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."
الترجمة الأردية
امام مالک کو یہ روایت پہنچی کہ حضرت عمر بن عبدالعزیز نے مدبر کے بارے میں فیصلہ دیا کہ جب مدبر نے کسی کو زخمی کیا تو مالک اپنا حصہ زخمی شخص کے حوالے کر دے۔ زخمی اس سے خدمت لے اور اپنے زخم کی دیت سے قصاص کرے۔ اگر مالک کے فوت ہونے سے پہلے رقم ادا ہو جائے تو وہ آزاد ہے ورنہ زخمی شخص اسے رکھے۔
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."
امام مالک کو یہ روایت پہنچی کہ حضرت عمر بن عبدالعزیز نے مدبر کے بارے میں فیصلہ دیا کہ جب مدبر نے کسی کو زخمی کیا تو مالک اپنا حصہ زخمی شخص کے حوالے کر دے۔ زخمی اس سے خدمت لے اور اپنے زخم کی دیت سے قصاص کرے۔ اگر مالک کے فوت ہونے سے پہلے رقم ادا ہو جائے تو وہ آزاد ہے ورنہ زخمی شخص اسے رکھے۔
