The word "abrogated" appear 4 time(s) in 3 hadith(s) in Malik's Muwatta موطأ مالك translation. |
| (1) Yahya related to me from Malik from Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Hazm from Amra bint Abd ar-Rahman that A'isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Amongst what was sent down of the Qur'an was 'ten known sucklings make haram' - then it was abrogated by 'five known sucklings'. When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, died, it was what is now recited of the Qur'an." Yahya said that Malik said, "One does not act on this." (Book #30, Hadith #30.3.17) |
| (2) Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "This ayat is abrogated. It is the word of Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, 'If he leaves goods, the testament is for parents and kinsmen.' What came down about the division of the fixed shares of inheritance in the Book of Allah, the Mighty, the Exalted, abrogated it." Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "The established sunna with us, in which there is no dispute, is that it is not permitted for a testator to make a bequest (in addition to the fixed share) in favour of an heir, unless the other heirs permit him. If some of them permit him and others refuse, he is allowed to diminish the share of those who have given their permission. Those who refuse take their full share from the inheritance. Yahya said that he heard Malik speak about an invalid who made a bequest and asked his heirs to give him permission to make a bequest when he was so ill that he only had command of a third of his property, and they gave him permission to leave some of his heirs more than his third. Malik said, "They cannot revoke that. Had they been permitted to do so, every heir would have done that, and then, when the testator died, they would take that for themselves and prevent him from bequeathing his third and what was permitted to him with respect to his property." Malik said, "If he asks permission of his heirs to grant a bequest to an heir while he is well and they give him permission, that is not binding on them. The heirs can rescind that if they wish. That is because when a man is well, he is entitled to all his property and can do what he wishes with it. If he wishes, he can spend all of it. He can spend it and give sadaqa with it or give it to whomever he likes. His asking permission of his heirs is permitted for the heirs, when they give him permission when authority over all his property is closed off from him and nothing outside of the third is permitted to him, and when they are more entitled to the two-thirds of his property than he is himself. That is when their permission becomes relevant. If he asks one of the heirs to give his inheritance to him when he is dying, and the heir agrees and then the dying man does not dispose of it at all, it is returned to the one who gave it unless the deceased said to him, 'So-and-so - (one of his heirs) - is weak, and I would like you to give him your inheritance.' So he gives it to him. That is permitted when the deceased specified it for him." Malik said, "When a man gives the dying man free use of his share of the inheritance, and the dying man distributes some of it and some remains, it is returned to the giver, after the man has died." Yahya said that he heard Malik speak about someone who made a bequest and mentioned that he had given one of his heirs something which he had not taken possession of, so the heirs refused to permit that. Malik said, "That gift returns to the heirs as inheritance according to the Book of Allah because the deceased did not mean that to be taken out of the third and the heirs do not have a portion in the third (which the dying man is allowed to bequeath)."
(Book #37, Hadith #37.5.4b) |
| (3) Malik related to me that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a judgement about the mudabbar who did an injury. He said, "The master must surrender what he owns of him to the injured person. He is made to serve the injured person and recompense (in the form of service) is taken from him as the blood-money of the injury. If he completes that before his master dies, he reverts to his master." Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community about a mudabbar who does an injury and then his master dies and the master has no property except him is that the third (allowed to be bequeathed) is freed, and then the blood-money for the in jury is divided into thirds. A third of the blood-money is against the third of him which was set free, and two-thirds are against the two-thirds which the heirs have. If they wish, they surrender what they have of him to the party with the injury, and if they wish, they give the injured person two-thirds of the blood-money and keep their portion of the slave. That is because that injury is a criminal action by the slave and it is not a debt against the master by which whatever setting free and tadbir the master had done would be abrogated. If there were a debt to people held against the master of the slave, as well as the criminal action of the slave, part of the mudabbar would be sold in proportion to the blood-money of the injury and according to the debt. Then one would begin with the blood-money which was for the criminal action of the slave and it would be paid from the price of the slave. Then the debt of his master would be paid, and then one would look at what remained after that of the slave. His third would b be set free, and two-thirds of him would belong to the heirs. That is because the criminal action of the slave is more important than the debt of his master. That is because, if the man dies and leaves a mudabbar slave whose value is one hundred and fifty dinars, and the slave strikes a free man on the head with a blow that lays open the skull, and the blood-money is fifty dinars, and the master of the slave has a debt of fifty dinars, one begins with the fifty dinars which are the blood-money of the head wound, and it is paid from the price of the slave. Then the debt of the master is paid. Then one looks at what remains of the slave, and a third of him is set free and two-thirds of him remain for the heirs. The blood-money is more pressing against his person than the debt of his master. The debt of his master is more pressing than the tadbir which is a bequest from the third of the property of the deceased. None of the tadbir is permitted while the master of the mudabbar has a debt which is not paid. It is a bequest. That is because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said, 'After any bequest that is made or any debt.' " (Sura 4 ayat 10) Malik said, "If there is enough in the third property that the deceased can bequeath to free all the mudabbar, he is freed and the blood-money due from his criminal action is held as a debt against him which follows him after he is set free even if that blood-money is the full blood-money. It is not a debt on the master." Malik spoke about a mudabbar who injured a man and his master surrendered him to the injured party, and then the master died and had a debt and did not leave any property other than the mudabbar, and the heirs said, "We surrender the mudabbar to the party," whilst the creditor said, "My debt exceeds that." Malik said that if the creditor's debt did exceed that at all , he was more entitled to it and it was taken from the one who owed the debt, according to what the creditor was owed in excess of the blood-money of the injury. If his debt did not exceed it at all, he did not take the slave. Malik spoke about a mudabbar who did an injury and had property, and his master refused to ransom him. He said, "The injured party takes the property of the mudabbar for the blood-money of his injury. If there is enough to pay it, the injured party is paid in full for the blood-money of his injury and the mudabbar is returned to his master. If there is not enough to pay it, he takes it from the blood-money and uses the mudabbar for what remains of the blood-money."
(Book #40, Hadith #40.6.7) |
|
| The word "abrogated" appear 4 time(s) in 3 hadith(s) in Malik's Muwatta موطأ مالك translation. |
