Yahya said that he had heard Malik say, "The undisputed way of doing things in our community concerning pledges is that in cases where land or a house or an animal are known to have been destroyed whilst in the possession of the broker of the pledge, and the circumstances of the loss are known, the loss is against the pledger. There is no deduction made from what is due to the broker at all. Any pledge which perishes in the possession of the broker and the circumstances of its loss are only known by his word, the loss is against the broker and he is liable for its value. He is asked to describe whatever was destroyed and then he is made to take an oath about that description and what he loaned on security for it. "Then people of discernment evaluate the description. If the pledge was worth more than what the broker loaned, the pledger takes the extra. If the assessed value of the pledge is less than what he was loaned, the pledger is made to take an oath as to what the broker loaned and he does not have to pay the extra which the broker loaned above the assessed value of the pledge. If the pledger refuses to take an oath, he has to give the broker the extra above the assessed value of the pledge. If the broker says that he doesn't know the value of the pledge, the pledger is made to take an oath on the description of the pledge and that is his if he brings a matter which is not disapproved of." Malik said, "All this applies when the broker takes the pledge and does not put it in the hands of another."

Yahya said that he heard Malik speak about two men who had a pledge between them. One of them undertook to sell his pledge, and the other one had asked him to wait a year for his due. He said, "If it is possible to divide the pledge, and the due of the one who asked him to wait will not be decreased, half the pledge which is between them is sold for him and he is given his due. If it is feared that his right will be decreased, all the pledge is sold, and the one who undertook to sell his pledge is given his due from that. If the one who asked him to wait for his due is pleased in himself, half of the price is paid to the pledger. If not, the pledgee is made to take an oath that he only asked him to wait so that he could transfer my pledge to me in its form.' Then he is given his due immediately." Yahya said that he heard Malik say about a slave whose master had pledged him and the slave had property of his own, "The property of the slave is not part of the pledge unless the broker stipulates that."

Yahya said that he heard Malik speak about someone who pledged goods as security for a loan, and they perished with the broker. The one who took out the loan confirmed its specification. They agreed on the amount of the loan, but challenged each other about the value of the pledge, the pledger saying that it had been worth twenty dinars, whilst the broker said that it had been worth only ten, and that the amount loaned on security was twenty dinars. Malik said, "It is said to the one in whose hand the pledge is, 'describe it.' If he describes it he is made to take an oath on it and then the people of experience evaluate that description. If the value is more than what was loaned on security for it, it is said to the broker, 'Return the rest of his due to the pledger.' If the value is less than what was loaned on security for it, the broker takes the rest of his due from the pledger. If the value is the exact amount of the loan, the pledge is compensated for by the loan." Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about two men who have a dispute about an amount of money loaned on the security of a pledge - the pledger claiming that he pledged it for ten dinars and the broker insisting that he took the pledge as security for twenty dinars, and the pledge is clearly in the possession of the broker - is that the broker is made to take an oath when the value of the pledge is fully known. If the value of the pledge is exactly what he swore that he had loaned on security for it, the broker takes the pledge as his right. He is more entitled to take precedence with an oath since he has possession of the pledge. If the owner of the pledge wants to give him the amount which he swore that he was owed, he can take the pledge back. If the pledge is worth less than the twenty dinars he loaned, then it is said to the pledger, 'Either you give him what he has sworn to and take your pledge back, or you swear to what you said you pledged it for.' If the pledger takes the oath, then what the broker has increased over the value of the pledge will become invalid. If the pledger does not take an oath, he must pay what the broker swore to." Malik said, "If a pledge given on security for a loan perishes, and both parties deny each other's rights, with the broker who is owed the loan saying that he gave twenty dinars, and the pledger who owes the loan saying that he was given only ten, and with the broker who is owed the loan saying the pledge was worth ten dinars, and the broker who owes the loan saying it was worth twenty, then the broker who is owed the loan is asked to describe the pledge. If he describes it, he must take an oath on its description. Then people with experience of it evaluate that description. If the value of the pledge is estimated to be more than what the broker claims it was, he takes an oath as to what he claimed, and the pledger is given what is over from the value of the pledge. If its value is less than what the broker claims of it, he is made to take an oath as to what he claims is his. Then he demands settlement according to the actual value of the pledge. The one who owes the loan is then made to take an oath on the extra amount which remains owing against him to the claimant after the price of the pledge is reached. That is because the broker becomes a claimant against the pledger. If he takes an oath, the rest of what the broker swore to of what he claimed above the value of the pledge is invalidated. If he draws back, he is bound to pay what remains due to the broker after the value of the pledge."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about a man who rents an animal for a journey to a specified place and then he goes beyond that place and further, is that the owner of the animal has a choice. If he wants to take extra rent for his animal to cover the distance overstepped, he is given that on top of the first rent and the animal is returned. If the owner of the animal likes to sell the animal from the place where he over-steps, he has the price of the animal on top of the rent. If, however, the hirer rented the animal to go and return and then he overstepped when he reached the city to which he rented him, the owner of the animal only has half the first rent. That is because half of the rent is going, and half of it is returning. If he oversteps with the animal, only half of the first rent is obliged for him. Had the animal died when he reached the city to which it was rented, the hirer would not be liable and the renter would only have half the rent." Malik said, "That is what is done with people who overstep and dispute about what they took the animal for." Malik said, "It is also like that with some one who takes qirad-money from his companion. The owner of the property says to him, 'Do not buy such-and-such animals or such- and-such goods.' He names them and forbids them and disapproves of his money being invested in them. The one who takes the money then buys what he was forbidden. By that, he intends to be liable for the money and take the profit of his companion. When he does that, the owner of the money has an option. If he wants to enter with him in the goods according to the original stipulations between them about the profit, he does so. If he likes, he has his capital guaranteed against the one who took the capital and over stepped the mark." Malik said, "It is also like that with a man with whom another man invests some goods. The owner of the property orders him to buy certain goods for him which he names. He differs, and buys with the goods something other than what he was ordered to buy. He exceeded his orders. The owner of the goods has an option. If he wants to take what was bought with his property, he takes it. If he wants the partner to be liable for his capital he has that."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about someone who consumed an animal without the permission of its owner, is that he must pay its price on the day he consumed it. He is not obliged to replace it with a similar animal nor does he compensate the owner with any kind of animal. He must pay its price on the day it was consumed, and giving the value is more equitable in compensation for animals and goods." Yahya said that he heard Malik say about someone who consumes some food without the permission of its owner, "He returns to the owner a like weight of the same kind of food. Food is in the position of gold and silver. Gold and silver are returned with gold and silver. The animal is not in the position of gold in that. What distinguishes between them is the sunna and the behaviour which is in force. Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "If a man is entrusted with some wealth and then trades with it for himself and makes a profit, the profit is his because he is responsible for the property until he returns it to its owner. "

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "The way of doing things generally agreed upon in our community in the case of a man who dies and has sons and one of them claims, 'My father confirmed that so-and- so was his son,' is that the relationship is not established by the testimony of one man, and the confirmation of the one who confirmed it is only permitted as regards his own share in the division of his father's property. The one testified for is only given his due from the share of the testifier." Malik said, "An example of this is that a man dies leaving two sons, and 600 dinars. Each of them takes 300 dinars. Then one of them testifies that his deceased father confirmed that so-and-so was his son. The one who testifies is obliged to give 100 dinars to the one thus connected. This is half of the inheritance of the one thought to be related, had he been related. If the other confirms him, he takes the other 100 and so he completes his right and his relationship is established. His position is similar to that of a woman who confirms a debt against her father or her husband and the other heirs deny it. She must pay to the person whose debt she confirms, the amount according to her share of the full debt, had it been confirmed against all the heirs. If the woman inherits an eighth, she pays the creditor an eighth of his debt. If a daughter inherits a half, she pays the creditor half of his debt. Whichever women confirm him, pay him according to this. Malik said, "If a man's testimony is in agreement with what the woman testified to, that so- and-so had a debt against his father, the creditor is made to take an oath with one witness and he is given all his due. This is not the position with women because a man's testimony is allowed and the creditor must take an oath with the testimony of his witness, and take all his due. If he does not take an oath, he only takes from the inheritance of the one who confirmed him according to his share of the debt, because he confirmed his right and the other heirs denied it. It is permitted for him to confirm it."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about injury to a domestic animal, is that the one who injures it must pay the amount by which he has diminished the animal's price." Yahya said that he heard Malik speak about a camel who attacked a man and he feared for himself and killed it or hamstrung it. He said, "If he has a clear proof that it was heading for him and had attacked him, there are no damages against him. If there is no clear proof except his word, he is responsible for the camel."

Yahya related that he heard Malik say that if a man gave a washer a garment to dye and he dyed it, and then the owner of the garment said, "I did not order you to use this dye," and the washer protested that he had done so, then the washer was to be believed. It was the same with the tailor and the gold-smith. They took an oath about it unless they produced something they would not normally have been employed to do. In that situation their statement was not allowed and the owner of the garment had to take an oath . If he rejected it and refused to swear, then the dyer was made to take an oath. Yahya said, "I heard Malik speak about a dyer who was given a garment and he made a mistake and gave it to another man and the one to whom he gave it wore it. He said, 'The one who wore it has no damages against him, and the washer pays damages to the owner of the garment. That is when the man wears the garment which was given him without recognizing that it is not his. If he wears it knowing that it is not his garment, he is responsible for it.' "

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about a man who refers a creditor to another man for the debt he owes him is that if the one referred to goes bankrupt or dies, and does not leave enough to pay the debt, then the creditor has nothing against the one who referred him and the debt does not return to the first party." Malik said, "This is the way of doing things about which there is no dispute in our community." Malik said, "If a man has his debt to somebody taken on for him by another man and then the man who took it on dies or goes bankrupt, then whatever was taken on by him returns to the first debtor."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "If a man buys a garment which has a defect, a burn or something else, which the seller knows about and that is testified against him or he confirms it, and the man who has bought it causes a new tear which decreases the price of the garment, and then he learns about the original defect, he can return it to the seller and he is not liable for his tearing it. "If a man buys a garment which has a defect of a burn or flaw, and the one who sold it to him claims that he did not know about it, and the buyer has cut the garment or dyed it, then the buyer has an option . If he wishes, he can have a reduction according to what the burn or flaw detracts from the price of the garment and he can keep the garment, or if he wishes to pay damages for what the cutting or dyeing has decreased of the price of the garment and return it, he can do so. "If the buyer has dyed the garment with a dye which increases the value, the buyer has an option. If he wishes, he has a reduction from the price of the garment according to what the defect diminishes or if he wishes to become a partner with the one who sold the garment he does so. The price of the garment with a burn or flaw is looked at. If the price is ten dirhams, and the amount by which the dyeing increased the value is five dirhams, then they are partners in the garment, each according to his share. In this reckoning is the amount by which the dyeing increases the price of the garment."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about some one who gives a gift not intending a reward is that he calls witnesses to it. It is affirmed for the one to whom it has been given unless the giver dies before the one to whom it was given receives the gift." He said, "If the giver wants to keep the gift after he has had it witnessed, he cannot. If the recipient claims it from him, he takes it." Malik said, "If some one gives a gift and then withdraws it and the recipient brings a witness to testify for him that he was given the gift, be it goods, gold, silver or animals, the recipient is made to take an oath. If he refuses, the giver is made to take an oath. If he also refuses to take an oath, he gives to the recipient what he claims from him if he has at least one witness. If he does not have a witness, he has nothing . " Malik said, "If someone gives a gift not expecting anything in return and then the recipient dies, the heirs are in his place. If the giver dies before the recipient has received his gift, the recipient has nothing. That is because he was given a gift which he did not take possession of. If the giver wants to keep it, and he has called witnesses to the gift, he cannot do that. If the recipient claims his right he takes it."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "The way of doing things in our community about which there is no dispute, is that if a man gives sadaqa to his son - sadaqa which the son takes possession of or which is in the father's keeping and the father has had his sadaqa witnessed, he cannot take back any of it because he cannot reclaim any sadaqa." Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "The generally agreed-on way of doing things in our community in the case of someone who gives his son a gift or grants him a gift which is not sadaqa is that he can take it back as long as the child does not start a debt, which people claim from him, and which they trust him for on the strength of the gift his father has given him. The father cannot take back anything from the gift after debts are started against it. "If a man gives his son or daughter something and a woman marries the man, and she only marries him for the wealth and the property which his father has given him and so the father wants to take that back, or, if a man marries a woman whose father has given her a gift and he marries her with an increased bride-price because of the wealth and property that her father has given, then the father says, 'I will take that back,' then the father cannot take back any of that from the son or daughter if it is as I have described to you."

وَحَدَّثَنِي مَالِكٌ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، ‏.‏ أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ عُمَرَ، وَرِثَ مِنْ حَفْصَةَ بِنْتِ عُمَرَ دَارَهَا قَالَ وَكَانَتْ حَفْصَةُ قَدْ أَسْكَنَتْ بِنْتَ زَيْدِ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ مَا عَاشَتْ فَلَمَّا تُوُفِّيَتْ بِنْتُ زَيْدٍ قَبَضَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ الْمَسْكَنَ وَرَأَى أَنَّهُ لَهُ ‏.‏

Malik related to me from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar inherited the house of Hafsa bint Umar. He said, "Hafsa gave lodging to the daughter of Zayd ibn al-Khattab for as long as she lived. When the daughter of Zayd died, Abdullah ibn Umar took possession of the dwelling and considered that it was his."

حَدَّثَنِي مَالِكٌ، عَنْ رَبِيعَةَ بْنِ أَبِي عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، عَنْ يَزِيدَ، مَوْلَى الْمُنْبَعِثِ عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ الْجُهَنِيِّ، أَنَّهُ قَالَ جَاءَ رَجُلٌ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَسَأَلَهُ عَنِ اللُّقَطَةِ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ ‏"‏ اعْرِفْ عِفَاصَهَا وَوِكَاءَهَا ثُمَّ عَرِّفْهَا سَنَةً فَإِنْ جَاءَ صَاحِبُهَا وَإِلاَّ فَشَأْنَكَ بِهَا ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ فَضَالَّةُ الْغَنَمِ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ قَالَ ‏"‏ هِيَ لَكَ أَوْ لأَخِيكَ أَوْ لِلذِّئْبِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ فَضَالَّةُ الإِبِلِ قَالَ ‏"‏ مَا لَكَ وَلَهَا مَعَهَا سِقَاؤُهَا وَحِذَاؤُهَا تَرِدُ الْمَاءَ وَتَأْكُلُ الشَّجَرَ حَتَّى يَلْقَاهَا رَبُّهَا ‏"‏ ‏.‏

Malik related to me from Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman from Yazid, the mawla of al-Munbaith that Zayd ibn Khalid al-Juhani said, "A man came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and asked him about finds. He said, 'Memorize the characteristics of the object found, then publicise it for a year. If the owner comes, give it to him. If not, then it is your business.' He said, 'What about lost sheep, Messenger of Allah?' He said, 'They are yours, your brother's or the wolf's.' He said, 'And the lost camel?' He said, 'It's none of your concern. It has its water and its feet. It will reach water and eat trees until its owner finds it.' "

وَحَدَّثَنِي مَالِكٌ، عَنْ أَيُّوبَ بْنِ مُوسَى، عَنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ بَدْرٍ الْجُهَنِيِّ، أَنَّ أَبَاهُ، أَخْبَرَهُ أَنَّهُ، نَزَلَ مَنْزِلَ قَوْمٍ بِطَرِيقِ الشَّامِ فَوَجَدَ صُرَّةً فِيهَا ثَمَانُونَ دِينَارًا فَذَكَرَهَا لِعُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ فَقَالَ لَهُ عُمَرُ عَرِّفْهَا عَلَى أَبْوَابِ الْمَسَاجِدِ وَاذْكُرْهَا لِكُلِّ مَنْ يَأْتِي مِنَ الشَّأْمِ سَنَةً فَإِذَا مَضَتِ السَّنَةُ فَشَأْنَكَ بِهَا ‏.‏

Malik related to me from Ayyub ibn Musa from Muawiya ibn Abdullah ibn Badr al-Juhani that his father informed him that he stopped with a people on the way to Syria and he found a purse which had eighty dinars in it. He mentioned that to Umar ibn al-Khattab. Umar said to him, "Announce it at the doors of the mosques and mention it to everyone who comes from Syria for a year. When a year passes, it is your business."

وَحَدَّثَنِي مَالِكٌ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، أَنَّ رَجُلاً، وَجَدَ لُقَطَةً فَجَاءَ إِلَى عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ فَقَالَ لَهُ إِنِّي وَجَدْتُ لُقَطَةً فَمَاذَا تَرَى فِيهَا فَقَالَ لَهُ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ عَرِّفْهَا ‏.‏ قَالَ قَدْ فَعَلْتُ ‏.‏ قَالَ زِدْ ‏.‏ قَالَ قَدْ فَعَلْتُ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ لاَ آمُرُكَ أَنْ تَأْكُلَهَا وَلَوْ شِئْتَ لَمْ تَأْخُذْهَا ‏.‏

Malik related to me from Nafi that a man found something and went to Abdullah ibn Umar and said to him, "I have found something. What do you think I should do about it?" Abdullah ibn Umar said to him, "Publicise it!" He said, "I have done so." He said, "Do it again." He said, "I have done so." Abdullah said, "I do not order you to use it. If you wished, you could have left it."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about a slave who finds something and uses it before the term which is set for finds has been reached, and that is a year, is that it is against his person. Either his master gives the price of what his slave has used, or he surrenders his slave to them as compensation. If he withheld it until the term was reached which is set for finds and he used it, it is a debt against him which follows him and it is not against his person and there is nothing against his master in it."

وَحَدَّثَنِي مَالِكٌ، عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ سَعِيدٍ، عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ بْنِ يَسَارٍ، أَنَّ ثَابِتَ بْنَ الضَّحَّاكِ الأَنْصَارِيَّ، أَخْبَرَهُ ‏.‏ أَنَّهُ، وَجَدَ بَعِيرًا بِالْحَرَّةِ فَعَقَلَهُ ثُمَّ ذَكَرَهُ لِعُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ فَأَمَرَهُ عُمَرُ أَنْ يُعَرِّفَهُ ثَلاَثَ مَرَّاتٍ فَقَالَ لَهُ ثَابِتٌ إِنَّهُ قَدْ شَغَلَنِي عَنْ ضَيْعَتِي ‏.‏ فَقَالَ لَهُ عُمَرُ أَرْسِلْهُ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتَهُ ‏.‏

Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said from Sulayman ibn Yasar that Thabit ibn ad-Dahhak al-Ansari told him that he had found a camel at Harra, so he hobbled it and mentioned it to Umar ibn al-Khattab and Umar ordered him to make it known three times. Thabit said to him, "That would distract me from the running of my estate." Umar said to him, "Then let it go where you found it."

وَحَدَّثَنِي مَالِكٌ، عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ سَعِيدٍ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ الْمُسَيَّبِ، أَنَّ عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ، قَالَ وَهُوَ مُسْنِدٌ ظَهْرَهُ إِلَى الْكَعْبَةِ مَنْ أَخَذَ ضَالَّةً فَهُوَ ضَالٌّ ‏.‏

Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said from Said ibn al-Musayyab that Umar ibn al-Khattab said while he was leaning his back against the Kaba, "Whoever takes a stray is astray."

وَحَدَّثَنِي مَالِكٌ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ ابْنَ شِهَابٍ، يَقُولُ كَانَتْ ضَوَالُّ الإِبِلِ فِي زَمَانِ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ إِبِلاً مُؤَبَّلَةً تَنَاتَجُ لاَ يَمَسُّهَا أَحَدٌ حَتَّى إِذَا كَانَ زَمَانُ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ عَفَّانَ أَمَرَ بِتَعْرِيفِهَا ثُمَّ تُبَاعُ فَإِذَا جَاءَ صَاحِبُهَا أُعْطِيَ ثَمَنَهَا ‏.‏

Malik related to me that he heard Ibn Shihab say, "The stray camels in the time of Umar ibn al-Khattab were numerous and left alone. No one touched them until the time of Uthman ibn Affan. He ordered that they be publicised and then sold, and if the owner came afterwards, he was given their price."