Home
Hadith
Hadith 35086
Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar
that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "If a slave who has wealth is sold,
that wealth belongs to the seller unless the buyer stipulates its
inclusion."
Malik said, "The generally agreed upon way of
doing things among us is that if the buyer stipulates the inclusion of
the slave's property whether it be cash, debts, or goods of known or
unknown value, then they belong to the buyer, even if the slave
possesses more than that for which he was purchased, whether he was
bought for cash, as payment for a debt, or in exchange for goods. This
is possible because a master is not asked to pay zakat on his slave's
property. If a slave has a slave-girl, it is halal for him to have
intercourse with her by his right of possession. If a slave is freed
or put under contract (kitaba) to purchase his freedom, then his
property goes with him. If he becomes bankrupt, his creditors take his
property and his master is not liable for any of his debts."
Muwatta Malik Book 31, Hadith 2
← Previous Hadith
Yahya related to me from Malik from a reliable source from Amr
ibn Shuayb from his father from his father's father that the Messenger
of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade
transactions in which nonrefundable deposits were paid.
Malik
said, "That is, in our opinion, but Allah knows best, that for
instance, a man buys a slave or slave-girl or rents an animal and then
says to the person from whom he bought the slave or leased the animal,
'I will give you a dinar or a dirham or whatever on the condition that
if I actually take the goods or ride what I have rented from you, then
what I have given you already goes towards payment of the goods or
hire of the animal. If I do not purchase the goods or hire the animal,
then what I have given you is yours without liability on your part.' "
Malik said, "According to the way of doing things with us
there is nothing wrong in bartering an arabic speaking merchant slave
for abyssinian slaves or any other type that are not his equal in
eloquence, trading, shrewdness, and know-how. There is nothing wrong
in bartering one slave like this for two or more other slaves with a
stated delay in the terms if he is clearly different. If there is no
appreciable difference between the slaves, two should not be bartered
for one with a stated delay in the terms even if their racial type is
different."
Malik said, "There is nothing wrong in selling
what has been bought in such a transaction before taking possession of
all of it as long as you receive the price for it from some one other
than the original owner."
Malik said, "An addition to the
price must not be made for a foetus in the womb of its mother when she
is sold because that is gharar (an uncertain transaction). It is not
known whether the child will be male or female, good-looking or ugly,
normal or handicapped, alive or dead. All these things will affect the
price."
Malik said that in a transaction where a slave or
slave-girl was bought for one hundred dinars with a stated credit
period that if the seller regretted the sale there was nothing wrong
in him asking the buyer to revoke it for ten dinars which he would pay
him immediately or after a period and he would forgo his right to the
hundred dinars which he was owed.
Malik said, "However, if
the buyer regrets and asks the seller to revoke the sale of a slave or
slave-girl in consideration of which he will pay an extra ten dinars
immediately or on credit terms, extended beyond the original term,
that should not be done. It is disapproved of because it is as if, for
instance, the seller is buying the one hundred dinars which is not yet
due on a year's credit term before the year expires for a slave-girl
and ten dinars to be paid immediately or on credit term longer than
the year. This falls into the category of selling gold for gold when
delayed terms enter into it."
Malik said that it was not
proper for a man to sell a slave-girl to another man for one hundred
dinars on credit and then to buy her back for more than the original
price or on a credit term longer than the original term for which he
sold her. To understand why that was disapproved of in that case, the
example of a man who sold a slave-girl on credit and then bought her
back on a credit term longer than the original term was looked at. He
might have sold her for thirty dinars with a month to pay and then buy
her back for sixty dinars with a year or half a year to pay. The
outcome would only be that his goods would have returned to him just
like they were and the other party would have given him thirty dinars
on a month's credit against sixty dinars on a year or half a year's
credit. That was not to be done. Muwatta Malik Book 31, Hadith 1
Next Hadith →
Yahya related to me from Malik from Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr ibn
Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Hazm that Aban ibn Uthman and Hisham ibn Ismail
used to mention in their khutbas built-in liability agreements in the
sale of slaves, to cover both a three day period and a similar clause
covering a year. Malik explained, "The defects a lave or slave-girl
are found to have from the time they are bought until the end of the
three days are the responsibility of the seller. The year agreement is
to cover insanity, leprosy, and loss of limbs due to disease. After a
year, the seller is free from any liability."
Malik said,"An
inheritor or someone else who sells a slave or slave-girl without any
such built-in guarantee is not responsible for any fault in the slave
and there is no liability agreement held against him unless he was
aware of a fault and concealed it. If he was aware of a fault, the
lack of guarantee does not protect him. The purchase is returned. In
our view, built-in liability agreements only apply to the purchase of
slaves." Muwatta Malik Book 31, Hadith 3