
1029 Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr interprets this report as a prediction of the civil wars that broke out among
the early Muslim community in Iraq and the territories east of it. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istidkhār,
8:519–20.
Book 45 773

the Banū Qurayẓa1030 might harm you.” The youth then departed to visit his
wife. When he arrived home, he found her outside, standing at the entrance.
Jealousy took control of him, so lifted his spear to stab her. She said, “Don’t
be so hasty! Come inside and see what is in your room.” When he entered,
he discovered a snake coiled up on his bed. He plunged his spear into it, left
the room, and planted the spear upright in the house. The snake twisted
and turned at the end of the spear, and then the youth collapsed, dead. No
one knew which one had died first, the youth or the snake. We mentioned
the incident to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and he said, “There are jinn
in Medina who have become Muslim. When you see any of them, leave him
alone for three days; but if he continues to appear to you beyond that period
of time, you may kill him, for he is a devil.”’”1031

Chapter 64. What Should Be Said When on a Journey

2753. According to Mālik, it reached him that when the Messenger of God
(pbuh) placed his foot in the stirrup at the beginning of a journey, he would
say, “In the name of God. O God, you are our companion on this journey
and the protector of the family that I leave behind! O God, spread out the
earth for us, and make the journey easy for us! O God, I seek your protection
from the hardships of this journey, from a sorrowful return, and from a
distressing sight, be it in my property or in my family!”1032
2754. According to Mālik, a source he deemed reliable reported from Yaʿqūb
b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Ashajj, from Busr b. Saʿīd, from Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ, from
Khawla bt. Ḥakīm, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Whoever alights
to rest in a place should say, ‘I seek protection in God’s perfect words from
the evil that He created.’ Whoever says this will be safe from harm until he
decamps.”1033

Chapter 65. What Has Come Down regarding Traveling Alone in the
Case of Men and Women
2755. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥarmala reported from ʿAmr b.
Shuʿayb, from his father, from his grandfather, that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “One rider is a demon, two are two demons, but three are a riding party.”

1030 A powerful Jewish tribe in Medina that was allied with the Muslims but turned on them
during the pagans’ siege of Medina, known as the Battle of the Trench.
1031 This statement refers to the common pre-Islamic Arab belief that jinn could take on the form
of snakes.
1032 Bismi ’llāh. Allāhumma anta ’l-ṣāḥibu fī ’l-safari wa’l-khalīfatu fī ’l-ahl. Allāhumma ’zwi lanā
’l-arḍa wa-hawwin ʿalaynā ’l-safar. Allāhumma innī aʿūdhu bika min waʿthāʾi ’l-safari wa-min
kaʾābati ’l-munqalibi wa-min sūʾi ’l-manẓari fī ’l-māli wa’l-ahl.
1033 Aʿūdhu bi-kalimāti ’llāhi ’l-tāmmāti min sharri mā khalaqa.
774 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2756. According to Mālik, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥarmala reported that Saʿīd

b. al-Musayyab would say, “The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘Satan preys
on the solitary and the pair, but when there are three or more, he leaves
them alone.’”
2757. According to Mālik, Saʿīd b. Abī Saʿīd al-Maqburī reported from Abū
Hurayra that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “It is not lawful for a woman
who believes in God and the Last Day to travel the distance of a day and a
night unaccompanied by a close male relative who is prohibited to her in
marriage (maḥram).”

Chapter 66. What Is Commanded with Respect to Norms Governing

Travel
2758. According to Mālik, Abū ʿUbayd, the freedman (mawlā) of Sulaymān
b. ʿAbd al-Malik, reported from Khālid b. Maʿdān, who attributed to the
Prophet (pbuh) that he said, “God, Blessed and Sublime is He, is gentle and
loves gentleness, and He takes pleasure in it. What He gives in succor to
those who pursue their ends gently is not what He gives to those who pursue
their ends with violence. When you ride these dumb beasts, do not push
them too far but rather allow them to rest as needed. If the land is barren,
however, pass through it quickly to preserve their strength. Endeavor to
travel by night, because at night distances appear shorter than they are
during the day. Take care not to encamp at night along the side of the road,
for it is the path of beasts and the resting spot of snakes.”
2759. According to Mālik, Sumayy, the freedman of Abū Bakr, reported
from Abū Ṣāliḥ, from Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said,
“Travel is a form of punishment. It deprives a man of his sleep, food, and
drink. Once he has accomplished his purpose, therefore, he should hurry
back to his family.”

Chapter 67. The Command to Be Kind to Chattel Slaves (Mamlūk)

2760. According to Mālik, it reached him that Abū Hurayra said, “The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘A chattel slave is entitled to a reasonable
amount of food and appropriate clothing, and he must not be obliged to
perform tasks beyond his reasonable capacity.’”
2761. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb would
make circuits around the outskirts of Medina every Saturday, and if he
found a chattel slave tasked with an overly burdensome chore, he would
intervene to lighten his burden.
Book 45 775

2762. According to Mālik, his uncle Abū Suhayl b. Mālik reported from his
father that he heard ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān once say in the sermon of the Friday
Congregational Prayer (ṣalāt al-jumuʿa), “Do not impose on a handmaiden
an obligation to earn money, unless she has a skill. If you do so, she will
resort to prostitution. Likewise, do not force a minor to earn money, for if
he fails in that task, he will steal. Be content with what you have, for God
has already provided you with sufficient means. Therefore, take care not to
consume anything except that which has been obtained lawfully.”

Chapter 68. What Has Come Down regarding the Chattel Slave
(Mamlūk) and His Appearance
2763. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “A slave who gives sincere counsel to his
master and is devoted to the worship of God is rewarded twice over.”
2764. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb had a handmaiden whom ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb saw dressed in
the fashion of a free woman. He went to his daughter Ḥafṣa and complained,
saying, “I saw your brother’s handmaiden walking about among the people,
dressed like a free woman!” ʿUmar disapproved of that.

Chapter 69. What Has Come Down regarding the Oath of Allegiance
(Bayʿa) to the Ruler
2765. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported that ʿAbd Allāh b.
ʿUmar said, “When we gave our oaths of allegiance to the Messenger of God
(pbuh), vowing to listen and to obey, he qualified it by saying, ‘To the extent
of your capacity.’”
2766. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. al-Munkadir reported that Umay-
ma bt. Ruqayqa said, “I went to the Messenger of God (pbuh) with a group of
women who gave their oath of allegiance to him under Islam. We said, ‘Mes-
senger of God, we pledge our loyalty to you, promising not to associate any
deity with God, not to steal, not to fornicate or commit adultery, not to kill
our children, not to engage in false and malicious calumny, and not to disobey
you in any matter that is good.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) then qualified it
by saying, ‘To the extent of your capacity and ability.’ They said, ‘God and His
Messenger are more merciful to us than we are to ourselves. Let us, there-
fore, pledge allegiance to you now, Messenger of God, by taking your hand!’
The Messenger of God (pbuh) said, ‘I do not shake the hands of women. It is
indeed the case that my statement to a hundred women is like (ka) my state-
ment to one woman (or “similar to [mithl] my statement to one woman”).’”
776 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

2767. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported that ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿUmar sent a letter to ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān in which he gave his
oath of allegiance. The letter said, “In the Name of God, the Merciful,
the Compassionate. To proceed: To the Servant of God, ʿAbd al-Malik,
Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon you. I declare to you the praise
of God, the one and only god. I acknowledge my duty to hear and obey your
commands in accordance with the ordinances of God and the ordinances of
His Messenger, to the extent of my capacity.”

Chapter 70. Disfavored Speech

2768. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported from ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿUmar that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “If someone says to his
brother, ‘You unbeliever!’ one of them will certainly bear the charge.”
2769. According to Mālik, Suhayl b. Abī Ṣāliḥ reported from his father, from
Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “If you hear someone
say, ‘The people have perished,’ know that he is in the worst shape of
them all.”
2770. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Let no one say, ‘What a
baneful time!’ for God Himself is time.”
2771. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported that Jesus, the son of
Mary, once crossed paths with a pig on the road. He said to it, “Go in peace!”
Someone asked him, “Why are you being so polite to a pig?” Jesus replied, “I
do not want my tongue to become accustomed to foul speech.”

Chapter 71. The Requirement to Exercise Caution When Speaking

2772. According to Mālik, Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b. ʿAlqama reported from his
father, from Bilāl b. al-Ḥārith al-Muzanī, that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “A man might say something that pleases God without suspecting
that it will have a lasting effect, but in fact God records, as a result of what
the man said, that He will remain pleased with the man until the day God
meets him. Likewise, a man might say something that angers God without
suspecting that it will have a lasting effect, but in fact God records, as a
result of what the man said, that He will remain angry with the man until
the day God meets him.”
2773. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār reported that Abū Ṣāliḥ
al-Sammān informed him that Abū Hurayra said, “A man says things
heedlessly, not realizing that they will cause him to fall into the fire of Hell.
Book 45 777

Likewise, a man says things without attaching any importance to them, but
God uses his words to elevate him to Paradise.”

Chapter 72. Speech That Is Disfavored on Account of Its Omission of

the Remembrance of God
2774. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam said, “Two men came from the east.
Each of them addressed the people, who were amazed at their eloquence.
The Messenger of God (pbuh) then said, ‘Some speech certainly has the
power of sorcery,’ or ‘Some speech certainly is sorcery.’”
2775. According to Mālik, it reached him that Jesus, the son of Mary, would
say, “Do not accustom yourselves to speaking at length, unless you also
mention God, lest your hearts become cruel. A cruel heart is distant from
God, but you do not know it. Do not look at people’s sins as though you were
lords; rather, look to your own sins as though you were slaves. People are
either enduring a trial or subject to grace. Accordingly, show mercy to those
suffering a trial, and praise God for His grace.”
2776. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the Prophet
(pbuh), would dispatch messengers to some members of her family after
the Evening Prayer (ṣalāt al-ʿishāʾ), telling them, “Will you not give a rest to
the angelic scribes recording your sins?”

Chapter 73. What Has Come Down regarding Backbiting

2777. According to Mālik, al-Walīd b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Ṣayyād reported that
al-Muṭṭalib b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥuwayṭib al-Makhzūmī informed him that a man
asked the Messenger of God (pbuh), “What is backbiting?” The Messenger
of God (pbuh) replied, “It is saying about a man what he would hate to hear
about himself.” The man said, “Messenger of God, what if it’s true?” The
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “If what you are saying about him is false,
that is calumny!”

Chapter 74. What Has Come Down regarding the Vices of the Tongue
2778. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “Whomsoever God protects from
the evil of two things will enter Paradise.” A man then said, “Will you not
tell us, Messenger of God?”1034 The Messenger of God (pbuh) remained
silent. The Messenger of God (pbuh) then repeated what he had said the

1034 The version of this text in the RME literally states, “Do not inform us!” However, the context,
as well as other manuscript variations noted by the editors of the RME, affirm the translation
that we have provided here.
778 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

first time. The man said to him again, “Will you not tell us, Messenger of
God?” The Messenger of God (pbuh) remained silent. The Messenger of
God (pbuh) then said it again. The man again said to him, “Will you not tell
us, Messenger of God?” The Messenger of God (pbuh) then said something
like it again. The man again repeated what he had said. A man standing
next to him finally told him to be quiet, at which point the Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, “Whomsoever God protects from the evil of two things
will enter Paradise. These things are what is between his jaws and what is
between his legs, what is between his jaws and what is between his legs,
what is between his jaws and what is between his legs.”
2779. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from his father that
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb went to see Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq and found him pulling
on his tongue. ʿUmar said to him, “Stop; may God forgive you!” Abū Bakr
said to him, “This has certainly led me down paths that brought me regret.”

Chapter 75. What Has Come Down regarding the Private Conversation
of Two People That Excludes a Third
2780. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār said, “I was with ʿAbd Allāh
b. ʿUmar at the house of Khālid b. ʿUqba, the one in the market. A man then
showed up who wanted to converse with ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar in private,
and we were the only three people present. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar called for
another man to come, so that we would be four. He then said to me and to
the man he had just called over, ‘Could you two please give us some privacy?
I heard the Messenger of God (pbuh) say, “When three people are together,
two of them should not converse privately and exclude the third.”’”
2781. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “If there is a group of three people, two of
them should not converse privately and exclude the third.”

Chapter 76. What Has Come Down regarding Honesty and Lying
2782. According to Mālik, Ṣafwān b. Sulaym reported that a man said to
the Messenger of God (pbuh), “Can I lie to my wife?” The Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, “No good comes of lying.” The man then said, “Messenger of
God, can I promise her things and make sweet talk to her?” The Messenger
of God (pbuh) then said, “There is nothing blameworthy in that.”1035

1035 Muslim jurists distinguish lying from the breaking of promises. A lie is a false statement
about something that definitively occurred in the past, whereas a promise refers to a future
event that may or may not occur. A promise, therefore, may be broken (khalaf), but a broken
promise is not a lie. The statement of the Prophet (pbuh) that there is no blame in making
promises and sweet talk to one’s wife assumes that the man intends to fulfill his promises.
Bājī, al-Muntaqā, 7:314.
Book 45 779

2783. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd

would say, “Hold fast to honesty, for honesty guides one down the path of
righteousness, and righteousness leads to Paradise. Shun lying, because
lying leads to wickedness, and wickedness leads to Hell. Is it not the case
that we commonly say in our ordinary speech, ‘He spoke the truth, and he
acted rightly,’ and ‘He lied, and he behaved wickedly’?”1036
2784. According to Mālik, it reached him that Luqmān was asked, “What
accounts for the station that you have attained?” They meant thereby how he
became a virtuous man. Luqmān said, “Truthful speech, faithfully preserving
what has been entrusted to me, and minding my own business.”1037
2785. According to Mālik, it reached him that ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd would
say, “When a servant of God lies continuously, his heart darkens until it
becomes entirely enveloped in darkness, and then God includes his name
among the liars in the divine registry.”
2786. According to Mālik, Ṣafwān b. Sulaym reported that someone asked the
Messenger of God (pbuh), “Can a believer be a coward?” He said, “Certainly!”
Then he was asked, “Can a believer be a miser?” He said, “Certainly!” And then
he was asked, “Can a believer be a liar?” He said, “Certainly not!”

Chapter 77. What Has Come Down regarding Squandering Property

and Being Two-Faced
2787. According to Mālik, Suhayl b. Abī Ṣāliḥ reported from his father that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “God is satisfied with you when you
do three things, and angry with you when you do three things. First, He
is pleased with you when you worship Him without associating any other
deities with Him; second, He is pleased with you when you all hold fast to
God’s rope; and third, He is pleased with you when you give sincere advice
to those whom God has appointed to exercise authority in your affairs. But
gossip, squandering wealth, and asking too many irrelevant questions—
these three things make God angry with you.”
2788. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “The two-faced are among
the vilest of humanity. They go to one group of people and say one thing,
and then go to another group, saying the opposite.”

1036 The Arabic word for honesty is ṣidq, and that for lying is kadhib. The word for righteousness
is birr, and that for wickedness is fujūr. Ibn Masʿūd is pointing out that in common Arabic
parlance, speaking truthfully is associated with acting righteously, and speaking falsely is
associated with acting wickedly.
1037 Luqmān is a wise man who appears in the Quran and after whom one of its chapters (chap.
31) is named.
780 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Chapter 78. What Has Come Down regarding Punishing the Many for
the Actions of a Few
2789. According to Mālik, it reached him that Umm Salama, the wife of
the Prophet (pbuh), asked, “Messenger of God, is it possible that we might
perish, even though there are righteous people among us?” The Messenger
of God (pbuh) said, “Yes, if foulness abounds.”
2790. According to Mālik, Ismāʿīl b. Abī al-Ḥakīm reported that he heard
ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz say, “It was said that God, Blessed and Sublime is
He, does not punish the many for the wrongs of a few. That is only the
case, however, if the sin is not committed openly. If it is, then they all
deserve punishment.”

Chapter 79. What Has Come Down regarding Being Mindful of God
2791. According to Mālik, Isḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa reported that
Anas b. Mālik said, “I once set out on a walk with ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb until
he arrived at an orchard. He stood in the middle of the orchard, and there
was only a wall separating us. I overheard him say to himself, ‘ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb, Commander of the Faithful? Well done! Well done! By God, son
of Khaṭṭāb! Be mindful of God, or He will certainly punish you!’”
2792. Mālik said, “It reached me that al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad would say, ‘I
lived with the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh), and they were not ones
to be impressed by mere words.’ By that he meant that only deeds are taken
into account when measuring a man’s worth, not his words.”

Chapter 80. What to Say When One Hears Thunder

2793. According to Mālik, ʿĀmir b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr reported that
when he heard thunder, he would stop talking and say, “Glory be to the One
whom thunder glorifies with His praise and whom the angels glorify out of
fear of Him.”1038 He would then say, “This is indeed a grave threat to all those
living on earth.”

Chapter 81. What Has Come Down regarding the Estate of the
Prophet (pbuh)
2794. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr,
from ʿĀʾisha, the Mother of the Believers, that when the Messenger of God
(pbuh) died, his wives had resolved to dispatch ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān to Abū
Bakr al-Ṣiddīq to demand their shares in the estate of the Messenger of God

1038 Subḥāna ’lladhī yusabbiḥu ’l-raʿdu bi-ḥamdihi wa’l-malāʾikatu min khīfatih. See al-Raʿd, 13:13.
Book 45 781

(pbuh), but ʿĀʾisha said to them, “Didn’t the Messenger of God (pbuh) say,
‘We are not to be inherited. What we leave is charity (ṣadaqa)’?”
2795. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “My heirs shall not divide
among themselves any gold coins that I leave behind. Anything that I leave
beyond the maintenance of my wives and the provisions for my servant is
charity.”

Chapter 82. What Has Come Down regarding the Appearance of Hell
2796. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from
Abū Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “The fire that the
children of Adam kindle is but a seventieth of Hell’s intensity.” They said,
“Messenger of God, our fire would certainly be enough to punish us!” He
said, “Nevertheless, Hell exceeds it by sixty-nine times.”
2797. According to Mālik, his paternal uncle Abū Suhayl b. Mālik reported
from his father that Abū Hurayra said, “Do you all imagine that it is red, like
this fire of yours? Rather, it is blacker than tar (qār),” meaning pitch (zift).

Chapter 83. Encouraging People to Give Charity (Ṣadaqa)

2798. According to Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd reported from Abū al-Ḥubāb Saʿīd
b. Yasār that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “If a person gives charity out
of wholesome earnings—and God only accepts that which is wholesome—
it is as though he placed it in the very palm of the Merciful (al-raḥmān)1039
for Him to nurture, in the very same way one of you might raise his foal or
calf until it matures and becomes like a mountain.”
2799. According to Mālik, Isḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa reported that he
heard Anas b. Mālik say, “Abū Ṭalḥa owned the largest number of palm trees
in Medina. His favorite orchard was Bīraḥāʾ. It was in front of the mosque,
and the Messenger of God (pbuh) would enter it frequently and drink from
its sweet water. When the verse ‘You shall never attain righteousness until
you give away that which you love’1040 was revealed, Abū Ṭalḥa went to the
Messenger of God (pbuh) and said, ‘Messenger of God! God, Blessed and
Sublime is He, says, “You shall never attain righteousness until you give
away that which you love.” The property I love most is Bīraḥāʾ. I hereby give
it in charity, for God’s sake, hoping to receive my reward from God. Use it in
whatever way you wish, Messenger of God!’ The Messenger of God (pbuh)

1039 Al-raḥmān is one of the beautiful names of God in the Islamic tradition.
1040 Āl ʿImrān, 3:92.
782 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

said, ‘Well done, indeed! That is a profitable investment! That is a profitable

investment! I have heard what you said, and I think you should give it to
your near-relations.’ Abū Ṭalḥa said, ‘And so I will, Messenger of God.’ Abū
Ṭalḥa then partitioned the orchard among his near-relations and his male
paternal first cousins.”
2800. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported that the Messenger of
God (pbuh) said, “Give something to the beggar, even if he comes riding on
a horse.”
2801. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAmr b. Muʿādh
al-Ashhalī al-Anṣārī that his grandmother said, “The Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, ‘Believing women, there is nothing that is too trivial to give
your neighbor, even if it is only a roasted hoof.’”
2802. According to Mālik, it reached him from ʿĀʾisha, the wife of the
Prophet (pbuh), that a beggar once approached her and asked her for
something. She was fasting at the time. She had nothing in the house save
a loaf of bread. She said to a freedwoman (mawlāt) of hers, “Give it to him.”
The freedwoman said, “But then you will have nothing to break your fast
with.” ʿĀʾisha again said, “Give it to him.” The freedwoman said, “So I did.
When evening fell, and it was time to break the fast, a family (or ‘a man’)
who did not usually give us anything sent us a roast sheep, along with some
bread. ʿĀʾisha called me over and said, ‘Eat this. This is certainly better than
your loaf of bread.’”
2803. Mālik said, “It reached me that a beggar once asked ʿĀʾisha, the
Mother of the Believers, for some food. She was holding a bunch of grapes
in her hands at the time. She said to a man there, ‘Give him a bit.’ The man
looked at her, astonished. ʿĀʾisha said to him, “Are you surprised? I wonder
how many atoms’ weights1041 there are in this one grape?”

Chapter 84. What Has Come Down regarding Refraining from Asking
Others for Help
2804. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yazīd al-Laythī,
from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī, that some of the Medinese asked the Messenger
of God (pbuh) for assistance. He gave them everything he had to give.
He then said, “Whatever I have I will not withhold from you. Whosoever
exercises restraint, God will preserve his dignity. Whosoever tries to be
self-reliant, God will enrich him. Whosoever attempts to exercise fortitude,

1041 This is an allusion to the verse in the Quran that says that on the Day of Judgment, “whoever
has done an atom’s weight worth of good shall see it.” Al-Zalzala, 99:7.
Book 45 783

God will bless him with it. No one has been given a better or vaster gift
than fortitude.”
2805. According to Mālik, Nāfiʿ reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar that the
Messenger of God (pbuh) said, while he was on the pulpit, preaching about
charity and about refraining from asking others for help, “The upper hand
is better than the lower hand. The upper hand is the one that gives, and the
lower hand is the one that asks.”
2806. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār that
the Messenger of God (pbuh) once sent something to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb,
but ʿUmar refused to accept it. The Messenger of God (pbuh) asked, “Why
did you refuse it?” He said, “Messenger of God, didn’t you tell us that it is
better that we not accept anything from anyone?” The Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, “What I meant was asking others for things. As for what comes
to you from others without your having first requested it, that is merely the
provision that God has provided.” ʿUmar then said, “By Him whose hand
holds my soul, I will never ask anything of anyone, nor shall I refuse to
accept anything that comes to me, if I have not asked for it.”
2807. According to Mālik, Abū al-Zinād reported from al-Aʿraj, from Abū
Hurayra, that the Messenger of God (pbuh) said, “By Him whose hand holds
my soul! It is indeed better for a man to take his rope and collect firewood
on his back than to go to a man on whom God has bestowed His favor and
beg at his feet, whether he gives him something or refuses to do so.”
2808. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār that
a man from the Banū Asad said, “My family and I alighted at al-Baqīʿ, the
cemetery of Medina. My family said to me, ‘Go ask the Messenger of God
(pbuh) for something to eat.’ They then launched into a description of their
pitiable state. I went to the Messenger of God (pbuh) and found there a
man begging him for something. The Messenger of God (pbuh) said to him,
‘I have nothing to give you.’ The man turned away from him in anger and
said, ‘By my life! You give to whomever you wish!’ The Messenger of God
(pbuh) said, ‘He is angry at me because I find nothing to give him. Whoever
begs but has in his possession forty dirhams of pure silver (ūqiyya) or its
equivalent in weight or value is being impertinent.’ I told myself, ‘A camel of
ours is indeed several times more valuable than forty dirhams.’ I therefore
returned to my family and did not ask him for anything. Later, some barley
and raisins were brought to the Messenger of God (pbuh), and he gave us
some. Therefore, God delivered us from our need.”
2809. According to Mālik, he heard al-ʿAlāʾ b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān say, “An act of
charity never diminishes a person’s property; no servant of God forgives a
784 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

wrong done to him without God increasing his standing and dignity; and no
servant of God humbles himself without God honoring him.” Mālik said, “I
do not know whether the source of this report is the Prophet (pbuh).”

Chapter 85. Matters Prohibited in Connection with Charity (Ṣadaqa)

2810. According to Mālik, it reached him that the Messenger of God (pbuh)
said, “It is not lawful for the family of Muḥammad to accept charity. It is
usually the undesirable refuse of people.”
2811. According to Mālik, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr reported from his father
that the Messenger of God (pbuh) appointed a man of the Banū ʿAbd
al-Ashhal to supervise the administration of property that had been gifted
as charity to the Messenger of God (pbuh). When the man came, he asked
that the Prophet (pbuh) give him some of the camels that had been collected
as charity. The Messenger of God became angry at the man’s request, and it
was obvious in his face. (One way in which his anger was known was that
his eyes would become red.) The Prophet (pbuh) then said, “This man has
asked me for something that puts me in an impossible position. He knows
that I dislike refusing people’s requests, but if I grant his, I will be granting
him something to which neither he nor I have a right.” The man then said,
“Messenger of God, I will never ask you again to give me any property that
has been dedicated to charity.”
2812. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from his father that he
said, “ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Arqam said to me, ‘Show me an appropriate riding
camel whose use I may request from the Commander of the Faithful.’
I said, ‘All right, I can give you a camel that was collected as charity.’
ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Arqam said, ‘Would you like a corpulent man to wash
his groin and his upper thighs for you and then give the runoff to you to
drink on a hot day?’ I grew angry at his words and said, ‘May God forgive
you! How dare you say such a thing to me?’ ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Arqam said,
‘The camels that have been collected as charity are like the impurities of
the body that are carried off in the water that people use in their baths
to remove their filth.’”

Chapter 86. What Has Come Down regarding Seeking Knowledge

2813. According to Mālik, it reached him that Luqmān the Sage counseled
his son, “My son, sit in the company of learned men, staying as close to them
as possible. God certainly revives dead hearts through the light of wisdom,
just as He revives barren land with abundant rain from the sky.”
Book 45 785

Chapter 87. What Is to Be Feared from the Supplication of Those Who

Have Been Wronged
2814. According to Mālik, Zayd b. Aslam reported from his father that
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb appointed a freedman (mawlā) of his, who went
by the name of Hunayy, as the supervisor of lands reserved for public
grazing (ḥimā). He said, “Hunayy, do not treat people harshly, and fear the
supplication of anyone who has been wronged, for God inevitably answers
the supplications of those who have been wronged. Grant permission to
graze for the owners of small herds of camel and sheep, and be wary of the
flocks of people like Ibn ʿAffān and Ibn ʿAwf.1042 Were their flocks to perish
for want of pasture, they could return to Medina, where they have plentiful
crops and date palms. By contrast, if the flock of someone who owns small
herds of camel and sheep perishes, he will come to me with his children
and say, ‘Commander of the Faithful! Commander of the Faithful! Am I to
abandon them?’ God help you! Water and pasture are less dear to me than
gold and silver. By God! They will conclude that I have wronged them. It is
indeed their territory and their water. They won it with their blood during
the Days of Ignorance prior to Islam (jāhiliyya), and they entered Islam with
it still in their possession. By Him whose hand holds my soul, were it not
for the need to provide pasture for the army’s animals, I would not have
reserved an inch of their territory for public grazing.”

Chapter 88. The Names of the Prophet, May God Grace Him and Grant
Him Tranquility
2815. According to Mālik, Ibn Shihāb reported from Muḥammad b. Jubayr
b. Muṭʿim that the Prophet (pbuh) said, “I have five names: I am Muḥammad;
I am Aḥmad; I am al-Māḥī, the one through whom God effaces disbelievers;
I am al-Ḥāshir, the one at whose feet the people shall be gathered on the Day
of Resurrection; and I am al-ʿĀqib, the final messenger of God.”

1042 ʿUmar is referring to the prominent and wealthy Companions ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān and ʿAbd
al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf. He is advising his official to give preferential access to public grazing
grounds to individuals with small herds over those whose flocks are numerous.
 Glossary of Proper Names

Abān b. ʿUthmān (d. 105/723)

Son of the third caliph, ʿUthmān, who was the third of the Rightly Guided
Caliphs. Abān b. ʿUthmān served as governor of Medina 75–82/695–702
during the reign of the Umayyad caliph ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān (r. 65–
86/685–705).

ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās (d. 68/687)

First cousin of the Prophet Muḥammad, a prominent Companion, and
an early Quranic exegete. Nicknamed Ḥabr al-Umma (“grand scholar of
the community of believers”) and Tarjumān al-Qurʾān (“interpreter of
the Quran”).

ʿAbd Allāh b. Dīnār (d. 127/745 or 136/754)

A prominent Follower and hadith transmitter.

ʿAbd Allāh b. Salām (d. 43/663)

A prominent Medinan Jewish convert to Islam during the Prophet
Muḥammad’s lifetime. He was reported to have been knowledgeable of
the Torah; many Quranic verses praising People of the Book are said to
refer to those like him.

ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (d. 73/693)

A Companion of the Prophet Muḥammad and the son of the second
caliph, ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (r. 13–23/634–644). He is a very important
source for Mālik in the Muwaṭṭaʾ, usually as reported to Mālik by Nāfiʿ,
ʿAbd Allāh’s freedman. The chain Mālik  Nāfiʿ  ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar is
sometimes called “the golden chain” by virtue of the high regard Muslim
scholars had for the reliability of reports transmitted through this chain.

787
788 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān (d. 86/705)

An Umayyad caliph (r. 65–86/685–705). ʿAbd al-Malik was credited with
numerous administrative reforms, including Arabizing the language of
administration and minting the first coins of the caliphate.

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr (d. 126/744)

A Medinan Follower and hadith transmitter. The son of one of the “seven
jurists of Medina.”

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf (d. 32/652)

One of the earliest converts to Islam and a member of the early group of
emigrants to Abyssinia. He had a reputation as a successful trader and
played a prominent role in the early caliphate after the Prophet’s death.

Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq (d. 13/634)

One of the earliest converts to Islam and one of the Prophet’s closest
confidants and companions. He was also the father of ʿĀʾisha, a wife of
the Prophet. He served as the first caliph (r. 11–13/632–634) after the
death of the Prophet.

Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Ḥārith b. Hishām (d. 93 or 94/711 or 712)

A Follower and one of the “seven jurists of Medina.” He was well known
for his piety and expertise in Prophetic traditions. His freedman Sumayy
was an important source for Mālik in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.

Abū Bakr b. Ḥazm (d. 120/738)

An important transmitter of hadith. He was the only Anṣārī ever to serve
as governor of Medina. His sons ʿAbd Allāh and Muḥammad transmitted
hadith from him and are also important narrators in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.

Abū Jahl b. Hishām (d. 2/624)

One of the fiercest opponents of the Prophet Muḥammad in Mecca and
one of the chief persecutors of early Muslims. His actual name was ʿAmr
b. Hishām b. al-Mughīra, and he was known as Abū al-Ḥakam. The name
“Abū al-Ḥakam” connoted wisdom and sagacity, so the early Muslims
renamed him “Abū Jahl,” meaning ignorant and impetuous, on account of
his ferocious opposition to Islam. He died in the Battle of Badr.

Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf (d. 94/712)

A Follower and one of the “seven jurists of Medina.” A Medinan judge, he
was a son of the prominent early Companion ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf. He
served as an important source for Mālik in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.
Glossary of Proper Names 789

Abū Sufyān b. Ḥarb (d. 31/652)

The father of Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān. He led the Meccan opposition to the
Prophet Muḥammad but became a Muslim when the Prophet returned to
Mecca triumphant.

Abū ʿUbayda b. al-Jarrāḥ (d. 18/639)

The general who completed the conquest of the Levant during the
caliphate of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb and later served as ʿUmar’s governor
there until he died from the plague in Jordan.

ʿĀʾisha bt. Abī Bakr al-Ṣiddīq (d. 58/678)

The youngest wife of the Prophet and daughter of the first caliph, Abū
Bakr al-Ṣiddīq. One of the most prominent early jurists and an extremely
important source of hadith.

ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 40/661)

The fourth caliph and the Prophet Muḥammad’s cousin and son-in-law,
married to the Prophet’s daughter Fāṭima. He was the first imām of
the Shīʿa.

ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 94/712)

Also known as Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn, the great-grandson of the Prophet and
the fourth imām of the Shīʿa.

Asmāʾ bt. Abī Bakr al-Ṣiddīq (d. 73/692)

A prominent early convert to Islam and daughter of the first caliph,
Abū Bakr. She brought food and supplies to her father and the Prophet
Muḥammad at the outset of their migration to Medina and later fought in
the Battle of Yarmouk. She was the mother of ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr, one of
the “seven jurists of Medina,” and ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr, a challenger to
the Umayyad caliphate.

Bilāl b. Rabāḥ (d. 20/641)

A prominent early black slave convert to Islam. Upon his conversion
to Islam, he bravely endured intense persecution at the hands of his
master, Umayya b. Khalaf. Abū Bakr purchased Bilāl from his master and
manumitted him. He later became the Prophet’s muezzin.

Fāṭima (d. 11/632)

Daughter of the Prophet Muḥammad and wife of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib.
790 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf (d. 95/714)

The governor of Iraq during the caliphate of ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān. He
laid siege to ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr’s forces in the Hijaz in 72/691.

al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 50/670)

Grandson of the Prophet Muḥammad, son of Fāṭima and ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib,
and second imām of the Shīʿa.

Hishām b. Ismāʿīl al-Makhzūmī (d. after 87/706)

Governor of Medina in 82–86/702–5 during the reign of ʿAbd al-Malik b.
Marwān, succeeding Abān b. ʿUthmān.

Hishām b. ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr b. al-ʿAwwām (d. 146/763)

A prominent member of the second generation of Muslims, known as “the
followers of the Followers” (tābiʿū al-tābiʿīn), and an important source
for Mālik in the Muwaṭṭaʾ. He died in Baghdad after residing in Medina.

al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 61/680)

Grandson of the Prophet Muḥammad, son of Fāṭima and ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib,
and third imām of the Shīʿa. He was killed in the Battle of Karbala by
forces loyal to the Umayyad caliph of the time, Yazīd b. Muʿāwiya.

Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī, Muḥammad b. Muslim b. ʿUbayd Allāḥ b. ʿAbd

Allāh (d. 124/742)
A prominent early Muslim historian and collector of hadith. He is one of
Mālik’s most important sources in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.

ʿIkrima (d. 105/723)

A Follower, a freedman of Ibn ʿAbbās, and one of the primary transmitters
of the latter’s Quranic interpretations. He is considered one of the most
important of the early Quranic exegetes.

Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī (d. 148/765)

Known as Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, son of Muḥammad al-Bāqir, grandson of Zayn
al-ʿĀbidīn, and great-grandson of Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī. Founder of the Jaʿfarī
school of law, he is revered as a scholar by Sunnīs and considered the
sixth imām by the Shīʿa.

Kaʿb al-Aḥbār (d. 32/652)

A Jewish scholar from Yemen whose full name was Kaʿb b. Mātiʿ al-Ḥimyarī.
He converted to Islam after the death of the Prophet Muḥammad and so
is considered a Follower rather than a Companion. After his conversion
Glossary of Proper Names 791

to Islam, he left Yemen and migrated to the Levant. According to Muslim

tradition, he was responsible for introducing many elements of Jewish
lore into Muslim understandings of the Quran.

Marwān b. al-Ḥakam (d. 65/685)

Governor of Medina during the caliphate of Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān and
later caliph in 64–65/684–685. He was a companion and secretary of
the third caliph, ʿUthmān. His son, ʿAbd al-Malik, would become the fifth
Umayyad caliph.

Maymūna bt. al-Ḥārith (d. 51/671)

A wife of the Prophet and maternal aunt of ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās.

Muʿādh b. Jabal (d. 18/639)

An early Companion of the Prophet who converted to Islam in his late
teens. After the conquest of Mecca, the Prophet dispatched him to Yemen
to serve as his governor and to instruct the people there in Islam. He is
considered an early jurist, a Quranic reciter/exegete, and an important
source of hadith.

Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān (d. 60/680)

A member of the clan of the Banū Umayya, traditional rivals of the
Prophet’s clan, the Banū Hāshim. His father, Abū Sufyān, led the Meccan
opposition to the Prophet Muhammad. Muʿāwiya, however, became a
Muslim prior to the conquest of Mecca. He served as the governor of the
Levant during the caliphates of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb and ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān.
Muʿāwiya refused to recognize ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib as the rightful caliph
after ʿUthmān, leading to the first civil war in Islamic history. After ʿAlī’s
murder, Muʿāwiya was recognized as the caliph in 41/660, and he moved
the capital to Damascus. He reigned until 60/680. The reign of Muʿāwiya,
conventionally considered the founder of the Umayyad dynasty, marks
the end of the Rightly Guided Caliphate (al-khilāfa al-rāshida) and the
beginning of dynastic rule.

Nāfiʿ (d. 117/735)

A freedman of ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar and one of Mālik’s most important
sources in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.

al-Najāshī (d. 9/630)

The Christian ruler of Abyssinia who granted asylum to some Muslims
of Mecca who were suffering from persecution before the Emigration
to Medina.
792 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr al-Ṣiddīq (d. 107/725)

A follower of the Followers and one of the “seven jurists of Medina.” He
served as an important source for Mālik in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.

Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (d. 136/753?)

Nicknamed “Rabīʿa the legal reasoner” (Rabīʿat al-raʾy), he was an
important Medinese jurist and teacher of Mālik, and an important source
in the Muwaṭṭaʾ. Sources place his death in either the fourth or the fifth
decade of the second Islamic century (133/750, 136/753, or 142/759).

Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ (d. 55/675)

An early convert to Islam, he converted in his late teens. He achieved
renown for his military prowess and served as governor of Kufa during
the caliphates of ʿUmar and ʿUthmān.

Saʿd b. ʿUbāda (d. 14/635)

A prominent Companion and the chief of the Khazraj, one of the two
leading tribes of Medina before the Prophet Muḥammad’s arrival. He was
one of the leaders of the Anṣār, the Medinese who converted to Islam.

Ṣafiyya bt. Ḥuyayy (d. 50/670)

A Jewish convert to Islam and wife of the Prophet. He married her after
the Muslims conquered the Jewish oasis town of Khaybar.

Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab (d. 94/712)

A prominent member of the Followers and one of the “seven jurists of
Medina.” He is an important source for Mālik in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.

Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar (d. 106/724)

A prominent Follower, one of the “seven jurists of Medina,” and an
important source for Mālik in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.

Salmān al-Fārisī (d. 36/656)

A Companion of the Prophet and the first Persian to convert to Islam. He
gained renown for suggesting the strategy of digging a trench around
Medina in the Battle of the Trench.

Sawda bt. Zamʿa (d. 54/674)

A wife of the Prophet Muḥammad.

Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān (d. 99/717)

An Umayyad caliph (r. 96–99/715–717).
Glossary of Proper Names 793

Sulaymān b. Yasār (d. 107/725)

A Follower and one of the “seven jurists of Medina.” He served as an
important source for Mālik in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.

Ṭalḥa b. ʿUbayd Allāh (d. 36/656)

One of the earliest converts to Islam. He was one of the ten individuals
whom the Prophet promised Paradise.

Ṭāriq b. ʿAmr (d. 73/692)

A freedman of ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān who served as governor of Medina
during the caliphate of ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān.

ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUtba b. Masʿūd (d. 98/716)

A prominent Follower and one of the “seven jurists of Medina.” He was
the grandson of the Companion ʿUtba b. Masʿūd, who was the brother
of ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd. ʿUbayd Allāh served as an important source for
Mālik in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.

ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Marwān (d. 101/720)

An Umayyad caliph who is highly esteemed in the Sunnī tradition for his
learning and piety and is often referred to as the fifth Rightly Guided
Caliph. Mālik includes many decisions and opinions of ʿUmar b. ʿAbd
al-ʿAzīz as precedents in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.

ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (d. 23/644)

The second caliph and a prominent Companion of the Prophet. He was
the father of ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar and Ḥafṣa, a wife of the Prophet. Mālik
records a large number of his decisions as precedents in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.

Umm Ḥabība (d. 44/664)

Muʿāwiya’s sister and a wife of the Prophet.

ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr (d. 94/713)

A son of a prominent early convert to Islam, al-Zubayr b. al-ʿAwwām,
and a prominent member of the Followers. ʿUrwa was one of the “seven
jurists of Medina” and an important source of legal rules for Mālik in the
Muwaṭṭaʾ.

ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān (d. 35/656)

An early convert to Islam and one of the first Muslims to emigrate to
Abyssinia to flee persecution. He was the third caliph and a son-in-law
to the Prophet. His time in office was marked by political strife and
794 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

opposition, and he was eventually assassinated in 35/656. ʿUthmān

is known for his integral role in commissioning the compilation of a
standardized Quranic codex.

al-Walīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān (d. 96/715)

An Umayyad caliph (r. 86–96/705–715).

Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Anṣārī (d. 143/760)

A Follower and a Medinan judge. He transmitted reports from many
Companions and Followers and was a student of the “seven jurists of
Medina.” All of the major hadith collectors transmit his narrations. He
was an important source for Mālik in the Muwaṭṭaʾ.

Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā al-Laythī (d. 234/849)

A student of Mālik and one of the most important transmitters of the
Muwaṭṭaʾ to Andalusia and the Maghrib.

Zayd b. Aslam (d. 136/753)

A freedman of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb. He was a Medinan Follower and a
prominent hadith transmitter and jurist. He was an important source for
Mālik as well as for other early hadith narrators.

al-Zubayr b. al-ʿAwwām (d. 36/656)

A prominent early convert to Islam and cousin of the Prophet Muḥammad.
 Glossary of Terms

ʿabd mamlūk Chattel slave

adhān General call to prayer
ʿadwā Contagion
ʿafw Pardon
ahl al-dhimma People of the Book; protected people
ahl al-kitāb People of the Book
akūla Fattened animal intended for slaughter
ʿām al-fatḥ The year of the conquest of Mecca
amān Grant of safe passage
ʿamd Intentional (killing or battery)
amwāl Property
anṣār Medinese/Helpers
ʿaqib Descendants
ʿāqila Paternal kin group
ʿaqīqa Newborn sacrifice
ʿaql (sing.)/ʿuqūl (pl.) Compensation for a battery
ʿaṣaba Male paternal near-relations
ʿatāqa Manumission
awqiya (sing.)/awāq (pl.) Unit of measure used for silver, approximately
1,071–1,125 grams
ʿayb Defect in a good
ʿayn Gold or silver bullion; a specific obligation in
contrast to a generic obligation; a spring
al-ʿayn Evil eye
ayyām al-tashrῑq The three festival days following the Feast of
the Sacrificial Animals; the eleventh, twelfth,
and thirteenth days of Dhū al-Ḥijja

795
796 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

ayyim Matron; a woman who has been married and

is either divorced or widowed
ʿazl Withdrawal prior to ejaculation;
coitus interruptus
baghy Rebellion
bān Moringa tree
baraṣ Leprosy
batta Absolute declaration of divorce
bayʿ al-ʿariyya Trading fresh, unharvested dates for
dried ones
bayʿ al-ʿurbān (or arbūn) A sale involving a nonrefundable deposit
bayḍāʾ Hulled barley
al-bayt al-ʿatīq Literally, “the ancient house,” a designation for
the Kabah in Mecca
bikr Someone who has never been married
dābba (sing.)/dawābb (pl.) Beast of burden
ḍaḥiyya or uḍḥiyya (sing.)/ Animal slaughtered on the occasion of the
ḍaḥāyā or aḍāḥī (pl.) Feast of the Sacrificial Animals on the tenth
day of Dhū al-Ḥijja
al-dajjāl Antichrist
ḍālla (sing.)/ḍawāll (pl.) Lost animal
ḍamān Risk of loss; liability
ḍaʾn Sheep
daʿwā A legal claim that initiates a lawsuit
ḍawārī Tended livestock
dayn Debt
dhakāt Method of slaughtering livestock to render its
meat fit for consumption
dharīʿa Pretext; ruse
dīwān Public registry
diya Compensation due for the unlawful killing of a
free Muslim male
diyat al-ʿamd Compensation due for intentional killing
or battery
diyat al-khaṭaʾ Compensation due for nonintentional killing
or battery
Glossary of Terms 797

duʿāʾ Supplication
faḍl Surplus property of a decedent’s estate
following the distribution of determinate
shares (farāʾiḍ)
fākiha Fresh fruit
farīḍa (sing.)/farāʾiḍ (pl.) Determinate share of a Quranic heir of a
decedent’s estate
fariyya Slander
faskh Annulment
ghanam Sheep or goats
gharar Material uncertainty in the consideration
ghīla A man having sexual relations with his wife
while she is breastfeeding; cold-blooded,
pre-meditated murder
ghusl Ritual bath to remove impurities preventing
the performance of ordinary rituals
ḥabs Something designated as an endowment
ḥadd (sing.)/ḥudūd (pl.) Mandatory criminal punishment
hady Sacrosanct animal, usually a camel, designated
for sacrifice by a pilgrim at the Kabah
ḥajb Preemption of a more distant heir’s right
to inherit by an heir more closely related to
the decedent
ḥajj Pilgrimage
ḥalāl Unrestricted state after a pilgrim completes
the rites of Pilgrimage and can resume
ordinary activities in terms of personal
grooming, sexual intercourse, and other
matters restricted during performance of
the Pilgrimage
ḥamāla Guaranty of debts
al-ḥaram Sanctuary; usually reserved for the Meccan
sanctuary, but also applied to Medina when
described as the Prophetic sanctuary
ḥibāʾ Gifts to the guardian of a woman, intended
to persuade him to accept the suitor’s offer
of marriage
ḥijāma Cupping
798 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

ḥimā Lands reserved for public grazing

ḥirāba Brigandage
ḥirz Secure compartment; only if a thief steals
property stored in a secure compartment is the
thief subject to the penalty of amputation of
the hand
ḥiwāla Settling obligations by transfer
ḥiyāza Rights of possession
ʿīd al-aḍḥā Feast of the Sacrificial Animals
ʿīd al-fiṭr Feast of Breaking the Ramaḍān Fast
ʿidda Waiting period observed by a divorcée or a
widow before she can remarry
iflās Insolvency
ifrād Performing only the Pilgrimage
iḥdād Mourning a dead husband
iḥrām Consecrated state, in which pilgrims observe
special rules, such as refraining from ordinary
grooming practices, sexual relations, and
killing wild animals
iḥṣān Chastity: a status attained by having sexual
intercourse as a free person within a
licit relationship
ijāra Employment contract
ijtihād Judicial discretion
ikhwa Siblings
īlāʾ A husband’s oath to abstain from sexual
relations with his wife
ʿīna Credit sales involving food
iqāla Rescission of a contract for the benefit of the
purchaser; cancellation of a sale
iqāma Immediate call to prayer
irkhāʾ al-sutūr Marital privacy
istibrāʾ Refraining from sexual relations with a woman
until her menstrual period to confirm that she
is not pregnant
istilām Saluting the corners of the Kabah during
circumambulation (ṭawāf)
Glossary of Terms 799

iʿtikāf Pious seclusion in a mosque during the last

ten days and nights of Ramaḍān
jāhiliyya Days of Ignorance prior to Islam
jāʾifa Wound that pierces the abdomen
jāʾiḥa An act of God or other calamity that destroys
a crop
janāba Ritual preclusion on account of a bodily
impurity caused by menstruation or childbirth
in the case of women, ejaculation in the case
of men, or sexual intercourse for both men
and women
janāʾiz Funerals; corpses
janāza Funeral bier; funeral procession
jināya Battery
jināza Corpse
jizāf Estimated quantity
jizya Annual poll-tax levied on adult non-Muslim
males permanently resident in the territory of
the Islamic state
judhām Elephantiasis
jurḥ (sing.)/jirāḥ (pl.) Battery
kaffāra Penance
kalāla Heirs who inherit from the decedent
when there are no living ascendant or
descendant heirs
al-kāliʾ bil-kāliʾ Settling one debt by means of a second debt
khalīṭ (sing.)/khulaṭāʾ (pl.) Individual owner of a herd of livestock who
commingles it with others to share costs but
maintains separate ownership of the animals
khaliyya; bariyya Euphemisms for divorce
khamr Wine
al-khandaq Battle of the Trench
khiṭba Proposal of marriage
khiyār Option, including to divorce, to rescind
a contract, or to choose from a menu of
remedies available for a breach of contract
khulʿ A mode of marital dissolution that entails the
wife’s payment of property to the husband
800 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

kirāʾ Rental contract, whether of farmland,

residential property, animals, or tools
kitāba Manumission contract
liʿān or mulāʿana Mutual imprecation: a procedure by which
a husband may formally accuse his wife
of adultery
luqaṭa Lost property found by a third party
maʿādin Mineral wealth; mines
maḍāmīn Fetuses in their mothers’ wombs
madhī Pre-ejaculate
maḥram A close male relation to whom marriage
is prohibited
maḥrūsa Untended livestock
majnūn Insane
malāqīḥ Offspring sired by a stud
maʾmūma Head wound that pierces the skull and reaches
the brain
manbūdh Abandoned child
manfaʿa (sing.)/manāfiʿ (pl.) Usufruct of a piece of property
mann Free manumission of a slave or a prisoner
of war
marīḍ Ill person
maʿrūf Acts of goodwill
mawāqīt Designated stations along the Pilgrimage route
where pilgrims must enter the consecrated
state (iḥrām) before proceeding to Mecca
mawāt Unused land
mawlā Freedman
mawlāt Freedwoman
mayta Carrion
mīl Unit of distance equivalent to 3,500 arm’s
lengths or a man’s paces
minbar Pulpit
mīrāth Decedent’s estate; a designated right to inherit
from a decedent’s estate
mirfaq Easements
miskīn (sing.)/masākīn (pl.) The bereft
Glossary of Terms 801

mithqāl Unit of measure used for gold or silver,

approximately 3.35 grams
muʿallamāt Hounds
muʾannath/mukhannath Transgender man
mudabbar Slave designated for manumission upon his
master’s death
mudabbara Handmaiden designated for manumission
upon her master’s death
mudd Unit of measure, approximately 500 grams
mūḍiḥa Wound that exposes the skull
mughtaṣaba Raped woman
mughtaṣib Rapist
muhājirūn Emigrants
muḥallil Man who marries a woman solely for the
purpose of allowing her to remarry her
previous husband
muḥāqala Sharecropping
muḥrim Person in the consecrated state
muḥṣan Someone who has been previously married as
a free person
muḥṣar Someone impeded from completing the
Visitation or the Pilgrimage
mukātab Slave who is a party to a manumission contract
mukhāṭara Betting; mutual assumption of price risk
mukhtaliʿa Woman who has given property to her
husband in exchange for a divorce
mulāmasa Sale by touch
munābadha Sale by tossing
munaqqala Wound that breaks a bone or cracks the skull
but does not expose it
murābaḥa Contract of sale for goods at an agreed-upon
rate of profit
murāṭala Exchange of gold for gold and silver for silver
by weight
murtahin Secured creditor
musāqāt Irrigation partnership
mustakraha Raped woman
802 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

mustakrī Lessee
mustalḥaq A child of previously unknown paternity who
is subsequently affiliated to a man who is
deemed the child’s father
mutʿa Parting gift upon divorce
muzābana Trade involving an indeterminate amount
of goods
nabīdh Water in which dried fruit has been steeped
nadhr (sing.)/nudhūr (pl.) Vow
nafal (sing.)/anfāl (pl.) Extra share of booty out of the state’s
one-fifth share
nafaqa Maintenance
nāfila Voluntary pious act
nafy Denial of paternity
najsh Fictitious bids
nasab Affiliation
nasīʾa Deferring payment
nikāḥ Marriage
nikāḥ al-mutʿa Temporary marriage
niyya Intention
qaḍāʾ (sing.)/aqḍiya (pl.) Judicial ruling
qadar Doctrine of free will
qadariyya Proponents of free will
qadhf Slander
qāʾif Physiognomist
qasāma Collective oaths used in the absence
of eyewitness testimony to determine
guilt in cases of intentional murder or to
establish monetary liability in cases of
unintentional killing
qasm Partition of properties
qaṭāʿa Prepayment of a manumission contract
qatl al-ʿamd Intentional killing
qatl al-khaṭaʾ Unintentional killing
qawad Retaliation for intentional killing or
intentional battery
Glossary of Terms 803

qimār Gambling
qirāḍ Investment partnership
qirān Performance of the Pilgrimage and the
Visitation on the same trip
qiṣāṣ Retaliation for intentional murder or
intentional battery
qurʾ (sing.)/aqrāʾ or qurūʾ (pl.) Menstrual period
raḍāʿa Breastfeeding
rāhin Pledgor
rahn (sing.)/ruhūn (pl.) Pledge
rajm Lapidation
raqaba The res of the property in contrast to its
usufruct (manāfiʿ); in the case of a slave, the
slave’s body, such that an obligation attached
to it is the responsibility of the master
ribā Unlawful gain
ribā al-nasīʾa or ribā al-nasāʾ Deferred trade of food, gold, or silver
ridda Apostasy
rikāz Buried treasure predating the rise of Islam
riṭl Measure of weight, approximately 280 grams
in the Hijaz in Mālik’s time
ruqya Pious supplication to treat or ease suffering
caused by illness
ṣāʿ Unit of measure, approximately two kilograms
ṣadāq Dower
ṣadaqa Alms-tax; a gift of support; an act of charity
safīh Spendthrift; a person who cannot prudently
manage his or her property
ṣaghīr Minor
ṣāḥib al-ʿīna Intermediary who extends credit to finance
a sale
sāʾiba Abandoned freedman
salaf Loan; prepayment for future delivery of a
commodity in a forward contract
ṣalāt al-ʿasr Afternoon Prayer
ṣalāt al-ḍuḥā Midmorning Prayer
804 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

ṣalāt al-fajr Dawn Prayer preceding the obligatory

Morning Prayer (ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ)
ṣalāt al-ʿīd Feast Prayer
ṣalāt al-ʿishāʾ Evening Prayer
ṣalāt al-istisqāʾ Prayer for Rain
ṣalāt al-jamāʿa Congregational prayer
ṣalāt al-jumuʿa Friday Congregational Prayer
ṣalāt al-khawf Prayer of Danger
ṣalāt al-layl Night Prayer
ṣalāt al-maghrib Sunset Prayer
ṣalāt al-ṣubḥ Morning Prayer
ṣalāt al-witr Witr prayer
ṣalāt al-ẓuhr Noon Prayer
ṣalāt kusūf al-shams Solar eclipse prayer
ṣarf Currency exchange
sariqa Theft
saʿy Marching between the hillocks of Ṣafā and
Marwa in Mecca in connection with the rites of
the Pilgrimage or the Visitation
ṣayd Wild animals
shafaq Dusk
shahāda Testimony
shahādat al-ṣibyān Testimony of minors
shāhid Witness
shāt Yearling; a goat or a sheep up to the
completion of its second year
shirk; sharika Partnership
shubhāt al-nikāḥ De facto marriage that gives rise to certain
rights, obligations, and immunities but is
nevertheless invalid
shufʿa Right of first refusal
siḥr Sorcery
siwāk Toothbrush
ṣiyām Fasting
sulṭān Public official; ruler
Glossary of Terms 805

taʿaddī Breach of contract

tadbīr Designation by a healthy slave owner of slaves
for manumission upon his death
taghlīẓ Accelerated payment of compensation
ṭalāq A form of marital dissolution in which the
husband unilaterally releases the wife from
the obligations of the marriage contract
tamattuʿ Performing the Pilgrimage (ḥajj) after
performing the Visitation (ʿumra) during the
same pilgrimage season
tamlīk Delegation by the husband of his authority to
terminate the marriage, usually to his wife but
possibly to another party
tamr Dried dates
taʿrīḍ Indirect slander
ṭarīq al-muslimīn Public highway
tashahhud Recitation of the attestation of faith during
prayer (ṣalāt)
ṭāʿūn Plague
ṭawāf Circumambulation of the Kabah
ṭawāf al-ifāḍa Circumambulation of the March, a constituent
element of the Pilgrimage (ḥajj) that must be
performed by all pilgrims
ṭawāf al-wadāʿ Farewell Circumambulation
tawliya Repurchase of the goods of a contract by the
seller at cost
tayammum Dry ablution
thamar (sing.)/thimār (pl.) Unharvested or fresh dates
tibr Raw gold or silver
ʿuhda Seller’s liability for defects in goods
umm walad (sing.)/ A handmaiden who has borne her master
ummahāt al-awlād (pl.) a child
ʿumra Visitation; a lesser pilgrimage, rites performed
when visiting Mecca
ʿumrā Gift of a life estate
ʿushūr Taxes payable by protected people
806 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

walāʿ Patronage: a reciprocal relationship of

solidarity between members of a tribe
or between a manumitted slave and
the manumitter
walad al-mulāʿana Repudiated child
walad al-zinā Illegitimate child
walīma Wedding feast
wasaq (sing.)/awsuq (pl.) Unit of measure for cereal crops,
approximately 122 kilograms
waṣiyya Last will and testament; a
testamentary disposition
wuḍūʾ Ablutions
yamīn Oaths; in a lawsuit, the claimant’s oath
yawm al-naḥr Day of the Slaughter of the Sacrosanct
Animals; takes place on the tenth day of Dhū
al-Ḥijja when pilgrims slaughter animals they
have brought with them for sacrifice
yawm al-tarwiya Day of Watering; takes place on the ninth
day of Dhū al-Ḥijja when pilgrims supply
themselves with water before heading out to
ʿArafāt and the plains of Minā
zakāt Alms-tax; alms
zarʿ Grains
ẓihār Declaring one’s wife to be like the back of
one’s mother
zinā Fornication; adultery
 Bibliography

Primary Sources
Bājī̄, Sulaymān b. Khalaf al-. al-Muntaqā sharḥ al-Muwaṭṭaʾ. 7 vols. Cairo: Dār
al-Kitāb al-Islāmī̄, n.d. Reprint of Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Saʿāda, 1913.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Yūsuf b. ʿAbd Allāh. al-Istidhkār al-jāmiʿ li-madhāhib fuqahāʾ
al-amṣār wa-ʿulamāʾ al-aqṭār fīmā taḍammanahu al-Muwaṭṭaʾ min maʿānī al-raʾy
wa-’l-āthār. Cairo: Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 1993.
Ibn al-ʿArabī, Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh. al-Qabas fī sharḥ Muwaṭṭaʾ Mālik b. Anas. 3
vols. Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1992.
Ibn Farḥūn, Ibrāhīm b. ʿAlī. Tabṣirat al-ḥukkām fī uṣūl al-aqḍiya wa-minhāj al-aḥkām.
2 vols. Cairo: Maktabat al-Kulliyyāt al-Azhariyya, 1986.
Ibn Ḥabīb, ʿAbd al-Malik. al-Wāḍiḥa: Kutub al-ṣalāt wa-kutub al-ḥajj. Edited by
Miklos Muranyi. Beirut: Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyya, 2010.
Ibn Manẓūr. Lisān al-ʿArab. Edited by ʿAbd Allāh ʿAlī al-Kabīr et al. 6 vols. plus 3 vols.
of indexes. Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, [1981?]–86.
Ibn Rushd, Abū al-Walīd Muḥammad. al-Bayān wa’l-taḥṣīl wa’l-sharḥ wa’l-tawjīh
wa’l-taʿlīl fī masāʾil al-Mustakhraja. Edited by Muḥammad Ḥijjī et al. 20 vols. 2nd
ed. Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1988.
Kāndihlawī, Muḥammad Zakariyyā al-. Awjaz al-masālik ilā Muwaṭṭaʾ Mālik. 17 vols.
Damascus: Dār al-Qalam, 2003.
Lane, Edward. An Arabic-English Lexicon. 8 vols. London: Williams, 1863.
al-Mawsūʿa al-fiqhiyya. 1st ed. 45 vols. Kuwait: Kuwaiti Ministry of Endowments, 1983.
Saḥnūn b. Saʿīd. al-Mudawwana. 4 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1986.
Shaybānī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-. al-Ḥujja ʿalā ahl al-Madīna. Beirut: ʿĀlam
al-Kutub, 1983.
Yafuranī, Muḥammad b.ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-. al-Iqtiḍāb fī gharīb al-Muwaṭṭaʾ wa-iʿrābihi
ʿalā al-abwāb. Riyadh: Maktabat al-ʿUbaykān, 2001.
Yāqūt al-Ḥamawī, Shihāb al-Dīn. Muʿjam al-buldān. Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 1995.
Zurqānī̄, Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-. Sharḥ al-Zurqānī ʿalā Muwaṭṭaʾ al-Imām
Mālik. Cairo: Maktabat al-Thaqāfa al-Dīniyya, 2003.

Secondary Sources
ʿAbbās, Iḥsān. “ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān wa-dawruhu fī thaqāfat ʿaṣrih.” Dirāsāt 13,
no. 1 (1986): 105–13.

807
808 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Abbott, Nadia. Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri. 3 vols. Chicago: University of

Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 1957.
Azami, Muhammad M. al-. On Schacht’s Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence.
Oxford: Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies and Islamic Texts Society, 1996.
Bewley, Aisha, trans. Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas: The First Formulation of
Islamic Law. London: Kegan Paul, 1989. Reprint, London: Routledge, 2010.
Bravmann, M. M. The Spiritual Background of Early Islam. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Brockopp, Jonathan, “Rereading the History of Early Mālikī Jurisprudence.” Journal
of the American Oriental Society 118, no. 2 (1998): 233–38.
Calder, Norman. Studies in Early Muslim Jurisprudence. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1993.
Dutton, Yasin. The Origins of Islamic Law: The Qurʾan, the “Muwaṭṭaʾ” and Madinan
ʿAmal. 2nd ed. New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002.
El Shamsy, Ahmed. “Rethinking Taqlīd in the Early Shāfiʿī School.” Journal of the
American Oriental Society 128, no. 1 (2008): 1–23.
El Shamsy, Ahmed. The Canonization of Islamic Law: A Social and Intellectual History.
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Fadel, Mohammad. “Authority in Ibn Abī Zayd al-Qayrawānī’s Kitāb al-nawādir wa-l-
ziyādāt ʿalā mā fī l-Mudawwana min ghayrihā min al-ummahāt: ‘The Chapter of
Judgments’ (Kitāb al-aqḍiya).” In The Heritage of Arabo-Islamic Learning: Studies
Presented to Wadad Kadi, edited by Maurice A. Pomerantz and Aram A. Shahin,
207–26. Boston: Brill, 2016.
Fadel, Mohammad. “The Social Logic of Taqlīd and the Rise of the Mukhtaṣar.”
Islamic Law and Society 3, no. 2 (1996): 193–233.
Ghaly, Mohammed. Islam and Disability: Perspectives in Theology and Jurisprudence.
London: Routledge, 2010.
Goldziher, Ignaz. Muslim Studies. Edited by S. M. Stern. Translated by C. R. Barber
and S. M. Stern. London: Allen and Unwin, 1971.
Ḥallāq, Muḥammad Ṣubḥī b. Ḥasan. al-Īḍāḥāt al-ʿaṣriyya lil-maqāyīs wa’l-makāyīl
wa’l-awzān wa’l-nuqūd al-sharʿiyya. Sanaa: Maktabat al-Jīl al-Jadīd, 2007.
Hallaq, Wael B. The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Hallaq, Wael. “Was al-Shāfiʿī the Master Architect of Islamic Jurisprudence?”
International Journal of Middle East Studies 25, no. 4 (1993): 587–605.
Jumuʿa, Muḥammad ʿAlī. al-Makāyīl wa’l-mawāzīn al-sharʿiyya. Cairo: al-Quds
lil-Iʿlān wa’l-Nashr wa’l-Taswīq, 2001.
Khadduri, Majid, trans. Islamic Jurisprudence: Shāfiʿī’s “Risāla.” Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins Press, 1961.
Lowry, Joseph E. Review of Die Rechtsbücher des Qairawāners Saḥnūn b. Saʿīd:
Entstehungsgeschichte und Werküberlieferung, by Miklos Muranyi. Journal of the
American Oriental Society 123, no. 2 (2003): 438–40.
Lowry, Joseph E., trans. The Epistle on Legal Theory: A Translation of al-Shāfiʿī’s
“Risālah.” New York: New York University Press, 2013.
Motzki, Harald. Analysing Muslim Traditions: Studies in Legal, Exegetical and
Maghāzī Ḥadīth. Boston: Brill, 2010.
Bibliography 809

Opwis, Felicitas. “Maṣlaḥa in Contemporary Islamic Legal Theory.” Islamic Law and
Society 12, no. 2 (2005): 182–223.
Ossendorf-Conrad, Beatrix. Das “K. al-Wadiha” des ʿAbd al-Malik b. Ḥabīb: Edition
und Kommentar zu Ms. Qarawiyyin 809/40 (Abwab al-Tahara). Stuttgart: Franz
Steiner, 1994.
Rahimuddin, Muhammad. Muwatta’ Imam Malik. Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf,
1985.
Rahman, Fazlur. Islamic Methodology in History. Karachi: Karachi Central Institute
of Islamic Research, 1965.
Raysūnī, Aḥmad al-. Naẓariyyat al-maqāṣid ʿinda al-Shāṭibī. 4th ed. Herndon, VA:
International Institute of Islamic Thought, 1995.
Savant, Sarah. “A Tale of 3 ‘Versions’” (blog post). KITAB website, September 10,
2017. [Link]
Schacht, Joseph. The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1959.
Swartz, Merlin. Review of Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas: The First Formulation
of Islamic Law, translated by Aisha Bewley. Middle East Studies Association
Bulletin 25, no. 1 (1991): 102–3.
Wymann-Landgraf, Umar F. Abd-Allah. Mālik and Medina: Islamic Legal Reasoning
in the Formative Period. Boston: Brill, 2013.
 Index

Index of Proper Names

Abān b. ʿUthmān, 87, 288, 300, 423, 169, 187; punishment, 719; Quran,
431, 494, 539, 574 195; sacrificial animals, 321, 328,
ʿAbbād b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr, 218 378; sales, 539, 547, 563; sneezing,
ʿAbbād b. Nusayy, 115 766–67; vows, 393
ʿAbbād b. Tamīm, 173, 187, 193, 378, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ḥabība, 393–94
754 ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Mulayka, 710
ʿAbbād b. Ziyād, 91 ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Qatāda, 369
ʿAbd Allāh al-Ṣunābiḥī, 89, 206 ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa, 767
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Ḥārith b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Umayya, 617, 638
Nawfal, 735 ʿAbd Allāh b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b.
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Jābir b. ʿAtīk, al-Labbād, 71
205, 215 ʿAbd Allāh b. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, 56–57
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Arqam, 166, 784
120–21 ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Faḍl, 474, 510
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Mughīra b. Abī Burda
Bakr al-Ṣiddīq, 257, 719, 748 al-Kinānī, 368
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿĀmir b. Rabīʿa, 87, 117,
Ḥusayn al-Makkī, 719 146, 304, 544, 715, 737
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Maʿmar ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr, 374–75
al-Anṣārī, 255, 358, 761 ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣī, 125, 153,
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Zayd b. 171, 210, 321, 352, 389, 509
al-Khaṭṭāb, 521 ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr b. al-Ḥadramī, 725
ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr b. ʿUthmān, 516
b. ʿAmr b. Ḥazm, 44n1; ablution, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAyyāsh b. Abī Rabīʿa
95; battery compensation, 677; al-Makhzūmī, 322, 353, 383, 714,
bequests, 633; breastfeeding, 531, 735
535; charity, 784; evil eye, 754; ʿAbd Allāh b. Buḥayna, 125
Jews, 751; marriage, 478; legal ʿAbd Allāh b. Bulayṭ al-Qaysī, 64
testimony, 599; miscellaneous ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥudhāfa, 321
matters, 193, 209, 216, 245, 286, ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥunayn, 282
304, 431, 620; mourning, 527; ʿAbd Allāh b. Jaʿfar, 330
Pilgrimage, 288, 294, 343, 346–47; ʿAbd Allāh b. Kaʿb (freedman of
prayer, 126–27, 137, 140, 143, ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān), 97

811
812 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

ʿAbd Allāh b. Kaʿb b. Mālik al-Anṣārī, 606 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī ʿAmra al-Anṣārī,
ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd: ablution, 96, 146; 150–51, 427
breastfeeding, 534; divorce, 493, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakr al-Ṣiddīq,
480, 519–20; loans, 585; lying, 83–84, 345, 427, 496
779; Quran, 173; prayer, 146, 169; ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Hurayra, 389
sales, 544, 586 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Laylā, 349
ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Saʿīd al-Khudrī,
al-Ṣiddīq, 312 163
ʿAbd Allāh b. Nisṭās, 606 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Aswad b. ʿAbd
ʿAbd Allāh b. Qays b. Makhrama, 143 Yaghūth, 565, 760
ʿAbd Allāh b. Rāfiʿ, 76 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Ḥubāb al-Anṣārī,
ʿAbd Allāh b. Rawāḥa, 649–50 728
ʿAbd Allāh b. Sahl, 701–2, 703 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Mujabbar, 82, 94,
ʿAbd Allāh b. Salām, 136, 709 485
ʿAbd Allāh b. Thābit, 215 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim b.
ʿAbd Allāh b. Umm Maktūm, 197, 516 Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr, 44n1;
ʿAbd Allāh b. Unays al-Juhanī, 272 ablution, 101; alms-tax, 226;
ʿAbd Allāh b. Wāqid, 378 breastfeeding, 532; consecrated
ʿAbd Allāh b. Yazīd (freedman of al- state, 281, 285, 292–93, 344–45;
Aswad b. Sufyān), 81, 154, 199, divorce, 496, 497; fasting, 268;
516, 549 fortitude, 217; gifts, 629; Kabah
ʿAbd Allāh b. Yazīd al-Khaṭmī, 339 and Pilgrimage, 290, 335, 342,
ʿAbd Allāh b. Zayd al-Anṣārī, 109 346; marriage, 473–74, 482;
ʿAbd Allāh b. Zayd al-Māzinī, 187, 193 Medina, 735; prayer, 120, 122, 146,
ʿAbd Allāh b. Zayd b. ʿĀṣim, 83, 173n169 147, 179; theft, 721
ʿAbd al-Bāqī, Muḥammad Fuʾād, 49, 50 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Zabīr, 479
ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf, 91, 105, 246,
Zayd b. al-Khaṭṭāb, 601, 735, 737 348, 490, 511, 622, 657, 737, 785
ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd b. Suhayl b. ʿAbd al- ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥanẓala al-Zuraqī,
Raḥmān b. ʿAwf, 548 413
ʿAbd al-Karīm b. Abī al-Mukhāriq ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥarmala al-Aslamī,
al-Baṣrī, 146, 165 93, 150, 255, 296, 773–74
ʿAbd al-Karīm b. Mālik al-Jazarī, 349 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Hurmuz, 125
ʿAbd al-Malik b. Abī Bakr b. al-Ḥārith b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Kaʿb b. Mālik al-
Hishām, 288, 431, 478 Anṣārī, 218, 359
ʿAbd al-Malik b. Jurayj, 43 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd
ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān, 87n43, 288, Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Qārī, 615
309n413, 337, 436, 485, 613, 697, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Sahl, 701–2
776 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Zayd al-Anṣārī, 88
ʿAbd al-Malik b. Qurayr, 347 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Zayd b. al-Khaṭṭāb,
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd 521
al-Raḥmān b. Abī Ṣaʿṣaʿa al-Anṣārī ʿAbd al-Wārith b. Sufyān, 59, 61
al-Māzinī, 110, 200, 374, 768, 769 ʿAbd b. Zamʿa, 617
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd al-Qārī, 121, ʿAbd Rabbih b. Saʿīd, 255, 367, 410,
139–40, 196, 315, 626 512, 522
Index 813

ʿAbīda b. Sufyān al-Ḥaḍramī, 390 Abū al-Ḥasan Shurayḥ, 57, 63, 64

Abraham, 169, 261n320, 747; Kabah, Abū al-Ḥasan Yūnus, 59
312; Mecca, 731, 733 Abū al-Ḥātim b. Ḥabbān, 45
Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Agharr, 193, 203 Abū al-Haytham al-Tayyihān al-Anṣārī,
Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Balansanī, 65 752
Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Khawlānī, 53 Abū al-Ḥubāb Saʿīd b. Yasār, 216, 555,
Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Khushanī, 58 732, 756, 761, 781
Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Ṣunābiḥī, 115 Abū al-Maymūn al-Bajlī, 58
Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Malik al- Abū al-Muthannā al-Juhanī, 748
Murrākushī, 70 Abū al-Naḍr (freedman of ʿUmar b.
Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī ʿUbayd Allāh), 44n1; ablution, 94,
Dulaym, 58, 59, 60 97; bereavement, 216; consecrated
Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī al-Aṣbagh b. Abī state, 301–2; fasting, 257, 269,
al-Baḥr al-Zahrī, 63 320–21; funerals, 213, 219;
Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Ṭallāʿ, 62, 63, 66, 69 images, 767; martyrs, 369; Night of
Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥamdīn, 62, 63 Power, 272 prayer, 132, 141, 150,
Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. Mufarrij, 52 154, 162, 163, 167; sex, 526
Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. Rashīd al-Sabtī, 70 Abū al-Qāsim Aḥmad b. al-Qāsim b.
Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Jābir b. ʿUbayda, 64
Allāh b. Abī ʿĪsā, 64, 69 Abū al-Qāsim al-Mawāʿīnī, 65
Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Abū al-Qāsim b. Baqī, 63
Allāh b. Yaḥyā, 51 Abū al-Qāsim b. Ḥabīsh, 65
Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Faraj, 73 Abū al-Quʿays, 532
Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā al- Abū al-Rabīʿ al-Kallāʿī, 53
Tamīmī al-Sabtī, 54, 55 Abū al-Rijāl Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-
Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Salama Raḥmān, 218, 346, 545, 546, 548,
al-Anṣārī, 62–63, 69 621, 715–16
Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. ʿUmar b. Abū al-Sāʾib, 118, 772
al-Fakhkhār, 61 Abū al-Ṭufayl ʿĀmir b. Wāthila, 157
Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. See Ibn ʿUmar, Abū al-Walīd al-Waqshī, 58
ʿAbd Allāh Abū al-Walīd b. al-Faraḍī, 52, 58
Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Dānī, 55, 60, 61 Abū al-Walīd b. Mughīth, 53, 63, 73
Abū al-ʿAbbās b. al-Ghammāz, 53 Abū al-Walīd Yūnus b. ʿAbd Allāh al-
Abū al-ʿĀṣ Ḥakam b. Muḥammad b. Ṣaffār, 69
Afrānk al-Judhāmī, 57 Abū al-Zinād ʿAbd Allāh b. Dhakwān,
Abū al-ʿĀṣ b. Rabīʿa b. ʿAbd Shams, 171 44n1; ablution, 83, 84, 90,
Abū al-Aswad Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al- 175; the bereft, 747; clothes
Raḥmān, 289–90, 317 and sandals, 744–45; currency
Abū al-Baddāḥ ʿĀṣim b. ʿAdī, 343 exchange, 557; divorce, 511;
Abū al-Dardāʾ, 202, 206, 556, 640 dreams, 762; fasting, 262, 269;
Abū al-Faḍl Aḥmad Qāsim al-Tāhartī, free will, 737, 739; gluttony, 748;
59, 60 Hell, 781; jihād, 357, 366; judicial
Abū al-Ghayth Sālim, 368 matters, 601, 621, 700; marriage,
Abū al-Ḥakam b. Najāḥ al-Lakhmī, 63 480; martyrs, 369; miscellaneous
Abū al-Ḥasan b. Mughīth, 63, 64 matters, 107, 218–19, 741, 750;
814 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Muḥammad’s estate, 781; prayer, Abū Bakr b. Khayr, 54, 55–56, 57, 59,
82, 119, 132, 135, 149, 152, 166, 60, 63, 64, 69, 70
170, 172, 390; punishment, 715, Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b.
722; sacrificial animals, 321; Ḥazm, 563, 592, 700, 725–26
sales, 545, 563, 574, 582, 587–88, Abū Bakr b. Nāfiʿ, 344, 744
595; self-reliance, 783; sheep, Abū Bakr b. Rizq, 64
769; speaking cautiously, 776; Abū Bakr b. Sulaymān b. Abī Ḥathma,
supplication, 203 124, 150
Abū al-Zubayr al-Makkī Muḥammad b. Abū Bakr b. Ṭāhir al-Qaysī, 54
Tadrus, 44n1; animals, 347, 378– Abū Bakr b. ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh
79; circumambulation, 317, 327; b. ʿUmar, 747
left hand, 747; marriage, 482, 491; Abū Bakr b. ʿUthmān b. Sahl b. Ḥunayf,
prayer, 157–58, 316; Satan, 750; 215
supplication, 204 Abū Bakr Yaḥyā b. Wāfid, 62
Abū ʿAmr Dhakwān, 140 Abū Bashīr al-Anṣārī, 754
Abū ʿAmra al-Anṣārī, 599 Abū Burda, 377
Abū ʿAmr b. Ḥafṣ, 516 Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī, 57
Abū Asmāʾ (freedman of ʿAbd Allāh b. Abū Dharr, 164–65, 355
Jaʿfar), 330 Abū Ghaṭafān b. Ṭarīf al-Murrī, 300,
Abū Ayyūb al-Anṣārī, 151, 191, 282, 606, 627, 688
311, 326, 339, 379–80, 733, 741 Abū Ḥanīfa, 10, 73n2, 211n242,
Abū Baḥr b. al-ʿĀṣ, 55, 64 560n802
Abū Bakr ʿAbbās b. Aṣbagh al- Abū Ḥāzim al-Tammār, 116
Hamadānī al-Ḥijārī, 57 Abū Ḥāzim b. Dīnār, 110, 165, 168, 254,
Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq, 81, 169, 302; 475, 580, 749, 762, 770
ablution, 88, 101; alms-tax, 222, Abū Ḥudhayfa b. ʿUtba b. Rabīʿa, 533
239; consecrated state, 281; Abū Ḥumayd al-Sāʿidī, 169
drinking practices, 749; dyed hair, Abū Hurayra: ablution, 83, 84, 85, 88, 89,
760; funeral matters, 209–10, 90, 175; alms-tax, 230, 245; anger,
214; food, 752; gifts, 626; illness, 741; the bereft, 747; compensation,
757; inheritance, 410; jihād, 359, 682, 694; compassion, 750; clothes
365, 373–74; lapidation, 709–10; and sandals, 742–45; consecrated
martyrs, 370; Medina, 733–34; state, 302–3, 324; divorce, 497,
parental rights, 639;prayer, 115, 509, 520; dreams, 762; fasting,
116, 117, 144, 153, 168, 172, 177, 255–56, 257, 259, 261–62, 265,
339; property, 375; punishment, 269; food, 750, 752; free will, 737,
713, 721–22; speaking cautiously, 739; Fridays, 131, 136; funeral
778 matters, 212–13, 220; gluttony,
Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al- 748; grooming, 747; Hell, 781;
Ḥārith b. Hishām, 161, 166, 255– illness, 756; jihād, 357, 368, 371;
56, 258, 278, 299, 498, 514, 574, lapidation, 711; loving for God’s
591, 592 sake, 761–62; Mālik b. Anas, 43;
Abū Bakr b. al-Murābiṭ, 65 marriage, 473, 480, 490, 522–23;
Abū Bakr b. ʿAmr, 144, 245 manumission, 425; martyrs, 369;
Abū Bakr b. Ḥazm, 493–94, 633, 647 Medina, 732–34; miscellaneous
Index 815

matters, 193, 216, 219, 390, 615, Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh b. Ibrāhīm
621, 728, 741, 761; Muḥammad’s al-Aṣīlī al-Maghribī, 59, 60, 66
estate, 781; oaths, 398; prayer, 75, Abū Muḥammad al-Bājī, 66
76, 78, 82, 109, 114, 118, 119, 123, Abū Muḥammad b. al-Mashshāṭ al-Aṣīlī,
129, 137, 149, 150, 152, 166–67, 55
170, 172, 193; precious metals, Abū Muḥammad b. ʿAttāb, 59
555; punishment, 714; Quran, Abū Muḥammad b. Billīṭ, 70
199, 201–2; rain, 189; sacrificial Abū Muḥammad b. Ḥazm, 64, 70
animals, 321; sales, 546, 548, Abū Muḥammad b. Khazraj, 55–56, 59
582, 588, 592, 595; self-reliance, Abū Muḥammad b. Mūjwāl al-
783; sheep, 769; slaughtered Balansanī, 65
animals, 385; slaves, 774; speaking Abū Muḥammad Shurayḥ b.
cautiously, 776; supplication, 203, Muḥammad b. Shurayḥ al-Ruʿaynī,
731; toothbrushes, 107; travel, 774; 70
Visitation, 299 Abū Murra, 161–62, 321, 385, 764
Abū Idrīs al-Khawlānī, 83, 390, 762 Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī, 76, 97, 534, 615–
Abū ʿĪsā b. Sahl, 61 16, 659, 763, 766
Abū ʿĪsā Yaḥyā b. ʿAbd Allāh, 51–52, 53, Abū Muṣʿab al-Zuhrī, 9n5
55, 61–62, 63, 66, 69, 73 Abū Nahshal b. al-Aswad, 485
Abū Isḥāq al-Lawātī, 61, 63 Abū Nuʿaym Wahb b. Kaysān, 88, 114,
Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad b. ʿAwn Allāh b. 753
Ḥudayr al-Bazzāz, 58 Abū Qatāda b. Ribʿī al-Anṣārī, 85, 167,
Abū Jaʿfar al-Manṣūr, 7, 41 171, 219, 301–2, 364–5, 728, 759,
Abū Jaʿfar al-Qārī, 168, 322, 749 763
Abū Jaʿfar b. ʿAbd Allāh, 52–53 Abū Rāfiʿ, 300, 593–94
Abū Jahl b. Hishām, 321n437 Abū Saʿīd (freedman of ʿĀmir b.
Abū Jahm b. Hishām, 516 Kurayz), 117
Abū Jahm b. Ḥudhayfa, 116, 126 Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī: alms-tax, 221, 250;
Abū Juhaym, 163 bathing, 132; clothing, 744; fasting,
Abū Laylā b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al- 268; images, 767; loving for God’s
Raḥmān b. Sahl, 701 sake, 761; miscellaneous matters,
Abū Lubāba b. ʿAbd al-Mundhir, 400, 772 193, 271, 766; prayer, 109–10;
Abū Māʿiz al-Aslamī ʿAbd Allāh b. precious metals, 555; Quran, 198,
Sufyān, 317 200–201; sacrificial animals, 379;
Abū Marwān ʿAbd al-Malik b. al-Bājī, sales, 548, 549; self-reliance, 782;
63, 251n356 sex, 526; sheep, 769; snakes, 772
Abū Marwān al-Ṭabnī, 57 Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Asad al-
Abū Marwān ʿUbayd Allāh, 51, 69 Makhzūmī, 217
Abū Masʿūd al-Anṣārī, 74, 169, 574 Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b.
Abū Muḥammad (freedman of Abū ʿAwf: ablution, 97; alms-tax, 225;
Qatāda), 364 compensation, 682, 694; divorce,
Abū Muḥammad (man from Levant), 510, 516; dreams, 763; drinking
144 practices, 748; fasting, 269;
Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAlī b. Fridays, 136; hair, 760; judicial
Sharīʿa al-Lakhmī (al-rāwiya), 57 matters, 601; marriage, 522–23;
816 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

miscellaneous matters, 390, 628; Abū Zakariyāʾ b. ʿĀʾidh, 53

Night of Power, 271; nighttime Abū Zakariyāʾ Yaḥyā b. Muḥammad b.
supplication, 203; Pilgrimage, 347; Ḥusayn al-Qulayʿī, 55, 62
prayer, 78, 81, 114, 119, 129, 139, Adam, 136, 737–38
141, 142, 147, 154, 167; property, ʿAdī b. Thābit al-Anṣārī, 116, 339
643; Quran, 198, 199; vows, 394; ʿAfīf b. ʿAmr al-Sahmī, 125, 151
wine-drinking, 729 Aflaḥ, 532
Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Sammān, 43, 109, 119, Aḥmad b. al-Muṭarrif, 62
131, 150, 201–2, 230, 299, 357, Aḥmad b. Khālid b. al-Jabbāb Abū
371, 742–43, 750, 774, 776 ʿUmar al-Qurṭubī, 56, 57, 65
Abū Shākir al-Qabrī, 59 Aḥmad b. Salama, 62, 69
Abū Shurayḥ al-Kaʿbī, 750 Aḥwaṣ, al-, 514
Abū Sufyān (freedman of Ibn Abī ʿĀʾisha bt. Abī Bakr al-Ṣiddīq: ablution,
Aḥmad), 123, 546, 549 83–84, 96–97, 98, 100, 101; alms-
Abū Sufyān b. Ḥarb, 222n259, 527 tax, 226–27, 237–38; amputation,
Abū Suhayl b. Mālik, 44n1, 76, 112, 116, 719–20; attestation of faith,
165, 174, 269, 738, 740, 745, 775, 122; breastfeeding, 531–32,
781 534–35; charity, 782; choosing
Abū Ṭalḥa al-Anṣārī, 88, 100, 126, 729, the easier option, 739; clothes,
749–50, 767, 781–82 743; consecrated state, 285, 294,
Abū Ṭayba, 771 304, 307, 310, 344–45; dice,
Abū Thaʿlaba al-Khushanī, 390 763; divorce, 514, 515; drinking
Abū ʿUbayd (freedman of Ibn Azhar), practices, 749; dyed hair, 760;
178, 203 fasting, 254–56, 257, 260–61,
Abū ʿUbayd (freedman of Sulaymān b. 266, 268–69, 320–21; funeral
ʿAbd al-Malik), 115, 202, 774 matters, 210, 213, 216, 218, 220;
Abū ʿUbayda b. al-Jarrāḥ 245, 358, 729, gifts, 626; good deeds, 174; hides,
736, 751 391; illness, 756, 757; images,
Abū ʿUbayda b. Farwa, 85 767; intoxicating beverages, 729;
Abū Umāma b. Sahl b. Ḥunayf, 168, judicial matters, 617; Kabah, 312;
211–12, 215, 606, 755, 768 manumission, 427–28; marriage,
Abū ʿUmar Aḥmad b. Nābit al-Taghlibī, 479, 496, 497, 503; Medina,
55, 56 733–34; menstruation, 103–4, 105,
Abū ʿUmar b. al-Ḥadhdhāʾ al-Tamīmī, 345–47; miscellaneous matters,
59, 61 106, 192, 528; Muḥammad’s
Abū ʿUmar b. al-Jasūr al-Umawī al- estate, 780–81; oaths, 397, 400;
Qurṭubī, 55, 60 Pilgrimage and Visitation, 289–90,
Abū ʿUthmān Saʿīd b. Aḥmad al-Qallās, 59 292, 318–19, 344–47, 356; pious
Abū ʿUthmān Saʿīd b. Naṣr, 58, 59, 60, seclusion, 275, 276, 278; prayer,
66 74, 75, 126, 139, 141, 142–43,
Abū ʿUthmān Saʿīd b. Salama, 62 145, 147, 152–54, 156, 158, 162,
Abū Wāqid al-Laythī, 178, 711, 764 172, 182–83; Prophet’s death,
Abū Yaʿqūb Isḥāq al-Dabrī, 56 210, 214; Quran, 197; sacrificial
Abū Yūnus (freedman of ʿĀʾisha), 154, animals, 334, 378; sinning, 777;
255 supplication, 203–4, 213; torment
Index 817

of the grave, 184; wicked people, ʿAmr b. Shuʿayb, 187, 367, 524, 537,
740; women in mosques, 193 693, 773
ʿĀʾisha bt. Qudāma, 222, 697 ʿAmr b. Sulaym al-Zuraqī, 169, 171, 633
ʿĀʾisha bt. Ṭalḥa, 257 ʿAmr b. ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān, 416
ʿAlāʾ b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Yaʿqūb, al-, ʿAmr b. Yaḥyā al-Māzinī, 77, 83, 161,
44n1, 88, 109, 117–18, 167, 206, 221, 621–22
606, 660, 728, 744, 783 ʿAmra bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān:
ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Muʿāwī, 120 breastfeeding, 531, 535;
ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, 211n242, 222n259; disinterment, 218; divorce, 504,
ablution, 87, 94; adultery 514; illness, 757; manumission,
allegations, 616; consecrated state, 428; Pilgrimage, 328–29, 346;
324; divorce, 494, 497, 500, 510; prayer, 75; pious seclusion, 275,
drinking habits, 748; funerals, 215; 278; sacrificial animals, 294, 334,
lapidation, 712; marriage, 485, 378; selling dates, 545, 547, 548;
487, 519; newborn sacrifice, 382; slander, 716; torment of the grave,
prayer, 155, 164, 178; Pilgrimage, 184, 216; theft, 719, 725–26; water
290, 292, 330; sacrificial animals, rights, 621; women in mosques,
328, 380; sales, 571 193
ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, 113, Anas b. Mālik: ablution, 88, 90,
416 92; charity, 781; clothes, 746;
ʿAlī b. Ḥusayn, 158 cupping, 771; drinking practices,
ʿAlī b. Yaḥyā al-Zuraqī, 202 749; fasting, 258, 267; food,
ʿAlqama b. Abī ʿAlqama, 104, 126, 220, 749–50, 752; friendliness, 741;
292, 307, 743, 763 greetings, 765; jihād, 371, 373;
ʿĀmir b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr, 171, marriage, 478, 490; Medina,
749, 780 733; mindfulness of God, 780;
ʿĀmir b. Fuhayra, 734 Muḥammad’s appearance, 746;
ʿĀmir b. Rabīʿa, 755 Pilgrimage, 291–92; prayer, 77,
ʿĀmir b. Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ, 174, 526, 116, 152, 161, 162, 188, 206;
634, 736 prophethood, 762; sales, 545;
ʿAmr (freedman of al-Muṭṭalib), 733 supplication, 731; wine, 729; year
ʿAmr b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Kaʿb al-Sulamī, of conquest, 353
757 Antichrist (al-dajjāl), 184, 204, 734;
ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣī, 85, 99, 321 physical appearance of, 746
ʿAmr b. al-Ḥārith, 377 ʿAqīl b. Abī Ṭālib, 77, 416
ʿAmr b. al-Jamūḥ, 374–75 Aʿraj, al-, 44n1; ablution, 83, 84, 107, 175;
ʿAmr b. al-Sharīd, 532 the bereft, 747; clothes and sandals,
ʿAmr b. ʿAwf, 77 744–45; divorce, 510; dreams, 762;
ʿAmr b. Dīnār, 738 fasting, 261, 262, 269, 321; free
ʿAmr b. Ḥazm, 195, 677 will, 737, 739; gluttony, 748; Hell,
ʿAmr b. Kathīr b. Aflaḥ, 364 781; jihād, 357; marriage, 473, 480,
ʿAmr b. Muʿādh al-Ashhalī al-Anṣārī, 490; martyrs, 369; miscellaneous
782 matters, 218–19, 588, 621, 741;
ʿAmr b. Rāfiʿ, 154 Muḥammad’s estate, 781; prayer,
ʿAmr b. Saʿīd b. Muʿādh, 751 75, 82, 119, 125, 148, 152, 157, 166,
818 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

170, 172, 207; Quran, 196, 199; Azami, Muhammad al-, 13

Ramaḍān, 140; sacrificial animals, Aʿẓamī, Muṣṭafā al-, 50
321; sales, 582; self-reliance, 783;
sheep, 769; speaking cautiously, Bahzī, al-, 302
776; supplication, 203 Bājī, Sulaymān b. Khalaf al-, 117n89,
Ashʿarī, Abū al-Ḥasan al-, 46 143n131, 149n136, 184n184,
Ashhab b ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, 629n885 187n186, 303n400, 415n607,
Ashyam al-Ḍibābī, 692 509n739, 539n772, 549n792,
ʿĀṣī b. Hishām, al-, 431 661n918, 700n956, 745n991
ʿĀṣim b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Saʿd, 532 Baqī b. Mukhallad, 58, 63
ʿĀṣim b. ʿAdī al-Anṣārī, 506 Barāʾ b. ʿĀzib, al-, 377, 623
ʿĀṣim b. ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, 509, Barīra (freedwoman of ʿĀʾisha), 220,
638–39 428, 503
Aslam (freedman of ʿUmar b. al- Bashīr b. Masʿūd al-Anṣārī, 74
Khaṭṭāb), 284, 285, 687, 735 Bashīr b. Saʿd, 169, 626
Asmāʾ bt. Abī Bakr al-Ṣiddīq, 104, 184– Baṣra b. Abī Baṣra al-Ghifārī, 136
85, 211, 284, 285, 333, 626, 758 Bayāḍī, Farwā b. ʿAmr al-, 116
Asmāʾ bt. ʿUmays, 209, 281, 330, 722 Bewley, Aisha, 2
Aswad b. Sufyān, al-, 81 Bilāl b. al-Ḥārith al-Muzanī, 225, 776
ʿAṭāʾ b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Khurasānī, 160, Bilāl b. Rabāḥ, 80–81, 337, 733–34
259–60, 349–50, 741 Bint Khārija, Ḥabība or Malīka, 626
ʿAṭāʾ b. Abī Rabāḥ, 282, 285, 327, 333, Bravmann, M. M., 29n48
343, 394 Bujayd al-Anṣārī al-Ḥārithī, 747
ʿAṭāʾ b. Yasār: ablution, 86, 89, 98; alms, Bukayr b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Ashajj, 156,
238; animals, 384; consecrated 509, 728, 758, 766
state, 302–3; currency exchange, Bushayr b. Yasār, 87, 377, 702
556; divorce, 509; fasting, 256, Busr b. Miḥjan, 151
257; grooming, 759; illness, 756; Busr b. Saʿīd, 75, 150, 156, 163, 193,
intoxicating beverages, 729; jihād, 240, 587, 766, 773
358; loans, 593; manumission, Busra bt. Ṣafwān, 95
425; Medina, 733; mosques, 174;
prayer, 74–75, 81, 124, 125, 132, Calder, Norman, 12, 14, 25, 31
163, 172, 183, 206; sacrificial
animals, 379; sales, 548; self- Ḍaḥḥāk b. Khalīfa, al-, 621–22
reliance, 783; speaking honestly, Ḍaḥḥāk b. Qays, al-, 137, 297
777; steeping dried fruit, 728 Ḍaḥḥāk b. Sufyān al-Kilābī, al-, 692
ʿAṭāʾ b. Yazīd al-Laythī, 109, 172, 202, Ḍamra b. Saʿīd al-Māzinī, 87, 137, 178,
741, 782 526
ʿAtīk b. al-Ḥārith b. ʿAtīk, 215 Dāraquṭnī, Abū al-Ḥasan al-, 52, 53
ʿĀtika bt. Zayd b. ʿAmr b. Nufayl, 193, Dāwūd b. al-Ḥuṣayn, 44n1; alcohol,
257 729; compensation, 729;
Ayyūb b. Abī Tamīma al-Sakhtiyānī, consecrated state, 300; gambling,
123, 195, 209, 228, 310, 350, 742 729; gifts, 627; oaths, 606; prayer,
Ayyūb b. Ḥabīb, 748 78–79, 123, 140, 155, 157; Quran,
Ayyūb b. Mūsā, 307, 400, 630 196; sales, 546, 549
Index 819

Devil. See Satan Ḥamza b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, 770

Dhafīf, 527 Ḥamza b. ʿAmr al-Aslamī, 258
Dhū al-Shamālayn (ʿUmayr b. ʿAbd Ḥanẓala b. Qays al-Zuraqī, 657
ʿAmr), 124 Ḥarām b. Saʿd b. Muḥayyiṣa, 623
Dhū al-Yadayn (al-Khirbāq b. ʿAmr), Ḥārith b. Hishām, al-, 197, 261
123–24 Ḥasan b. Abī al-Ḥasan, al-, 423
Dutton, Yasin, 21n25, 31 Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, 381–82
Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib,
El Shamsy, Ahmed, 21n26, 23–24, 487, 571
33n61 Hāshim b. Hāshim b. ʿUtba b. Abī
Waqqāṣ, 606
Faḍāla b. ʿUbayd al-Anṣārī, 426 Ḥāṭib b. Abī Baltaʿa, 571
Faḍl b. ʿAbbās, al-, 308 Ḥawlāʾ bt. Tuwayt, al-, 141
Fāṭima bt. Abī Ḥubaysh, 105 Hazzāl, 710
Fāṭima bt. al-Mundhir b. al-Zubayr, 104, Hilāl b. Usāma, 425
184–85, 285, 333, 758 Hishām b. Ḥakīm b. Ḥizām, 196
Fāṭima bt. al-Walīd b. ʿUtba b. Rabīʿa, Hishām b. Ismāʿīl al-Makhzūmī, 251,
533 574
Fāṭima bt. Muḥammad, 162, 217n252; Hishām b. ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr b. al-
children of, 381 ʿAwwām, 44n1, 104, 105, 106,
Fāṭima bt. Qays, 515, 516–17 174; ablution, 88, 90, 92, 93,
Fāṭima bt. ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, 532 95–96, 98–100; breastfeeding,
Fuḍayl b. ʿUbayd Allāh, al-, 515 531; charity, 631; clothes,
Furāfiṣa b. ʿUmayr al-Ḥanafī, al-, 117, 743; compensation, 688, 690;
284, 449–50 consecrated state, 284, 285, 293,
Furayʿa bt. Mālik b. Sinān, al-, 523–24 302, 304; divorce, 521; dreams,
763; fasting, 257, 258–60; funeral
Gabriel, 74, 197, 288–89, 353, 369, 760, matters, 210–11, 214–15, 218;
762 illness, 758; judicial matters, 599,
Goldziher, Ignaz, 11 606, 623, 638; Kabah, 312–14,
317; leasing farmland, 658;
Habbār b. al-Aswad, 311 manumission, 427–28; marriage,
Ḥabība bt. Sahl al-Anṣārī, 504 500, 502, 523, 524; Medina, 732,
Ḥafṣa bt. ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, 146, 153, 733, 735; newborn sacrifice,
154, 172, 247, 254, 266, 278, 334, 382; Night of Power, 272; oaths,
503, 516, 528, 531, 532, 629, 696, 397; Pilgrimage, 318–19, 330,
775 332, 333, 342, 346; prayer, 76,
Ḥafṣa bt. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, 497, 514, 112, 117–18, 126, 140–41, 143,
743 146, 152–56, 164, 166, 170–72,
Ḥafṣ b. ʿĀṣim, 193, 761 178, 179, 182, 184, 192, 206,
Ḥajjāj b. ʿAmr b. Ghaziyya, al-, 526–27 287, 339, 753; Quran, 197, 199;
Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf, al-, 309n413, 337 punishment, 715; sacrificial
Ḥakam b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, al-, 52 animals, 322–23, 335, 348; sales,
Ḥakīm b. Ḥizām, 561–62 539; slaughtering animals, 383;
Hallaq, Wael, 16n20, 27n43 supplication, 205; Visitation, 296
820 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Ḥumayd al-Ṭawīl, 116, 258, 272, 373, Ibn Abī Laylā, 349
478, 490, 545, 771 Ibn Abī Qatāda, 85
Ḥumayd b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf, Ibn Abī Salīṭ, 77
107, 201, 210, 259, 261, 315, 373, Ibn Abī Talīd, 55
520, 626, 741, 759 Ibn Abī Zamanīn, Abū ʿAbd Allāh, 55,
Ḥumayd b. Mālik b. Khutham, 752 62, 66
Ḥumayd b. Nāfiʿ, 527–28 Ibn Abī Zayd al-Qayrawānī, Abū
Ḥumayd b. Qays al-Makkī, 232, 265, Muḥammad, 52–53, 57
282, 285, 349, 396, 435, 524, 527, Ibn Aflaḥ, 526, 772
556, 594, 756 Ibn al-Abbār, 70
Ḥumayda bt. Abū ʿUbayda b. Farwa, 85 Ibn al-Aʿrābī, 58
Ḥumrān (freedman of ʿUthmān b. Ibn al-ʿArabī, Abū Bakr, 64
ʿAffān), 88 Ibn al-Aṣbagh al-Shaʿbānī, 65
Hunayy (freedman of ʿUmar b. al- Ibn al-Ghannām, 56
Khaṭṭāb), 785 Ibn al-Mashshāṭ al-Qurṭubī, 53–55,
Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, 330, 381–82 60–62, 66
Ḥuwayṣa, 701–2, 703 Ibn al-Qāsim, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, 10,
Huzayla bt. al-Ḥārith, 768 30n52, 34n64, 629n885
Ibn al-Sabbāq, 107
Ibn ʿAbbās, ʿAbd Allāh: ablution, 86, Ibn al-Sakan, 58, 64
87; animals, 384, 391, 753, 768; Ibn al-Zubayr, ʿAbd Allāh: ʿĀʾisha’s
battery compensation, 688; booty, shawl, 743; civil war, 309n413,
365, 368–69; breastfeeding, 731–32; free will, 738; judicial
532; consecrated state, 282, matters, 509, 521, 606, 686;
294n385, 304, 310; divorce, 493, Pilgrimage, 293, 294–95, 310, 313,
509; fasting, 257–58, 265; food 330
mishaps, 770; greetings, 764; jihād, Ibn ʿAṭiyya, Abū Muḥammad, 61, 62,
360; manumission, 431; marriage, 63, 758
474, 483, 522, 523; menstruation, Ibn ʿAttāb, Abū ʿAbd Allāh, 54, 55, 61,
104; Pilgrimage, 308, 316, 327, 62
350, 354, 355; plague, 735–36; Ibn Bashkawāl, 69
prayer, 78–79, 115, 143, 146, Ibn Bāz, Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm b.
155, 164, 183; prophethood, 762; Muḥammad al-Qurṭubī, 51, 55–57,
Ramaḍān, 253; sacrificial animals, 65
324; sales, 576; supplication, 204; Ibn Dīnār, ʿAbd Allāh: alms-tax, 245,
vows, 393, 396; wine-drinking, 246; breastfeeding, 534, 535;
729; withdrawal method, 527 divorce, 521; eastern threat, 772;
Ibn ʿAbd al-Aʿlā, 58 greeting Jews, 764; hoarding,
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Abū ʿUmar, 50, 54–55, 230; miscellaneous matters,
58–61, 64, 66–67, 196n201, 306, 429, 752; lizard meat, 768;
303n400, 354n487, 368n522, Night of Power, 272; oath of
700n957, 770n1017, 772n1029 allegiance, 775–76; Pilgrimage,
Ibn Abī al-Ḥuqayq, 359 287, 344; prayer, 91, 98, 107,
Ibn Abī Ḥarmala, 213 120, 144–45, 161, 163, 169, 192,
Ibn Abī Khaythama, 57, 58 199, 207; private conversations,
Index 821

778; Ramaḍān, 253; rings, 754; 312; lapidation, 710–11, 713;

sacrificial animals, 322, 323; sales, leases, 597, 657; lizard meat,
556, 561, 596; speaking cautiously, 768; manumission, 423, 425;
776; supplication, 205; trailing marriage, 477, 482–91, 502, 520;
garments, 744 Medina, 733; menstruation, 104;
Ibn Farḥūn, 34n64 miscellaneous matters, 107, 134,
Ibn Fuṭays, Abū al-Muṭarrif, 52–53, 61 172–73, 216, 218, 307, 353–54,
Ibn Ḥamdīn al-Taghlibī, 55 390, 391, 400, 432, 621, 628,
Ibn Ḥimās, 732 739–40, 747, 770, 771; modesty,
Ibn Ḥūbīl, Abū Bakr ʿAbd al-Raḥmān 740; Muḥammad’s estate, 780;
b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Tujībī, Muḥammad’s five names, 785;
54, 61 omens, 770; Pilgrimage, 297, 308,
Ibn Isḥāq, 354n487 310, 315, 337–38, 352, 355–56;
Ibn Khaṭal, 354 pious seclusion, 275, 276, 278–79;
Ibn Lubāba, 53 plague, 735, 737; poll-tax, 246,
Ibn Masdī, 50 248; prayer, 74, 77, 78, 80, 82, 109,
Ibn Mirsā, 413 113–15, 119, 121–22, 124–25,
Ibn Muʿayqīb al-Dawsī, 565 129, 132–33, 139, 142, 145, 149–
Ibn Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b. Ḥazm, 95 50, 152–53, 158–64, 168, 170,
Ibn Muḥayrīz, 144 177–78, 207, 339; property, 643;
Ibn Muḥayṣa al-Anṣārī, 771 punishment, 714, 721, 725; Quran,
Ibn Muḥayrīz, 526 196, 199, 201; sacrificial animals,
Ibn Mukmil, 510 324, 380; sales, 544, 549, 571,
Ibn Muṭīʿ, 606 573–74, 587, 591; self-reliance,
Ibn Qahd, 526–27 782; strays, 631; supplication, 203;
Ibn Qarqūl, 69 Visitation, 296; vows, 393; wills,
Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī: ablution, 83, 634; wine-drinking, 727, 729
91–92, 95, 97, 99, 131; alms- Ibn Sīrīn, 742
tax, 222, 225, 227, 240–41, 245; Ibn Ukayma al-Laythī, 119
anger, 741; breastfeeding, 532, Ibn ʿUmar, ʿAbd Allāh, 75n10, 133, 177;
533; clothes, 743; compensation, ablution, 85, 86, 90–93, 95–98,
678–79, 681–83, 686, 691–92, 100, 102; alms-tax, 222, 226, 230,
694; consecrated state, 303–4, 249–51; breastfeeding, 532, 534;
354; currency exchange, 558; castration, 759; circumambulation,
divorce, 494–95, 498, 503–6, 313, 316, 317; clothes, 743, 744,
509–12, 514–15, 517–20; drinking 745; consecrated state, 281,
practices, 749; evil eye, 755; 282–88, 295, 301, 303, 306–7,
fasting, 254, 258–60, 265–66, 321; 354; currency exchange, 556;
friendliness, 741; funeral matters, debts, 587; dice, 763; divorce,
210–12; gifts, 626, 642; hair, 759; 494, 495, 497–98, 505, 506–7,
illness, 757; inheritance, 407, 511–13, 514, 516, 519, 521; dogs,
410, 416; irrigation partnerships, 769; drinking habits, 749; eating
649; Jews, 734; jihād, 359, 365, habits, 387–89, 752, 769–70;
373; judicial matters, 600, 607, fasting, 254, 258–60, 262, 264–65,
613, 616–17, 619–20, 623; Kabah, 268, 277; free will, 738; funeral
822 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

matters, 210, 213–14, 216, 218; Ibrāhīm b. Abī ʿAbla, 485

greetings, 764–65; hair, 335–37, Ibrāhīm b. Kulayb, 431
378; horse-racing, 372–73; illness, Ibrāhīm b. ʿUqba, 353, 533
758; inheritance, 629; investment ʿIkrima b. Abī Jahl, 327, 489–90
parternships, 659–60; jihād, ʿIrāk b. Mālik, 245, 678
360–61, 363; Kabah, 288, 312; ʿĪsā b. Ṭalḥa b. ʿUbayd Allāh, 302, 352
lapidation, 709; legal testimony, Isḥāq Abū ʿAbd Allāh, 109
599; livestock, 769; loans, 594–95; Isḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa, 44n1;
lost property, 630; manumission, ablution, 85, 90; alcohol, 729;
421, 424, 426–29, 435, 436, 467; charity, 781; clothes, 746; dreams,
marriage, 473, 476, 482, 483, 762; food, 490, 749, 752; greetings,
490, 503, 523–25; martyrs, 370; 764–65; jihād, 371; Medina, 731;
Medina, 731–32; modesty, 740; mindfulness of God, 780; prayer,
Muḥammad’s dream of Jesus, 746; 77, 162, 191
newborn sacrifice, 381–82; oaths, Ismāʿīl b. Abī Ḥakīm, 98, 141, 390, 416,
397, 399, 775–76; Pilgrimage and 734, 780
Visitation, 287–88, 291–92, 297, Ismāʿīl b. Muḥammad b. Saʿd b. Abī
299, 309–10, 318, 327, 332, 337– Waqqāṣ, 95, 153
38, 341–44, 356; pious seclusion, ʿItbān b. Mālik, 173
277; prayer, 78, 112–17, 119–21, ʿIyāḍ al-Sabtī, 54, 55, 61, 62, 63
125, 132, 137, 142, 144–47, 149, ʿIyāḍ b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Saʿd b. Abī Sarḥ
151–52, 158–61, 163–65, 167–71, al-ʿĀmirī, 250
179, 182, 192–93, 207, 337,
353; private conversations, 778; Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Anṣārī: ablution,
punishment, 719, 720; Quran, 197, 88, 90; clothes, 742; food, 751, 754;
199, 212, 358; Ramaḍān, 253; illness, 758; left hand, 747; Medina,
rings, 754; sacrificial animals, 732; miscellaneous matters, 375,
322–24, 328–29, 334–35, 377–78, 606, 628; Pilgrimage, 313, 318, 320;
380; sales, 539, 540, 545–46, 549, prayer, 114, 118, 155; sacrificial
561–64, 571–72, 579, 586, 596; animals, 378–79; Satan, 750
self-reliance, 783; slaughtered Jābir b. al-Aswad al-Zuhrī, 521
animals, 385, 387; slaves, 544, 775; Jābir b. ʿAtīk, 215
sneezing, 767; speaking cautiously, Jaʿfar b. Abī Ṭālib, 756
776; supplication, 205, 206; Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī (Jaʿfar al-
urination, 107, 191; vows, 394; Ṣādiq), 44n1; divorce, 497; funeral
wills, 632; wine-drinking, 727–28, matters, 209; legal matters, 601;
729, 730; withdrawal method, 526 newborn sacrifice, 381; Pilgrimage,
Ibn Umm Maktūm, 113 290, 292, 313, 318, 320; prayer,
Ibn Waḍḍāḥ, Muḥammad al-Qurṭubī, 138; sacrificial animals, 328, 334;
51, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60–61, 65 Zoroastrians, 246
Ibn Waʿla al-Miṣrī, 391, 729 Jamīl b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Muʾadhdhin,
Ibn Yarbūʿ al-Makhzūmī, 155 562, 605
Ibrāhīm b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī ʿAbla, 353 Jayānī, Abū ʿAlī al-, 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61
Ibrāhīm b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥunayn, 282 Jesus, 746, 751, 776, 777
Ibrāhīm b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf, 50 Judāma bt. Wahb al-Asadiyya, 535
Index 823

Kaʿb al-Aḥbār, 125, 136, 163, 303, 349, Midʿam, 368

740, 745, 761 Miḥjan, 151
Kaʿb b. Mālik, 85, 218, 359 Miqdād b. al-Aswad, al-, 94, 290
Kaʿb b. ʿUjra, 349–50 Miṣbāḥ, 715
Kabsha bt. Kaʿb b. Mālik, 85 Miswar b. Makhrama, al-, 93, 282, 523
Kathīr b. al-Ṣalt, 286, 623 Miswar b. Rifāʿa al-Quraẓī, al-, 479
Kathīr b. Farqad, 563 Moses, 737, 745
Khālid b. al-Walīd, 278, 760, 768 Muʿādh b. Jabal, 157, 202, 232, 372,
Khālid b. Asīd, 158, 322 739, 762
Khālid b. Maʿdān, 774 Muʿādh b. Saʿd (or Saʿd b. Muʿādh), 384
Khālid b. ʿUqba, 778 Muʿāwiya b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Badr al-
Khallād b. al-Sāʾib al-Anṣārī, 288 Juhanī, 630
Khansāʾ bt. Khidhām al-Anṣāriyya, 482 Muʿāwiya b. Abī ʿAyyāsh al-Anṣārī, 509
Khārija b. Zayd b. Thābit, 286, 496, 545 Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān, 222, 261, 285–
Khawla bt. Ḥakīm, 487, 773 86, 297, 371, 407, 514, 516–17,
Khawwāt b. Jubayr, 181n178 556, 616, 678, 687, 697, 739, 759
Khubayb b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, 193, 761 Mughīra b. Abī Burda, al-, 85
Kurayb, 143, 338, 353, 523 Mughīra b. Ḥakīm, al-, 120
Mughīra b. Shuʿba, al-, 74, 91, 410
Luqmān, 779, 784 Muḥammad: ablution, 83–91, 95–96,
98, 99–101, 106–7, 143, 167,
Maʿbad b. Ḥuzāba al-Makhzūmī, 310 338; adultery, 506, 616; affiliated
Maʿbad b. Kaʿb al-Salamī, 606 children, 617; alms-tax, 221–22,
Maʿbad b. Kaʿb b. Mālik, 219 224–25, 235, 240, 245, 250, 358;
Maḥmūd b. Labīd al-Anṣārī, 97, 173, amputation, 719–21, 725; angels,
729 119–20, 131, 166, 172, 203, 734,
Maḥmūd b. Rabīʿ, 173n168 756, 767; anger, 741, 776; apostasy,
Māʿiz b. Mālik, 709–10 614–15; asking permission to
Makhrama b. Sulaymān, 143 enter, 766; bad omens, 770; battery
Malīḥ b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Saʿdī, 122 compensation, 657, 682, 688,
Mālik b. Abī ʿĀmir, 132, 556 692–93, 701–2, 703; the bereft,
Mālik b. Anas: biography, 7–8, 10;, 40, 747; breastfeeding, 531–32,
43–44, 47; legal reasoning, 15–19, 534–35; burial of, 209–10, 214;
20–22, 24, 27–33, 44–47 buying back gifts, 249; camels, 630;
Mālik b. Aws b. al-Ḥadathān al-Naṣrī, 558 charity, 503, 631–32, 634, 761,
Manāt, 319 781–84; children, 219; choosing
Manṣūr al-Ḥajabī, 400 the easier option, 739; Christians,
Maʿrūf, Bashshār ʿAwwād, 49–50 734; circumambulation, 313–14,
Marwān b. al-Ḥakam, 95, 255–56, 310, 317; clothes, 103, 137, 155–56,
390, 450, 494, 496, 498, 515, 562, 286, 742, 742n987, 743–46;
606–7, 678, 688–89, 697, 725, 748, compassion, 750; consecrated state,
753 281–83, 285–89, 294–95, 300,
Masʿūd b. al-Ḥakam, 215 301–2, 304, 306–7, 309, 344–45,
Maymūna bt. al-Ḥārith, 143, 156, 300, 349–50; cupping, 771; currency
768, 770 exchange, 555–56, 558; deaths
824 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

ordered by, 354, 710–11; dice, 150, 215–16, 369–70; Medina,

763; disbelievers, 615, 769; divine 731–35; menstruation, 103,
punishment, 780; divorce, 504, 104–5; mines, 225; modesty, 740;
506–7, 513–14, 516–17, 520; dogs, mourning, 527–28, 529; names,
769; dreams, 762–63; drinking 770–71, 785; newborn sacrifice,
practices, 748–50; the East, 769, 381; Night Journey, 760; Night of
772, 777; estate of, 780–81; evil Power, 271–72; nonverbal conduct,
eye, 755–56; facial hair, 758; facing 18n22; oaths of allegiance, 775;
tragedy, 215–17; false oaths, 606; orphans, 759; permission asked
fasting, 253–58, 261–62, 266, 269, of, 526; physical appearance, 746;
321; feeding others, 749–50, 752, Pilgrimage, 285–92, 297, 308, 318–
753; floggings ordered by, 713, 20, 330, 333, 337–38, 341, 344–46,
714; food mishaps, 770; free will, 347n476, 352–53; pious seclusion,
737–38; Fridays, 131–32, 136; 271, 275, 278–79; plague, 736–37;
friendliness and fraternity, 741–42; pledges, 607; poll-tax, 246; prayer,
funeral matters, 209–10, 212–13, 74–75, 80–82, 90, 91, 109–10,
215, 218–20; future followers, 88; 112–20, 123–26, 129, 132, 133,
gifts, 626, 629, 751; gluttony, 748; 135, 139, 141–47, 149–55, 157–58,
gold rings, 743, 754; good character, 161–64, 166–68, 170–75, 177, 181–
739–40, 750; good deeds, 174; 85, 187–88, 191–93, 200; private
graves, 172–73, 218, 734; greetings, conversations, 778; prohibitive
764–65; hair, 759; Hell, 781; hides, payments, 574–75; property
391; horses, 357–58, 372–73; rights, 643; protection grants, 162;
hospitality, 750; hypocrites, 172; pumpkin, 490–91; Quran, 195–98,
illness, 756–58; images (statues, 201, 358, 757; revenge, 621; ritual
drawings), 767; inheritance, preclusion, 255–56; sacrificial
410, 411–12, 416; intoxicating animals, 321–23, 333–34, 377–79,
beverages, 729; invoking God’s 380; safe passage grants, 488–89;
grace on, 169–70; Jesus and the sales, 537, 545–50, 555, 561, 569,
Antichrist, 746; Jews, 734–35, 751, 572, 575, 579–80, 582, 586, 591–
759, 764; jihād, 357–60, 361, 364– 92, 595–96, 651, 745; sandals, 744–
68, 371–73; journey supplication, 45; Satan, 750, 772, 774; seeking
773; judicial matters, 599, 601; God’s protection, 184, 760–61;
Kabah, 312–14; land rights, 620–23, self-reliance, 782–83; shepherding,
657; lapidation, 709–10; left hand, 769; slaughtered animals, 383–84,
747; legal authority, 11, 12–13, 16– 390; slaves, 771–72, 774; snakes,
17, 23, 738; liability, 694; livestock 772–73, 774; sneezing, 766–67;
exchange, 573; lizard meat, 768; souls of believers, 218; speaking
loans, 593–94; lost property cautiously, 776–79; steeping
and animals, 629–30; loving for dried fruit, 728; supplication,
God’s sake, 761–62; Mālik b. Anas 203–6, 353; tomb of, 169, 193n196;
foretold by, 43; manumission, toothbrushes, 107; truth and lies,
421, 423, 425, 427–29, 438, 503; 777, 778; transgender individuals,
marriage, 300, 473–75, 479, 480, 638; travel, 773–74; two-facedness,
482, 487, 490–91, 523–24; martyrs, 779; urination, 106; Visitation, 287,
Index 825

296, 299; vows and oaths, 393, Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b. Ḥazm, 155,
396, 398–400; water access, 620; 547–48
wills, 632, 634; women, 183, 193, Muḥammad b. Ḥabbān, 473
743, 770, 774, 775. See also law: Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. al-Ḥārith al-
Prophetic Taymī: ablution, 85–87; animals,
Muḥammad al-Bāqir, 138n122 294, 302; consecrated state,
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al- 307; divorce, 512; Fridays, 136;
Rahmān b. Abī Ṣaʿṣaʿa al-Anṣārī hair, 760; judicial matters, 617;
al-Māzinī, 221 newborn sacrifice, 382; Night of
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Power, 271; prayer, 150, 198, 203;
Maryam, 308, 568 Quran, 116
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṣaʿṣaʿa, Muḥammad b. ʿImrān al-Anṣārī, 354
756 Muḥammad b. Iyās b. al-Bukayr, 509
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Ḥārith b. Muḥammad b. Jubayr b. Muṭʿim, 115
Nawfal b. ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, 297 Muḥammad b. Kaʿb al-Quraẓī, 217, 739
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Yaḥyā, 53 Muḥammad b. Maslama al-Anṣārī, 238,
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Zayd al- 410, 622
Anṣārī, 169 Muḥammad b. Muslim b. Abī al-Zubayr
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Malik b. Ayman al-Makkī, 43
Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Qurṭubī, 56–57, Muḥammad b. Muslim b. Shihāb al-
58, 65 Zuhrī, 44n1
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad b. Qāsim b. Hilāl, 55, 61
Nawfal, 535 Muḥammad b. Shurayḥ, 53, 64, 70
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Saʿd Muḥammad b. Sīrīn, 123, 195, 209, 347,
b. Zurāra, 696 423, 568
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad b. ʿUmāra, 86, 647
Thawbān, 81, 291, 391, 509 Muḥammad b. ʿUqba, 222
Muḥammad b. Abī ʿAtīq, 496 Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā b. Ḥabbān: alms-
Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr al-Ṣiddīq, 281 tax, 237–38; fasting, 261, 321;
Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr al-Thaqafī, marriage, 510, 526; Pilgrimage,
291–92 355; prayer, 144, 171, 191, 207,
Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr b. Ḥazm, 216, 367; Quran, 355; sales, 582; theft,
413 725
Muḥammad b. Abī Ḥarmala, 213 Muḥammad b. Yūsuf, 140
Muḥammad b. al-Ashʿath, 416 Muḥammad b. Zayd b. Qunfudh, 156
Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, 487 Muḥammad VI, 2, 37, 40–41, 48, 67,
Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Ḥusayn, 381 71–72
Muḥammad b. al-Munkadir, 87, 88, 141, Muḥayṣa b. Masʿūd, 701–2, 703
211, 596, 732, 736, 775 Mujāhid b. al-Ḥajjāj, 349
Muḥammad b. al-Nuʿmān b. Bashīr, 626 Mujāhid b. Jabr, 265, 556, 594
Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b. ʿAlqama, 122, Mukhdajī, al-, 144
776 Mulayka, 162
Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b. ʿAṭāʾ, 764 Mundhir b. al-Zubayr, al-, 497
Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b. Ḥalḥala al-Dīlī, Munkadir b. Muḥammad b. al-
219, 354, 752 Munkadir, al-, 207
826 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Muntajālī, Abū ʿUmar al-, 53, 54, 60, 61, 149, 151–52, 158–61, 165, 167–68,
64, 69 170–71, 179, 182, 191–92, 207;
Muranyi, Miklos, 13n13 precious metals, 555; punishment,
Mūsā b. Abī Tamīm, 555 713–14, 719–20; Ramaḍān, 255;
Mūsā b. Maysara, 161, 589, 763 sacrificial animals, 321–24, 326,
Mūsā b. ʿUqba, 88, 288, 338 334, 377–78, 380; sales, 539,
Muṣʿab b. Saʿd b. Abī al-Waqqāṣ, 95 545–46, 549, 556, 561, 565, 571,
Musaylima b. Ḥabīb al-Ḥanafī, 196 586; self-reliance, 783; sheep,
Muslim b. Abī Maryam, 120, 742 769; slaughtered animals, 384–85;
Muslim b. Abī Mūsā, 743 slaves, 775; snakes, 772; wills, 632
Muslim b. Jundub, 687 Nāfiʿ b. Jubayr b. Muṭʿim, 116, 118, 215,
Muslim b. Yasār al-Juhanī, 737 474, 757
Muṭṭalib b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥuwayṭib al- Najāshī, al-, 211
Makhzūmī, al-, 777 Nuʿaym b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Mujmir, 90,
Muṭṭalib b. Abī Wadāʿa al-Sahmī, al-, 166, 169, 202, 734
153 Nubayh b. Wahb, 300
Muzāḥim, 733 Nufayʿ (slave of Umm Salama), 511–12
Nukhayla (handmaiden of ʿĀʾisha), 760
Nāfiʿ (freedman of Ibn ʿUmar): Nuʿmān Abū ʿAyyāsh al-Anṣārī, al-, 509
ablution, 85, 86, 90–93, 95, 96, Nuʿmān b. Bashīr, al-, 137–38, 626
97, 98, 100, 102; alms-tax, 222, Nuʿmān b. Murra, al-, 170
226, 249–51; bathing, 132, 177;
circumambulation, 313, 316; Qabīṣa b. Dhuʾayb, 407, 410, 484–85
clothes, 743–45; consecrated state, Qaʿqāʿ b. Ḥakīm, al-, 105, 154, 761
281–87, 295, 300–301, 306–7, Qarība bt. Abī Umayya, 496
354; dice, 763; divorce, 494–95, Qāsim b. Aṣbagh al-Bayānī, 56, 58, 59,
497, 505–6, 511, 512–14, 516; 60–61
dogs, 769; eating animals, 387–89; Qāsim b. Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr al-
fasting, 258–60, 262, 264–65; Ṣiddīq, al-: alms-tax, 222, 237;
funeral matters, 212–14, 218, 220; bereavement, 217; booty, 365;
hair, 335–37, 759; illness, 758; camels, 753; consecrated state,
images, 767; intoxicants, 728–30; 284; currency exchange, 447;
jihād, 359–61; judicial matters, divorce, 494–95, 503, 511, 514–15,
620; lapidation, 709; loans, 595; 519; eating animals, 387; fasting,
manumission, 421, 424, 427–28, 320–21; images, 767; inheritance,
435, 467; marriage, 473, 476, 482, 410; manumission, 427; marriage,
490, 503, 523–25; martyrs, 370; 474, 479, 485–86, 491, 500, 525;
miscellaneous matters, 105, 133, mindfulness of God, 780; parental
197, 199, 246, 249, 277, 358, 381, rights, 638; pious seclusion, 277;
629–30, 746, 748, 767, 769, 778; prayer, 77, 117, 118, 121, 129, 146,
mourning, 528; oaths, 397–98; 147, 161, 181–82; punishment,
Pilgrimage and Visitation, 299, 309, 721; sacrificial animals, 334; sales,
318, 332, 337–38, 341–44, 353; 547, 565, 576, 579; vows, 396
prayer, 75, 78–80, 112, 114–17, Qatāda b. al-Nuʿmān, 200n215
119, 121–22, 125, 137, 144–46, Qatāda of Banū Mudlij, 693
Index 827

Qaṭan b. Wahb b. ʿUmayr b. al-Ajdaʿ, 164, 174; sales, 549, 555, 565;
731 travel, 773
Qayjāṭī, Abū ʿAmr ʿUthmān b. Aḥmad Saʿd b. al-Rabīʿ al-Anṣārī, 372
al-, 53 Saʿd b. Khawla, 634
Qays b. al-Ḥārith, 115 Saʿd b. ʿUbāda, 169, 393, 427, 555, 615,
631, 711
Rabīʿa b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Hudayr, 87, Saʿd b. Zurāra, 758
211, 294–95, 307 Ṣafiyya bt. Abī ʿUbayd, 90, 344, 505, 521,
Rabīʿa b. Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, 44n1; 528–29, 532, 620, 713–14, 744
ablution, 86, 103; alms-tax, 225; Ṣafiyya bt. Ḥuyayy, 346
compensation, 686; divorce, 503, Ṣafwān b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Ṣafwān, 721
510; fortitude, 217; inheritance, Ṣafwān b. Sulaym, 85, 87, 132, 138,
417; legal testimony, 600; 766, 778–79
manumission, 423, 429, 449; Ṣafwān b. Umayya, 488–89, 721
marriage, 300, 487, 491, 501, Sahla bt. Suhayl, 534
526; miscellaneous matters, 717, Sahl b. Abī Ḥathma al-Anṣārī, 181,
766; Muḥammad’s appearance, 701–2
746; newborn sacrifice, 381–82; Sahl b. Ḥunayf, 755, 767
Pilgrimage, 286, 327, 336; prayer, Sahl b. Saʿd al-Anṣārī, 749
77, 117, 118, 155, 170; property, Sahl b. Saʿd al-Sāʿidī, 110, 165, 168,
375, 629, 657; sacrificial animals, 254, 475, 506, 770
379; sales, 547; theft, 721; Saḥnūn b. Saʿīd, 9–10, 33–34
unintentional killing, 679, 683 Sāʾiba, 772
Rabīʿa b. Umayya, 487 Sāʾib b. Khabbāb, al-, 524
Rāfiʿ b. Isḥāq, 191, 767 Sāʾib b. Yazīd, al-, 140, 153, 207, 227,
Rāfiʿ b. Khadīj, 491–92, 657, 725 248, 725, 727, 768
Rahimuddin, Muhammad, 2 Saʿīd b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ruqaysh al-
Rifāʿa b. Rāfiʿ al-Zuraqī, 202–3 Ashʿarī, 92
Rifāʿa b. Simwāl, 479 Saʿīd b. Abī Hind, 763
Rifāʿa b. Zayd, 368 Saʿīd b. Abī Saʿīd al-Maqburī, 131, 142,
Rubayyiʿ bt. Muʿawwidh b. ʿAfrāʾ, 211–12, 288, 369, 425, 747, 750,
505 774
Ruqayya, 328–29 Saʿīd b. al-ʿĀṣī, 720
Rushayd al-Thaqafī, 482 Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab: ablution, 90, 93–
Ruzayq b. Ḥakīm, 715, 720 94, 97, 102; adultery allegations,
616; alms-tax, 225, 367; anger,
Ṣaʿb b. Jaththāma al-Laythī, al-, 304 741; breastfeeding, 533;
Ṣabīgh, 365 compensation, 682, 686–88, 693,
Saʿd al-Jārī, 389 694; consecrated state, 281, 284,
Ṣadaqa b. Yasār, 120, 297, 329, 754 301, 302, 308, 324–25; currency,
Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ: ablution, 91, 95; 557, 559; divorce, 497, 498, 504,
death of, 83, 213, 215; eating 505, 512, 515–16, 518, 520,
animals, 388; fasting, 257, 260; 522; fasting, 255, 259–60, 263,
judicial rulings, 617; Pilgrimage, 265; funeral matters, 211, 212;
297, 318; plague, 736; prayer, 145, gifts, 642; good character, 740;
828 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

grooming, 747; inheritance, 416; 740; mourning, 528; omens, 770;

irrigation partnerships, 647; jihād, Pilgrimage, 286, 288, 310, 332,
360–61, 366; judicial matters, 337–38, 356; prayer, 82, 113, 114,
599, 607; killing animals, 387; 125, 131, 158–60, 164; plague,
lapidation, 709–10, 712; livestock 737; punishment, 721; sales, 540,
exchange, 573–74; manumission, 587; taxes, 248
429, 431, 450–51, 467; marriage, Sālim b. Abī al-Naḍr, 736
474, 475, 477, 478, 480, 482, Sālim b. ʿUbayd Allāh, 158
483, 484, 486, 491, 520, 524–25; Salmān al-Fārisī, 640
Medina, 733; miscellaneous Ṣalt b. Zuyayd, al-, 94, 286
matters, 173, 178, 202, 216, 373, Ṣanʿānī, ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-, 56
631, 657, 696; Night of Power, Satan, 81, 175, 201, 491, 759; bleeding,
272; Pilgrimage, 298; prayer, 80, 317; Day of ʿArafa, 353; horns, 206–
82, 113, 119, 124, 133, 142, 144, 7; lefthandedness, 747; nightmares,
149, 150, 151, 154, 155, 160, 171, 763; prayer, 110, 125, 129;
339; property, 643; punishment, protection against, 750; travelers,
728; rings, 754; sacrificial animals, 774; wine, 730. See also Pilgrimage:
324, 348; sales, 549–50, 562–63, casting pebbles at Devil
568, 571, 573, 580, 589, 596; Savant, Sarah, 9n5
slaughtered animals, 384, 385; Sawda bt. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar, 319
supplication, 205; travel, 774; Sawda bt. Zamʿa, 617
Visitation, 296; vows, 394 Ṣayfī (freedman of Ibn Aflaḥ), 772
Saʿīd b. ʿAmr b. Shuraḥbīl, 631 Schacht, Joseph, 11, 13, 20–21, 23, 32
Saʿīd b. ʿAmr b. Sulaym al-Zuraqī, 500 Shabṭūn. See Ziyād b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
Saʿīd b. Isḥāq b. Kaʿb b. ʿUjra, 523 Shaffāʾ, al-, 150
Saʿīd b. Jubayr, 141, 146, 158, 268, 350 Shāfiʿī, Muḥammad b. Idrīs al-, 10, 15–24,
Saʿīd b. Saʿd b. ʿUbāda, 631 32, 33n61, 34, 45; on istiḥsān, 19, 30
Saʿīd b. Salama, 85 Sharīk b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Namir, 147,
Saʿīd b. Sulaymān b. Zayd b. Thābit, 496 188
Saʿīd b. Yasār, 144, 161 Shaybānī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-,
Saʿīd b. Zayd b. ʿAmr b. Nufayl, 215 9n5, 10, 73n2
Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, 124 Subayʿa al-Aslamiyya, 522–23
Salama b. Ṣafwān b. Salama al-Zuraqī, Sufyān b. ʿAbd Allāh, 236
740 Sufyān b. Abī Zuhayr, 732, 768–69
Ṣāliḥ b. Kaysān, 158, 188, 571 Sufyān b. ʿUyayna, 43, 44–45
Ṣāliḥ b. Khawwāt al-Anṣārī, 181 Suhayl b. Abī Ṣāliḥ, 44n1, 89, 398, 615,
Sālim (freedman of Abū Ḥudhayfa), 711, 731, 741, 748, 761–62, 776,
533–34 779
Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar b. al- Suhayl b. Bayḍāʾ, 213
Khaṭṭāb: ablution, 82, 93, 95, 103; Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān,
breastfeeding, 532; consecrated 229
state, 303, 336; divorce, 514–15, Sulaymān b. Yasār: ablution, 94, 98–99,
519; judicial matters, 619, 620; 103, 105; alms-tax, 228, 240, 245;
Kabah, 312; leasing farmland, 657; breastfeeding, 535; compensation,
marriage, 301, 474, 485; modesty, 684–85, 688, 690, 693, 700;
Index 829

consecrated state, 301, 310; Thawrī, Sufyān al-, 211n242

divorce, 505, 508, 511, 514, 519, Ṭufayl b. Ubayy b. Kaʿb, al-, 765
520, 522; evil eye, 756; fasting, Ṭulayḥa al-Asadiyya, 482
263, 321; inheritance, 408, 416, Ṭulayṭilī, Abū al-Qāsim Khalaf b. Yaḥyā
419; irrigation partnerships, 649; b. Ghayth al-, 55, 61
judicial matters, 600, 601, 617,
630; lapidation, 711; lizard meat, ʿUbāda b. al-Ṣāmit, 144, 146, 371, 730
768; manumission, 435, 448–49; ʿUbāda b. al-Walīd b. ʿUbāda b. al-Ṣāmit,
marriage, 300, 301, 474, 482, 484, 358
500, 523, 525; mourning, 528; ʿUbayd Abū Sāliḥ (freedman of al-
Pilgrimage, 291, 308; prayer, 113; Saffāḥ), 587
sacrificial animals, 326; oaths, 399; ʿUbayd Allāh al-Khawlānī, 156
property, 643; sales, 563, 565; ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar b.
punishment, 714; unintentional al-Khaṭṭāb, 161, 332
killing, 678–79 ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUtba b.
Sumayy (freedman of Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd Masʿūd: consecrated state, 304;
al-Raḥmān), 44n1; ablution, 105; divorce, 520; fasting, 258; food
compassion, 750; fasting, 255–56, mishaps, 770; hides, 391; images,
258; miscellaneous matters, 278, 767; lapidation, 711; manumission,
761; prayer, 109, 119–20, 131, 150, 425; marriage, 484; prayer, 106,
166, 201–2; travel, 774; Visitation, 115, 137, 163, 178, 188; poll-tax,
299 248; punishment, 714; sales, 544;
Sunayn Abū Jamīla, 616 vows, 393
Surāqa b. Juʿshum, 693 ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, 201
Suwayd b. al-Nuʿmān, 87 ʿUbayd Allāh b. Abī ʿAbd Allāh, 193
Swartz, Merlin, 2n1 ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAdī b. al-Khiyār, 172
ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿUmar al-Khaṭṭāb, 476,
Ṭalamankī, Abū ʿUmar al-, 58, 61, 66 659–60, 775, 775
Ṭalḥa b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAwf, 510 ʿUbayd Allāh b. Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā al-Laythī,
Ṭalḥa b. ʿUbayd Allāh, 174, 204, 284, 50–53, 55, 59, 60, 65, 67, 69, 73
333, 353, 558 ʿUbayd b. Fayrūz, 377
Ṭalḥa b. ʿUmar, 300 ʿUbayd b. Ḥunayn, 201
Tamīma bt. Wahb, 479 ʿUbayd b. Jurayj, 288
Tamīm al-Dayrī, 140 Ubayy b. Kaʿb, 88, 117, 140, 265, 729
Ṭarābulsī, Abū al-Qāsim Ḥātim al-, 54, Uḥayḥa, 693
58, 61, 66 Umāma bt. Zaynab, 171
Ṭāriq b. ʿAmr, 213 ʿUmāra b. Ṣayyāḍ, 202, 379
Ṭāwūs al-Yamānī, 204, 232, 738 ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Marwān,
Thābit al-Aḥnaf, 521 39, 74, 152; alms-tax, 222,
Thābit b. al-Ḍaḥḥāk al-Anṣārī, 630–31 228, 229, 239; compensation,
Thābit b. Qays b. Shammās, 504 690; divine punishment, 780;
Thaʿlaba b. Abī Mālik al-Quraẓī, 132 divorce, 493–94; free will, 738;
Thawr b. Zayd al-Dīlī, 236, 253, 324, inheritance, 416; Jews, 734; jihād,
327, 368, 384, 396, 522, 532, 622, 359, 366; judicial matters, 601,
727 605; marriage, 476; Medina,
830 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

733; Pilgrimage, 292; poll-tax, 79, 112, 116, 117, 121, 132, 134,
247; punishment, 715, 720, 722; 139–40, 142, 144, 150, 160, 163,
sacrificial animals, 322; sales, 547, 165–66, 177–78, 178, 192, 207,
592 339; punishment, 710, 711–12,
ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Dalāf al- 714–16, 717, 725; Quran, 196,
Muzanī, 641 199; sales, 539, 544, 561–62, 571;
ʿUmar b. Abī Salama, 155, 296, 753 self-reliance, 783; slaves, 774–75;
ʿUmar b. al-Ḥakam, 425 speaking cautiously, 778; strays,
ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb: ablution, 84–85, 630–31; supplication, 785
87, 91, 93, 97, 98–99, 131, 195–96; ʿUmar b. Ḥusayn, 222, 697
affiliated children, 617–19; alms- ʿUmar b. Muḥammad b. Zayd, 125
tax, 226, 231–32, 235, 236, 238, ʿUmar b. ʿUbayd Allāh, 167, 300
239, 243–45; animals, 347–48; ʿUmayr (freedman of Ibn ʿAbbās), 320
annoying the Prophet, 197–98; ʿUmayr b. Salama al-Ḍamrī, 302
apostasy, 615; breastfeeding, 534; Umayya bt. Ruqayqa, 725–26, 775
buying back gifts, 249; clothes, 742, Umm al-Faḍl bt. al-Ḥārith, 115, 320
745–46; compensation, 677, 692– Umm ʿAmr b. Sulaym al-Zuraqī, 633
94, 700; consecrated state, 282, Umm ʿAṭiyya al-Anṣāriyya, 209
284, 285–86, 293, 300, 302–3, 307, Umm Ḥabība bt. Jaḥsh, 105n66, 286, 527
324, 326, 349; currency exchange, Umm Ḥakīm bt. al-Ḥārith b. Hishām, 489
556–57, 558–59; debt, 641; divorce, Umm Hānī, 161–62
494, 512–13, 518, 519, 520–21; Umm Ḥarām bt. Milḥān, 371
drinking habits, 748; fasting, 255, Umm Kulthūm, 209n237, 532, 534,
257, 259, 261, 264; food, 752, 754; 626n881
free will, 737–38; funeral matters, Umm Qays bt. Miḥṣan, 106
210–11, 213; gifts, 626–27; Umm Salama: ablution, 86, 93, 100,
greetings, 765; inheritance, 407–8, 105; circumambulation, 317;
410, 411, 413, 416; intoxicating clothes, 744; drinking practices,
beverages, 727, 729–30; Iraq, 772; 748; evil eye, 756; fasting, 255–57;
Jews, 734–35; jihād, 360, 364; litigation, 599; manumission,
judicial rulings, 599–600, 616, 617– 441, 511–12; marriage, 522–23;
18, 620, 622, 623, 630, 633, 641, mourning, 527–29; prayer, 76,
679, 687, 696; Kabah, 735; loans, 155, 156, 217; Prophet’s death,
594; manumission, 424; marriage, 214; transgender company, 638;
474, 475, 477, 482, 484–85, 487, wedding night of, 478
491, 500, 523–24; martyrs, 369, Umm Sharīk, 516
370–71; Medina, 735; mindfulness Umm Sulaym, 99–100, 347, 749–50
of God, 780; miscellaneous matters, Unays al-Aslamī, 711
307, 365, 659–60, 766; mosques, ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr: ablution, 90, 95,
174, 193; names, 771; oaths, 399; 99; breastfeeding, 532, 533, 535;
parental rights, 638–39; Pilgrimage burial, 215; choosing the easier
and Visitation, 297, 299 311, 315, option, 739; compensation, 681,
316–17, 333, 340, 341–42, 344, 690–91, 693; divorce, 503, 508,
354; plague, 735–37; poll-tax, 514, 521–22; evil eye, 756; fasting,
246–47, 248; prayer, 75, 76, 77, 257, 258–60; gifts, 626; illness,
Index 831

756, 757, 758; inheritance, 418; ʿUthman b. Ṭalḥa al-Ḥajabī, 337

judicial matters, 617; Kabah, ʿUwaymir al-ʿAjlānī, 506
313–14, 317; manumission, 435, ʿUwaymir b. Ashqar, 378
448–49; marriage, 487, 491, 500,
502; Muḥammad’s estate, 780; Wādī Āshī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-, 53, 70
newborn sacrifice, 382; Pilgrimage Wahb b. Kaysān, 118, 751, 764
and Visitation, 290, 293, 296, 317, Wahb b. Masarra al-Ḥajārī, 58–61
318–19, 332, 356; pious seclusion, Wahb b. ʿUmayr, 488–89
275; prayer, 74, 117, 121, 139, 142, Walīd b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Ṣayyād, al-, 777
154, 156, 158, 161–62, 164, 753; Walīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān, al-, 7,
punishment, 715, 721; sacrificial 229, 286, 491
animals, 322–23, 335, 348; sales, Wāqid b. ʿAbd Allāh, 284–85
544; slaughtering animals, 383; Wāqid b. ʿAmr b. Saʿd b. Muʿādh, 729
vows, 394 Wāqid b. Saʿd b. Muʿādh, 215
Usāma b. Zayd, 333, 337, 338, 416, 517, Wāsiʿ b. Ḥabbān, 191
736 Wymann-Landgraf, Umar Abd-Allah, 8,
Usayd b. al-Khuḍayr, 101 18n22, 21–22, 27–28, 32, 677n927
ʿUṭāriḍ b. Ḥājib b. Zurāra b. ʿAdī,
746n992 Yaḥyā b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥāṭib, 85,
ʿUtba b. Abī Waqqāṣ, 617 99, 623
ʿUthmān b. Abī al-ʿĀṣī, 757 Yaḥyā b. Muḥammad b. Ṭaḥlāʾ, 84
ʿUthmān b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, 84 Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Anṣārī, 44n1, 173,
ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān, 127, 132–33, 173, 227; ablution 85, 87, 87, 93,
330, 785; ablution, 87, 88–89, 97; 94, 97, 99; adultery allegations,
alms-tax, 222, 227–28; camels, 616; alms-tax, 229, 237, 238;
631; consecrated state, 284, 300, breastfeeding, 533, 534; charity,
304; currency exchange, 556; 781; clothes, 743; collective oaths,
divorce, 505, 510–12; drinking 702; compensation, 684–85,
habits, 748; fasting, 254, 255; 687–88, 690–91, 693; consecrated
funeral matters, 213; gifts, 642; state, 281, 284, 286, 292, 294,
inheritance, 408, 416; investment 301–2, 307, 310, 324–25, 348–49;
partnerships, 660; judicial currency, 557; divorce, 493–94,
matters, 618; lapidation, 712; 497, 504, 509–10, 512, 515–16,
manumission, 429; marriage, 518; dreams, 763; evil eye, 756;
484–85, 524; Muḥammad’s estate, fasting, 257, 265, 268; food,
780; Pilgrimage and Visitation, 752–54; funeral matters, 210,
289, 290, 299; prayer, 77, 116, 117, 212, 214–15, 217; good character,
150–51, 165, 178, 339; property, 740; greetings, 765; grooming,
647; punishment, 715, 719; Quran, 747, 759–60; horses, 373; illness,
196; sales, 540, 571; slaves, 775; 757, 758; inheritance, 407, 410,
wine-drinking, 727 416, 629; jihād, 359–61, 364,
ʿUthmān b. Ḥafṣ b. ʿUmar b. Khalda, 367–68; judicial matters, 599,
400, 587 630–31, 640; lapidation, 709–12;
ʿUthmān b. Isḥāq b. Kharasha, 410 loyalty, 358; manumission, 423,
ʿUthmān b. Maẓʿūn, 219 427, 428; marriage, 475, 477,
832 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

479, 480, 483, 485, 490, 491, Yūnus b. Mughīth Abū al-Walīd b. al-
523–25; martyrs, 369–71; Medina, Ṣaffār, 52
732, 734, 735; murder, 678, 696; Yūnus b. Yūsuf, 571, 733
names, 770–71; omens, 770;
parental rights, 638; Pilgrimage, Zabrāʾ (freedwoman of Banū ʿAdī), 503
298, 310, 320, 330, 333, 339–40, Zayd (Abū ʿAyyāsh), 549
343, 355; prayer, 75, 79, 109, 113, Zayd b. al-Khaṭṭāb, 629, 748
116, 117–18, 121, 122, 125, 133, Zayd b. Abī Unaysa, 737
137, 144, 150, 151, 152, 158–59, Zayd b. Aslam, 44n1, 197, 249, 302;
161, 164, 170–71, 173, 181–82, ablution, 84, 89, 94, 103, 105;
187, 191, 193; punishment, 714, alms-tax, 238, 239, 250; animals,
719, 725, 728; Quran, 196, 198; 384, 391; apostasy, 614; the
sacrificial animals, 326, 334, 348, bereft, 747; charity, 782, 784;
377–78; sales, 540, 562, 576, clothes, 742, 744; compensation,
592, 596; seeking protection, 687; consecrated state, 282, 303,
760; slaughtered animals, 383– 349; currency exchange, 556;
85; speaking cautiously, 776; divorce, 514; dreams, 763; fasting,
supplication, 203, 205; vows and 256, 257, 264; generosity, 751;
oaths, 394, 396, 399; wills, 633 greetings, 764; grooming, 759;
Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd b. al-ʿĀṣī, 515 illness, 756, 757; inheritance,
Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, 681 411; intoxicating beverages, 729;
Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā al-Laythī, 8–9, 16n21, investment parternships, 659;
37, 41, 47–48, 50, 53, 56, 60, 65– jihād, 357–58; livestock exchange,
68, 69, 73, 278n351 573; loans, 593; marriage, 491;
Yaʿlā b. Munya, 282 martyrs, 369, 370; newborn
Yaʿqūb b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Ashajj, 773 sacrifice, 381; poll-tax, 246;
Yaʿqūb b. Khālid al-Makhzūmī, 330 prayer, 74, 75, 81, 124, 142, 151,
Yaʿqūb b. Zayd b. Ṭalḥa, 710 154, 160, 161, 163, 166, 172, 183,
Yarfaʾ or Yarfā, 163, 413 206, 339; punishment, 713; sales,
Yazīd (freedman of al-Munbaʿith), 629 548, 587–88; seafood, 389; self-
Yazīd b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Hādī, 136, 271, reliance, 783; speaking cautiously,
321, 617 777–78; steeping dried fruit, 728;
Yazīd b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Qusayṭ al-Laythī, supplication, 205, 785
93, 385, 391, 518, 559 Zayd b. Ḥāritha, 533
Yazīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik, 525 Zayd b. Khālid al-Juhanī, 163, 188,
Yazīd b. Abī Sufyān, 359 367–68, 599, 629, 711, 714
Yazīd b. Jāriya al-Anṣārī, 482 Zayd b. Rabāḥ, 193
Yazīd b. Khuṣayfa, 228, 756, 757, 768 Zayd b. Ṭalḥa, 710, 740
Yazīd b. Muʿāwiya, 731 Zayd b. Thābit, 286n365;
Yazīd b. Nuʿaym b. Hazzāl al-Aslamī, 710 compensation, 684; divorce, 496,
Yazīd b. Rūmān, 116, 118, 140, 181 511–12, 514; eating matters,
Yazīd b. Ziyād, 76, 739 385, 390; inheritance, 407–8;
Yuḥannas (freedman of al-Zubayr b. marriage, 97, 476, 477, 480, 483,
al-ʿAwwām), 731 526–27; Medina, 733; oaths on the
Index 833

Prophet’s pulpit, 606–7; prayer, 78, Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān, 294

150, 155, 168; punishment, 725; Ziyād b. Abī Ziyād, 202, 204, 353
Quran, 196; sales, 545–46, 562, Ziyād b. Saʿd, 240, 738, 759
587 Zubayr b. ʿAbd al-Rahmān b. al-Zabīr,
Zaynab al-Thaqafiyya, 544 al-, 479
Zaynab bt. Abī Salama, 100, 105, 213, Zubayr b. al-ʿAwwām, al-, 74n5, 302,
317, 527–28, 599 429, 485, 721, 731
Zaynab bt. Jaḥsh, 105, 211, 278, 527 Zufar b. Ṣaʿṣaʿa b. Mālik, 762
Zaynab bt. Kaʿb b. ʿUjra, 523 Zurayq b. Ḥayyān, 229
Zaynab bt. Muḥammad, 209n237 Zurqānī, Muḥammad al-, 50, 76n12,
Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn. See ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. 143n131, 149n136, 173n167,
ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib 181n178, 745n991, 771n1027
Ziyād b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (Shabṭūn), 50, Zuyayd b. al-Ṣalt, 98
278–79
834 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Index of Subjects
ablution (wuḍūʾ), 30n54, 83–107, 195– against, 377–78; “sacrificial” vs.
96, 338; dry (tayammum), 101–4; “sacrosanct” distinction, 323n438,
with seawater, 85 377n535
adultery (zinā), 183, 418n614, 486, annulment (faskh), 519n750
711; mutual imprecation for apostasy (ridda), 614–15
(liʿān), 506–8; requirement of artisans, legal claims of, 624
eyewitnesses for allegations of, asking permission before entering, 766
506n734, 600, 616, 711. See also assault. See battery
fornication augury (ṭiyara), 758
affiliation (nasab), 695 authority, discursive (amr) vs.
afreets, 760 historical (sunna), 14, 22, 25, 27–
afterlife. See Hereafter 29, 33, 45–46, 123n95
alcohol and inebriation, 379, 727–30;
punishment for, 723; wine-drinking backbiting, 777
(shurb al-khamr), 726, 727–28 barley, 242–43, 250, 549, 563
alms-tax (zakāt), 18, 25n35, 175, 221– bathing (ghusl), 95–100, 103, 105, 107;
51, 263n327, 358; beneficiaries consecrated state and, 281–82;
of, 238–39, 245; collection and on Feast of Breaking the Ramaḍān
enforcement of, 239; exemptions Fast, 177; on Friday, 131–32
from, 226, 245; on food, 563; battery (jināya; jurḥ [sing.]/jirāḥ
prohibition of sharp dealing on, [pl.]), 432n629; committed by
237–38 slaves, 444–45, 469–72, 620,
ʿamal (practice), 21–23, 29, 31, 44, 46, 641; compensation for, 432n629,
47 469–72, 677–700, 705; liability
amr rules, 22, 27–28, 31, 32, 45–46, for, 690–96, 700; retaliation for
104n65, 123n95 (qawad; qiṣāṣ), 679, 682, 686,
angels, 119–20, 131, 166, 172, 203, 689, 691, 699–700; resulting in
734, 756, 767, 777, 780 loss of life, 677–79, 683–84, 687,
animals: compassion for, 751; 692
compensation for killing, 347–49, Battle of al-Ḥarra, 417n612
623–24; eating, 387–92, 487; hides Battle of Badr, 192, 321n437, 353
of dead, 391; liability for damages Battle of Dhāt al-Riqāʿ, 181
by, 694; necklaces on, 754n1001; Battle of Ḥunayn, 287n372, 296n389,
sales of, 571–73, 595–96; 364, 366–68, 489
slaughtering nonsacrificial, 236, Battle of Qudayd, 417n612
383–85; stray or lost, 629–31; wild Battle of Ṣiffīn, 417n612
(ṣayd), 301–6, 351n483, 387–92. Battle of the Camel, 417n612
See also specific kinds Battle of the Trench, 182, 353, 772,
animals, sacrificial (hady; ḍaḥāyā; 773n1030
aḍāḥī), 290n381, 290–91, 294–95, Battle of Uḥud, 369–70, 372, 374
297–99, 308–9, 321–30, 333–36, beasts of burden (dawābb), 597;
347–52, 377–80, 394–95; breaking liability for, 694; rental of, 612–13;
bones of, 382n544; prohibitions wife compared to, 494n718
Index 835

bereft, the (masākīn), 747 418; testimony of (shahādat al-

betting and financial risk-taking ṣibyān), 606, 633
(mukhāṭara), 550, 580–81 Christians, 432–33, 477, 486–87,
beverages. See alcohol and inebriation 508, 615, 677n926, 683, 689–90;
breastfeeding (raḍāʿa) taboos, 531–35 greeting norms for, 764; meat
brigandage (ḥirāba), 722 slaughtered by, 384, 389n556;
burglary, 723 as slaves, 416, 426, 432, 469. See
buried treasure (rikāz), 225–26, 694 also Jesus; People of the Book;
“protected people”
camels: alms-tax on, 221, 231–35, circumcision, 97n56, 680, 747
237, 593; Arabian vs. Bactrian, clothes, 742–46; dyed, 210, 283–84,
232; as booty, 361; care of, 753; 529, 625, 743; for prayer, 137,
as charity, 784; as compensation 155–56, 742n987; women and,
for battery, 677–79, 686–88, 529, 743–44, 775
693, 702; marking of, 219n254; commercial goods, alms-tax on, 228–30,
Muḥammad on, 630; purchased 236
for meat (jazūr), 572; “red” (ḥumr Companions, 12, 16, 17, 45, 46, 74n5,
al-naʿam), 165, 702; sacrificial, 77n17, 97, 768; on compassion,
321–23, 330, 377; sales and 751; on free will, 738; on marriage,
exchanges of, 571–72, 641; stray, 485; on Night of Power, 272;
630–31 nonstandard readings of Quran by,
canonization of religious authority, 23–24 134n108; on Pilgrimage, 291, 293,
carrion (mayta), 384n547, 391–92 309; on plague, 736; on Treaty of
cattle (baqar), alms-tax on, 232–33, 237 al-Ḥudaybiya, 198n205. See also
cats, 85 individual Companions
cereal crops, 221–22, 242–43 compensation for battery. See under
charity (ṣadaqa), 183, 202, 221n256, battery
259, 378–79, 503, 761, 781–83; for Confederates, 353n485
the deceased, 631–32; exceptions consecrated state (iḥrām), 137, 267,
to, 784 280, 281–91, 293–95; contracting
chastity (iḥṣān), 486–87; legal marriage in, 300; cupping in, 301;
condition of, 713n966 eating wild animals in, 301–5;
chess and similar games, 764 killing in, 282nn357–58, 301n396,
children and minors: abandoned 306–7, 347–51; miscellaneous
(manbūdh), 616; affiliated regulations on, 307–11; terms for
(mustalḥaq), 617–19; of divorce, entering and leaving, 281n354;
638–39; financial responsibilities timing of, 293, 297. See also
of, 641; gifts for, 642; illegitimate animals, sacrificial
(walad al-zinā), 214, 418, 424, consensus (ijmāʿ), doctrine of, 18
508, 619–20; of non-Arab mothers contagion (ʿadwā), 758
(muwallad), 487n704; orphans, corpses. See funeral matters
226–27, 759; pristine nature creditors, secured (murtahin), 607–12
(fiṭra) of, 219; prohibition of crops: alms-tax on, 240–42; damaged
retaliation against, 678, 679; by calamities (jāʾiḥa), 546, 547;
repudiated (walad al-mulāʿana), damaged by livestock, 623
836 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

cupping (ḥijāma), 260, 301, 771–72 495–97; euphemisms for

currency exchange (ṣarf). See under (khaliyya; bariyya; bāʾina), 494–95;
precious metals maintenance (nafaqa) due to ex-
custody, 616, 638–39 wife, 516–17; mutual imprecation
(liʿān) and, 506–8; parting gift
dates, 127, 259–60, 372, 649; alms- upon (mutʿa), 511; payment
tax on, 221, 230, 240–41, 250; from wife for (khulʿ), 504–5,
exceptions to alms-tax on, 243–44; 520; waiting period after (ʿidda),
sales of, 545–54, 560; ʿUmar b. al- 301n395; ẓihār (“like back of his
Khaṭṭāb’s fondness for, 752 mother”) declaration, 250n305,
Day of “Am I Not” (alastu), 737n983 262, 396, 500–502
Day of ʿArafa, 204n224, 292, 320–21, dogs, 90, 768–69; compassion for, 751;
326n441, 337; effect on Satan of, payment for, 574–75; prohibition
353 against eating, 390; vicious, 306–7.
Day of Judgment, 88, 110, 205, 526, See also hounds
732, 782n1041 doubt, 12, 45–46, 89n48, 268, 304
Day of Khaybar, 487 dower. See under marriage
Day of Resurrection, 218, 230, 367, dreams, 762–63
369, 372, 737, 743–44, 761, 767 drinking practices, 748–49
Day of the Slaughter of the Sacrosanct duʿāʾ. See supplication
Animals (yawm al-naḥr), 289, 290, “dulūk of the sun,” 78–79
311, 322, 329, 333–35, 340, 343 dusk (shafaq), 80
Day of Watering (yawm al-tarwiya),
288, 328n448 easements (mirfaq), 621–22, 663
Days of Ignorance (jāhiliyya), 1, 248, eating restrictions, 387–92, 753
261, 319, 528, 572, 587–88, 617– eclipses, 182–84
18, 622, 785 elephantiasis (judhām), 540
Days of Minā, 321, 344, 356 embezzlement, 725, 726
debt (dayn), 554n797, 587–90, Emigrants (muhājirūn), 44, 46,
607, 726; alms-tax on, 227–29; 127n102, 153n140, 171, 209,
debtors’ insolvency (iflās), 591–93, 247, 736
641, 661; guaranty of, 624–26; employment contracts (ijāra), 597,
investment parternships and, 669– 652–53, 654, 662, 663
70; martyrdom and, 369; owed to a endowments (ḥabs), 629n885
decedent, 604–5 erotic dreams, 98–100, 103, 283
decedents’ estates (mīrāth), 227, 605, eschatology, 26, 167n156, 184n185
619, 622 evil eye (al-ʿayn), 754–56
defective goods, 625, 639–40
demons, 122, 269 farmland leases (kirāʾ), 657–58
dice. See gambling fasting (ṣiyām), 174, 253–70;
divorce (ṭalāq), 491–92, 493–529; continuous, 262; cupping while,
absolute declaration of (batta), 260; on Day of ʿArafa, 320–21; on
493–94, 515; conditional or day of ʿĀshūrāʾ, 260–61; on Days
suspended, 500n726; delegation of Minā, 321, 356; expiation for
of authority to wife for (tamlīk), breaking, 259–60; illness while,
Index 837

262–63; kissing while, 256–58; gluttony (of nonbelievers), 748

making up missed days of, 264–68; goats (ghanam; maʿz). See sheep and
pious seclusion and, 277; traveling goats
while, 258–59, 263; on feast days, God’s House. See Kabah
261, 321; voluntary, 266–67 gold. See precious metals
Feast of Breaking the Ramaḍān Fast goodwill acts (maʿrūf), 569
(ʿīd al-fiṭr), 177–80, 261, 269, 321; grains (zarʿ), alms-tax on, 240–42, 250
alms-tax in celebration of, 249–51; grapes: alms-tax on, 240–41; sales of,
pious seclusion and, 278; timing of, 549
253–54 graverobbing, 724
Feast of the Sacrificial Animals (ʿīd al- graves of prophets, 169, 172–73, 734
aḍḥā), 177–80, 204n224, 261, 321, greetings, norms of, 764–65
377–78, 380 grooming, 747, 758–59
Festival Days (ayyām al-tashrīq), 321,
338, 340–41, 343 hadith: defined, 7–8; gathering of, 39;
fetuses, human, compensation for Mālik’s contribution to, 10–11, 31,
killing of, 682–83 44–45, 46–47
fetuses, of livestock (maḍāmīn), 380, hair: cutting during Pilgrimage and
385, 573; ownership of, 464, 538; Visitation, 329, 334, 335, 336–37,
sales of, 581 344, 758–60; dyeing, 760; shaving
five pillars of Islam, 25n35, 221n255 during Pilgrimage and Visitation,
Followers (tābiʿūn), 16, 17, 39–40, 45, 283, 286, 308, 309, 322, 326, 330,
74n5, 177n172, 394n568 335–36, 344, 349–50, 378
food: destruction of another’s, 614; Ḥanafī school of law, 9n5, 10, 19, 23,
sales and distribution of, 561–70; 73n2, 604n849, 686n938
stories of, 749–54 handmaidens. See slaves
fornication (zinā), 368, 481, 483, Hereafter, 142, 167n156, 174, 184, 203,
486, 491, 574, 778; exemptions 205
from punishment for, 716–17; Hell, 81–82, 183, 204, 216, 218, 738;
punishment for, 709–14; slander appearance of, 781; fever as heat
of, 715–16. See also adultery of, 758; Ramaḍān and, 269
freedman (mawlā)/freedwoman “helpers” (anṣār), 127n102, 171n164
(mawlāt), definition of, 75n9 Hijazi school of law, 23, 32
free will, doctrine of (qadar), 737–39 hoarding, 230
Friday, importance of, 135–36 homosexuals, 638n905, 713
fruit: pledges of unharvested (thamar), honesty and lying, 778–79
607–9; sale of, 555, 651–52; horses, 357–58, 366, 372–73, 694, 770
steeping dried, 728, 735 hospitality, 747, 748, 750
funeral matters (janāʾiz; janāza; hounds, 305, 387–88, 575
jināza), 86, 209–20, 279, 374–75 Hour of Divine Judgment, 136
ḥudūd, 517n748, 709–17
gambling (qimār), 550, 573, 763–64 hypocrites, 172n166, 185, 206–7
“ghasaq of the night,” 79
ghusl. See bathing ʿīd. See Feast of Breaking the Ramaḍān
gifts, 626–29, 642; buying back of, 249 Fast; Feast of the Sacrificial Animals
838 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

iḥrām. See consecrated state judicial discretion (ijtihād), 19, 22, 27,
ijtihād. See judicial discretion 33n61, 123n95, 366, 680, 684, 686
illicit intercourse. See adultery; judicial rulings (aqḍiya), 599–642;
fornication blameworthiness of, 640; pledges
illness. See sick people and, 607–12; on rape, 613–14;
images and drawings. See statues and witnesses and, 599–604, 606
images jurisprudence: analogical reasoning in,
inheritance rights (mīrāth), 263n326, 18, 19; “old” vs. “new,” 15, 17–18,
401–19, 636–37; of affiliated 20–21, 24
children (mustalḥaq), 618–19;
compensation for battery and, Kabah: Ancient House (al-bayt al-ʿatīq)
692–94, 705–6; gifts and, 629, designation, 316; construction
637–38 of, 312; facing direction of, 19,
intention (niyya), 268n338 192; prayer inside, 337; saluting
insanity (junūn), 540, 678 corners of (istilām), 313–14; vows
insolvency (iflās), 591–93, 641, 661 to walk to, 393–96. See also under
investment partnerships (qirāḍ), 613, Pilgrimage
651n913, 651n913, 659–75 kidnapping, 724
Iraqi legal reasoning. See Ḥanafī school kissing, 95–96, 256–58, 280, 325; the
of law Black Stone, 314
irrigation partnerships (musāqāt), knowledge, search for, 784
649–56
Islamic calendar, 253n308 lambs (sakhl), alms-tax on, 236
istiḥsān (juristic preference), 19, 29–30 land rights. See property
iʿtikāf, 271, 275–80 lapidation (rajm), 482, 487, 602,
709–13
janāba. See ritual preclusion last will and testament (waṣiyya), 617,
Jerusalem: mosque of, 136; praying 631, 632–38, 679
toward, 191–92 law: positive (fiqh), 10, 14; Prophetic
jewelry, alms-tax exemption on, 226 (sunna), 15–21, 44, 277, 299,
Jews and Judaism, 389n556, 477, 681n932, 738; theory of (uṣūl al-
486–87, 508, 615, 649n912, 683, fiqh), 10n9, 14, 33n61
689–90, 734–35, 751, 759; Banū left hand prohibition, 747
Qurayẓa tribe, 773n1030; greeting legal reform, 33
norms for, 764; on judges, 599; leprosy (baraṣ), 540
magical powers of, 757, 761; lessees (mustakrī), 612
Muḥammad on, 734–35, 751, 759, liʿān, 506–8
764; as slaves, 426, 432; Torah, litigation. See judicial rulings
136, 709. See also People of the livestock (māshiya; ḥayawān),
Book; “protected people” 247, 391; alms-tax on, 222,
jihād campaigns, 26, 357–75; booty 231–39; damage caused by, 623;
from, 361–68; prohibitions during, exchanging of, 571–75; injury of
358–60 another’s, 614, 623–24; milking,
jinn, 110, 136, 730, 772, 773 769; pledges of, 608–9
jizya, 246–48, 374 lizard meat, 768
Index 839

loans (salaf), 554, 593–95; investment and, 295, 331, 344–47; pious
parternships and, 662, 671 seclusion and, 279; sex during,
lost property (luqaṭa), rights to, 629–30 103, 106; prostration during, 200
loving for God’s sake, 761–62 metaphysical realism in law, 33n61
mice, 750, 770
Mālikī school of law, 1, 2, 9, 46, 67, 72 mines and mineral wealth (maʿādin),
Manicheans, 615 225
manumission, 249–50, 421–33, 435– minors (ṣaghīr). See children and
61, 463–73. See also under slaves minors
marriage (nikāḥ), 473–92, 739; mīrāth. See decedents’ estates;
consecrated state and, 300–301; inheritance rights
consummation time limit in, 520; modesty, 740; ostentatious clothes,
de facto but invalid (shubhāt 743, 745
al-nikāḥ), 481; “of delegation” monetary units, 223nn160–61
(nikāḥ al-tafwīḍ), 476n684; dower moringa tree (bān), seeds and oil from,
(ṣadāq) and gifts to guardian 308, 581–82
(ḥibāʾ) for, 475–77, 482, 490, mourning, of dead husband (iḥdād),
511, 613; impermissible types of, 527–29
479–86; interfaith, 477, 486, 487, Mudawwana, al-, 1, 9–10, 12, 33–34
488–90, 508, 519; privacy (irkhāʾ murder: collective oaths on, 701–6;
al-sutūr) in, 477–78; nonbinding intentional (qatl al-ʿamd; qatl
contractual stipulations in, al-ghīla), 678, 690–91, 696–97;
478–79; number of wives, limit on, pardons (ʿafw) for, 699; retaliation
520; pious seclusion and, 279–80; for (qawad; qiṣāṣ), 678, 679, 690–
proposals of (khiṭba), 473–74; 91, 697–99; unintentional (qatl
secret, 482; stages of, 476n683; al-khaṭaʾ), 262, 678–79, 690n943,
temporary (nikāḥ al-mutʿa), 487; 691, 693–94, 700
two arbitrators for rifts in, 519; Muwaṭṭaʾ: authenticity of reports in,
wedding feast (walīma), 490–91, 11–15; authority and reason in,
521; wedding night, 478. See also 14–15; definitive form of, 60,
sexual relations 66; importance of, 1–2, 8, 11, 40,
martyrdom, 150, 215–16, 369–71, 45–47; later reputation of, 33;
742n986 on Medinese “practice” (ʿamal),
measurements: of distance, 159n148, 21–23, 25, 27, 29; narrative aspect
258n316; of silver, 221n257; of of, 1, 4; “old” style jurisprudence
length, 75n11; of weight, 96n55, of, 15, 16, 17; overview of, 24–34;
221nn257–58, 251n306, 548n791, previous Arabic editions of, 48–50,
560n803, 578n829, 626n880 68; previous English translations
meat, eating of, 754, 768 of, 1, 2, 3; recensions of, 8–9, 47;
Mecca, conquest of, 162, 258, 353–54 Royal Moroccan Edition of, 1, 2,
Medina: fever in, 733–34; importance 3–4, 25, 41–42, 47–49, 67–72;
of, 7, 731–33; as sanctuary, 733 sourcebooks derived from, 9–10;
menstruation (and lochia), 96n54, taxonomy of texts in, 27–31;
100, 103–6; divorce and, 513–15; terminology of, 21–22, 27, 33;
fasting and, 266, 279; Pilgrimage transmission of, 50–67
840 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Nabateans, 243, 248, 725–26 physicians, compensation from, 680–81

natural phenomena, belief in, physiognomists (qāʾif), 618
188nn189–90 Pilgrimage (ḥajj), 204n224, 267,
newborn sacrifice (ʿaqīqa), 381–82 281–300, 308–56; casting pebbles
Night of Power (laylat al-qadr), 271–72, at Devil, 160n149, 261n321, 283,
743n988 285n361, 286, 332–33, 342–44;
non-Muslims, 26, 205; inheritance and, chanting (talbiya), 287–88,
416–17; marriage with, 486; slaves 291–92, 296; circumambulation
forbidden to, 432n630, 469. See of Kabah (ṭawāf), 285n361, 291,
also People of the Book; “protected 292, 293, 300, 310, 312–16;
people” Circumambulation of the March
nosebleeds, 93, 134 (ṭawāf al-ifāḍa), 327n444, 346–
47; consecrated state, 281–89,
oaths (yamīn), 277n348, 397–400; of 293–300; designated stations for
abstinence from sexual relations consecration (mawāqīt), 286–87,
(īlāʾ), 497–500; of allegiance 296–97, 298, 299–300; Farewell
(bayʿa), 775–76; claimant’s, Circumambulation (ṭawāf al-
601–4; collective (qasāma), 26n41, wadāʿ), 316–17; interference with,
697n951, 701–7; of divorce before 308–12; march between hillocks of
marriage, 519–20; penalties for Ṣafā and Marwa (saʿy), 291n382,
broken, 250; on Prophet’s pulpit 292, 293, 300, 310, 315, 318–20;
(minbar), 606–7; for sacrificial march from Minā to Kabah
animals, 335n464; for sales, 540; (ifāḍa), 286, 344; omissions and
vows, difference from, 397n574 offenses, 350–52; performance for
olives, alms-tax on, 241–42 someone else, 308; performance
omens, signs of bad, 770 of Pilgrimage after Visitation in
orphans. See under children and minors one season (tamattuʿ), 297–99,
329n450, 356; performance of
Paradise, 88, 183, 193, 201, 218, 738; Pilgrimage and Visitation together
Ramaḍān and, 269; two evils (qirān), 290–91, 326; performance
blocking, 777–78 of Pilgrimage only (ifrād), 289–90;
pardon (ʿafw), 699 shortening prayers during, 159;
partnerships in business (shirk; stopping at ʿArafāt and Muzdalifa,
sharika), 569, 590–91 311, 322, 325, 330–32, 338–39;
paternity. See children and minors unrestricted state (ḥalāl) after, 267
penance (kaffāra), 396–99, 426– pious acts, voluntary (nāfila), 267
27nn626–27 pious seclusion (iʿtikāf), 271, 275–80
penis: ablution and, 94–96, 98, 103, plague (ṭāʿūn), 735–37
106, 107; circumcision accidents pledges (ruhūn), 607–12, 732
and, 680 pledgors (rāhin), 608–11
People of the Book (ahl al-kitāb), poll-tax (jizya) on non-Muslims, 246–
247n301; compensation for 48, 374
injuries to, 689–90; poll-tax on, poor people. See bereft, the
246–48 prayer: Afternoon (ṣalāt al-ʿasr), 74–79,
perjury, 600 87, 89–90, 123, 154, 157–58, 172,
Index 841

182, 200, 206–7, 213, 315–16, 338, cycles, 123–26, 129, 133–34, 171,
339, 341; congregational (ṣalāt 267; individual vs. congregational,
al-jamāʿa), 78, 112, 114, 149–56; 149–50; listening to imam, 132–
Dawn (ṣalāt al-fajr), 146–47, 33; magnification of God (takbīr),
172; of Danger (ṣalāt al-khawf), 101n63, 110n71, 113–15, 125,
158, 181–84; Evening (ṣalāt al- 133, 164–65, 178–79, 182, 211–
ʿishāʾ), 76–77, 80, 109, 115–16, 12, 318, 340, 342; miscellaneous
142, 145, 149–51, 157–58, 170, actions, 164–75; missing of,
171, 193, 272, 338–39, 341; Feast 80–81, 188; neglect of, 79–80, 93,
(ṣalāt al-ʿīd), 177–80, 187; Friday 149; prohibitions, 82, 116, 133,
Congregational (ṣalāt al-jumuʿa), 191, 206; prostration, 199–200;
77–78, 131–38, 170, 178, 276, Quran readings, 115–19, 138, 140,
338, 436, 745, 775; funeral (ṣalāt 178–79, 187, 196–97, 199–200,
al-jināza), 275; Midmorning (ṣalāt 338; Ramaḍān and, 139–40, 142,
al-ḍuḥā), 161–63; middle (salāt 177–78; severe heat and, 81–82,
al-wusṭā), 154–55; Morning (ṣalāt 163; shortening and/or combining,
al-ṣubḥ), 74–77, 80–81, 95, 99, 157–75, 337–39; sitting and
109, 111–13, 117, 144, 146–47, standing positions, 120–26, 129,
150–52, 155, 158n392, 165–66, 133–34, 137, 152–53, 263; while
188, 192, 200, 206–7, 213, 282, traveling, 157–61; walking in
315–16, 333, 338, 340, 763; Night front of others, 162–64; women’s
(ṣalāt al-layl), 140, 141–47, 154, attendance, 193
721, 740; Noon (ṣalāt al-ẓuhr), prayer, supererogatory, 102, 111,
75, 76, 77, 124, 126, 134–35, 155, 147n135
157–58, 170, 182, 196, 206, 338– prayer, supplementary, 132, 153–54,
41, 413; for Rain (ṣalāt al-istisqāʾ), 163, 207, 338; before and after the
187–89; for solar eclipse (ṣalāt Feast Prayers, 179; while traveling,
kusūf al-shams), 182–84; Sunset 161
(ṣalāt al-maghrib), 76, 80, 87, 115, prayer, voluntary, 142, 266
145, 151–52, 157–59, 170, 255, precious metals, 202, 246, 447n648;
338–39, 341; Witr (ṣalāt al-witr), alms-tax on, 221–22, 223–26,
142–46, 335 244; clipped coins, 557, 560;
prayer, call to: general (adhān), 80n29, exchanging gold for silver, 555–61;
81, 98, 109–13, 131, 132, 146, 151, leasing land for, 550
177; immediate (iqāma), 80, 90, 98, preclusion (“blocking the means”),
110–13, 133, 146–47, 164, 177, 338 concept of (sadd al-dharīʿa), 18,
prayer, origin of, 74 30n51, 264n329
prayer, performance of: amen (āmīn), predestination, 737–39
119–20; attestation of faith price risks. See betting and financial
(tashahhud), 25n35; 120n90, risk-taking
121–22, 125n101; clothes and profit: lawful (fāʾida), 223, 230, 641;
grooming, 137, 155–56, 162, 759; unlawful (ribā), 556–57, 558, 562,
direction (qibla), 137, 141, 191– 573, 576, 579, 587–88, 594, 661,
93; distractions, 126–27; formal 662n918, 671n922
entrance, 182n180; incomplete prophethood, qualities of, 762–63
842 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

Prophet’s Mosque, 77, 89, 106, 112, retaliation. See under battery; murder
131, 136, 139, 150, 193, 214, 261, ribā. See profit: unlawful
275 rings, 743, 754
property: partition of (qasm), 622–23, ritual law, 25–26; on impurities of
782; reserved for public grazing bodily functions, 96n54
(ḥimā), 785; right of first refusal ritual preclusion (janāba), 96–100,
(shufʿa), 643–48; rights of 102–3, 104, 131; fasting and,
converts, 374; squandering of, 779 255–56
prostitution, 574, 775
“protected people,” 247n301, 248, 690 Sacred Mosque (al-masjid al-ḥarām),
protection from evil, 760–61 136, 193, 289
public highways, 694 ṣadaqa. See charity
pulses (legumes), 242–44, 563 safe passage, grant of (amān), 488–89
punishment: mandatory (ḥudūd), sales (buyūʿ), 537–97; advance
517n748, 709–17; of the many for payment for goods in, 576–
actions of a few, 780 78; bargaining and trading
prohibitions in, 595–96; breaches
Quran, 195–202, 358, 428; on of contract (taʿaddī) in, 612–13; on
amputation for theft, 720–21; on credit, 561–63, 579–80, 589–90;
breastfeeding, 535; on “corruption exchanges of goods in, 575–76;
in the land” (al-fasād fī al-arḍ), of goods at an agreed-upon rate
557n800; on divorce, 493n716, of profit (murābaḥa), 583–85;
519n751; as dower, 475; on fasting, of goods from inventory list,
265; on free will, 737; handling of, 585–86; of indeterminate amounts
195; on inheritance rights, 403–6, (muzābana), 549–51, 569, 581; of
412, 414–15, 418; on lapidation, items by weight, 578–79; material
711, 712; on manumission, 426–27, uncertainty prohibition (gharar)
436–37; on Muḥammad’s wives, in, 538, 545, 546n786, 550, 554,
531n765; on mutul imprecation, 570, 580–82, 583, 589, 597;
506n734; Night of Power in, nonrefundable deposits on (bayʿ
271n340; on pregnancy, 635–36; al-ʿurbān), 537; right of rescission
recitation of, 115–19, 138, 140, (khiyār) of, 586–87; seller’s
178–79, 187, 196–97, 199–200, liability (ʿuhda) for defects in, 539–
211n244, 212, 742; on retaliation, 43, 554; by touch (mulāmasa) or
698; revelations of, 192, 197–98; on by tossing (munābadha), 582–83,
waiting period (qurʾ), 513n741, 514 745n990; two sales in one, 579–80
salutations. See greetings
Ramaḍān: fasting during, 174, 253–70; sandals, 744–45
prayer during, 139–40, 142; timing saʿy, meaning of, 134–35
of, 253. See also Feast of Breaking seafood, 389–90
the Ramaḍān Fast; pious seclusion self-reliance, 782–84
rape, 613–14, 714–15; proof of, 714 semen, 98–99, 526–27; pre-ejaculate
rebellion (baghy), 517n748 (madhī), 94
rental contracts (kirāʾ), 657–58, 662, sexual relations, 97–98, 100, 103, 259,
666–67 477–78, 484–86, 503, 534, 544;
Index 843

abstinence from (īlāʾ), 497–502; 426, 437, 449, 456, 463–64; in

during breastfeeding (ghīla), 535; irrigation partnerships, 655–56;
in consecrated state, 324–25; legal testimony of, 601–3; in
during divorce proceedings, 514; manumission contract (mukātab),
while fasting, 256–58, 259–60; 222, 224, 249, 423, 426, 435–61;
during Pilgrimage or Visitation, marriage and, 486–88, 500,
299–300, 327, 331, 344; during 502–4; masters’ responsibility
pious seclusion, 277, 279–80; for, 363n509; murder and, 678,
withdrawal before ejaculation 692, 706–7; patronage (walāʾ) of,
(ʿazl), 526–27, 620. See also 423, 428–33, 453–55, 468, 503;
adultery; fornication; marriage Pilgrimage and, 332; as pledge for
Shāfiʿī school of law, 10 debt, 610; profiting from, 771–72;
sharecropping (muḥāqala), 549–50 property rights of, 640–41; sales
shaving the head. See under hair of, 537–44; theft by, 720–21, 723–
sheep and goats (ḍaʾn; ghanam; maʿz), 24, 726; unpermitted use of, 640;
385, 769; alms-tax on, 231–38, waiting period (ʿidda) of, 525–26;
240; sacrificial, 377; sales of, 551; warfare and, 363–64, 368; wine-
warfare and, 362 drinking and, 727–28
shunning others (impoliteness, sneezes, blessing for, 766–67
suspicion), 741–42 sorcery (siḥr), 696–97, 772
sick people (marīḍ), 263, 275, 280, 343, soothsayers, 574, 682
510, 635, 756–58; treatment of, speaking cautiously and honestly,
757–58; visiting, 756, 758 776–79
Siege of Ṭāʾif, 489 spendthrifts (safīh), 633
silver. See precious metals spitting, 192
slander (fariyya; qadhf), 715–16; statues and images, 767
indirect (taʿrīḍ), 716; intoxication stoning to death. See lapidation
and, 727 sunna ordinances, 22, 28–29, 31, 32,
slaves: adultery and, 507–8; alms-tax 46, 123n95
on, 245, 249–50, 251; battery supplication (duʿāʾ), 203–6, 353; for
committed by, 444–45, 469–72, evil eye, 756n1003; for illness
620, 641; chattel (ʿabd mamlūk) (ruqya), 757, 758; for Medina, 731;
designation, 250, 435n631, of the wronged, 785
444, 484, 539, 774–75; children
of, 423–24, 619–20; collective testamentary dispositions (waṣiyya),
oaths and, 706–7; compensation 227, 263–64; enforceability of
for battery of, 688–90, 692; special cases, 633–36; of slaves
as compensation for causing in manumission arrangements,
miscarriage, 682–83; designated 456–61, 465–67. See also last will
for manumission upon owner’s and testament
death (mudabbar, mudabbara; testimony. See under children and
tadbīr), 249–50, 426, 463–72, minors; judicial rulings; slaves
632–33; divorce and, 511–12, theft (sariqa), amputation for, 623, 640,
517; female, with children by 719–26; exceptions to, 725–26
master (ummahāt al-awlād), 424, thunder, 780
844 Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ

toothbrushes (siwāk), 107 collective oath ineligibility of, 704;

torment of the grave (ʿadhāb al-qabr), compensation due to, 681–83; in
184–85, 204, 212, 216 consecrated state, 285, 289, 329;
transgender people (muʾannath/ eating companions allowed for,
mukhannath), 638–39 753; killing in warfare, prohibition
transmission of tradition, 11–13; Shāfiʿī of, 359; legal testimony of, 602–4,
on, 16–18 618n866; marriage expectations
traveling, 773–74 of, 739; mosque behavior of, 193,
Treaty of al-Ḥudaybiya, 198n205, 200; Muḥammad’s refusal to
313n420, 379n540 shake hands with, 775; Pilgrimage
and, 295, 331, 355, 524; property
unlawful gain (ribā). See profit: rights of, 474; seclusion of,
unlawful 523–24, 51–32; travel restrictions
ʿumra. See Visitation on, 774; vows by, 399; waiting
urinating and defecating, 83, 88, 90, period before remarriage (ʿidda),
91–92, 106–7, 166, 191, 215 301n395, 474, 481, 482, 491, 505,
510, 512–18, 521–26, widows,
Visitation (ʿumra), 99, 267nn334–35, 479, 482–84, 522–24; wills of,
289, 296–300, 319, 329n449, 635–36. See also breastfeeding;
329–30; prayer during, 137, 159; menstruation; rape; sexual
slaughter of animals during, 334 relations
vows (nadhr), 263–64, 265n331, wounds: to head and face (maʾmūma;
393–96 mūḍiḥa), 470, 677, 681, 685–86,
688–90; to stomach (jāʾifa), 677
water, access to, 620–21 wuḍūʾ. See ablution
wheat, 550, 560–61, 563, 565–67
wills. See last will and testament zakāt. See alms-tax
wine. See alcohol and inebriation ẓihār, 250n305, 262, 396, 500–502
wiping head and ears, 90–91 zinā. See adultery; fornication
wiping leather socks (khuff), 91–92 Zoroastrians, 1, 246, 247–48, 389, 390,
witnesses (shāhid). See under judicial 426, 486, 690
rulings
women: bad omens and, 770; clothing
prohibitions for, 529, 743, 744;
 Harvard Series in Islamic Law, VIII
Program in Islamic Law, Harvard Law School

Previous Publications (Islamic Legal Studies Program)

VII. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale (eds.), Justice and
Leadership in Early Islamic Courts (2017)
VI. Asifa Quraishi and Frank E. Vogel (eds.), The Islamic Marriage
Contract: Case Studies in Islamic Family Law (2008)
V. R. Michael Feener and Mark E. Cammack (eds.), Islamic Law in
Contemporary Indonesia: Ideas and Institutions (2007)
IV. Maya Shatzmiller, Her Day in Court: Women’s Property Rights in
Fifteenth-Century Granada (2007)
III. Nurit Tsafrir, The History of an Islamic School of Law: The Early Spread
of Hanafism (2004)
II. Peri Bearman, Rudolph Peters, and Frank E. Vogel (eds.), The Islamic
School of Law: Evolution, Devolution and Progress (2005)
I. Gideon Libson, Jewish and Islamic Law: A Comparative Study of Custom
During the Geonic Period (2003)