حَدَّثَنِي مَالِكٌ، أَنَّهُ بَلَغَهُ أَنَّ عُمَرَ بْنَ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ، قَضَى فِي الْمُدَبَّرِ إِذَا جَرَحَ أَنَّ لِسَيِّدِهِ أَنْ يُسَلِّمَ مَا يَمْلِكُ مِنْهُ إِلَى الْمَجْرُوحِ فَيَخْتَدِمُهُ الْمَجْرُوحُ وَيُقَاصُّهُ بِجِرَاحِهِ مِنْ دِيَةِ جَرْحِهِ فَإِنْ أَدَّى قَبْلَ أَنْ يَهْلِكَ سَيِّدُهُ رَجَعَ إِلَى سَيِّدِهِ ‏.‏ قَالَ مَالِكٌ وَالأَمْرُ عِنْدَنَا فِي الْمُدَبَّرِ إِذَا جَرَحَ ثُمَّ هَلَكَ سَيِّدُهُ وَلَيْسَ لَهُ مَالٌ غَيْرُهُ أَنَّهُ يُعْتَقُ ثُلُثُهُ ثُمَّ يُقْسَمُ عَقْلُ الْجَرْحِ أَثْلاَثًا فَيَكُونُ ثُلُثُ الْعَقْلِ عَلَى الثُّلُثِ الَّذِي عَتَقَ مِنْهُ وَيَكُونُ ثُلُثَاهُ عَلَى الثُّلُثَيْنِ اللَّذَيْنِ بِأَيْدِي الْوَرَثَةِ إِنْ شَاءُوا أَسْلَمُوا الَّذِي لَهُمْ مِنْهُ إِلَى صَاحِبِ الْجَرْحِ وَإِنْ شَاءُوا أَعْطَوْهُ ثُلُثَىِ الْعَقْلِ وَأَمْسَكُوا نَصِيبَهُمْ مِنَ الْعَبْدِ وَذَلِكَ أَنَّ عَقْلَ ذَلِكَ الْجَرْحِ إِنَّمَا كَانَتْ جِنَايَتُهُ مِنَ الْعَبْدِ وَلَمْ تَكُنْ دَيْنًا عَلَى السَّيِّدِ فَلَمْ يَكُنْ ذَلِكَ الَّذِي أَحْدَثَ الْعَبْدُ بِالَّذِي يُبْطِلُ مَا صَنَعَ السَّيِّدُ مِنْ عِتْقِهِ وَتَدْبِيرِهِ فَإِنْ كَانَ عَلَى سَيِّدِ الْعَبْدِ دَيْنٌ لِلنَّاسِ مَعَ جِنَايَةِ الْعَبْدِ بِيعَ مِنَ الْمُدَبَّرِ بِقَدْرِ عَقْلِ الْجَرْحِ وَقَدْرِ الدَّيْنِ ثُمَّ يُبَدَّأُ بِالْعَقْلِ الَّذِي كَانَ فِي جِنَايَةِ الْعَبْدِ فَيُقْضَى مِنْ ثَمَنِ الْعَبْدِ ثُمَّ يُقْضَى دَيْنُ سَيِّدِهِ ثُمَّ يُنْظَرُ إِلَى مَا بَقِيَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ مِنَ الْعَبْدِ فَيَعْتِقُ ثُلُثُهُ وَيَبْقَى ثُلُثَاهُ لِلْوَرَثَةِ وَذَلِكَ أَنَّ جِنَايَةَ الْعَبْدِ هِيَ أَوْلَى مِنْ دَيْنِ سَيِّدِهِ وَذَلِكَ أَنَّ الرَّجُلَ إِذَا هَلَكَ وَتَرَكَ عَبْدًا مُدَبَّرًا قِيمَتُهُ خَمْسُونَ وَمِائَةُ دِينَارٍ وَكَانَ الْعَبْدُ قَدْ شَجَّ رَجُلاً حُرًّا مُوضِحَةً عَقْلُهَا خَمْسُونَ دِينَارًا وَكَانَ عَلَى سَيِّدِ الْعَبْدِ مِنَ الدَّيْنِ خَمْسُونَ دِينَارًا ‏.‏ قَالَ مَالِكٌ فَإِنَّهُ يُبْدَأُ بِالْخَمْسِينَ دِينَارًا الَّتِي فِي عَقْلِ الشَّجَّةِ فَتُقْضَى مِنْ ثَمَنِ الْعَبْدِ ثُمَّ يُقْضَى دَيْنُ سَيِّدِهِ ثُمَّ يُنْظَرُ إِلَى مَا بَقِيَ مِنَ الْعَبْدِ فَيَعْتِقُ ثُلُثُهُ وَيَبْقَى ثُلُثَاهُ لِلْوَرَثَةِ فَالْعَقْلُ أَوْجَبُ فِي رَقَبَتِهِ مِنْ دَيْنِ سَيِّدِهِ وَدَيْنُ سَيِّدِهِ أَوْجَبُ مِنَ التَّدْبِيرِ الَّذِي إِنَّمَا هُوَ وَصِيَّةٌ فِي ثُلُثِ مَالِ الْمَيِّتِ فَلاَ يَنْبَغِي أَنْ يَجُوزَ شَىْءٌ مِنَ التَّدْبِيرِ وَعَلَى سَيِّدِ الْمُدَبَّرِ دَيْنٌ لَمْ يُقْضَ وَإِنَّمَا هُوَ وَصِيَّةٌ وَذَلِكَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى قَالَ ‏{‏مِنْ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصَى بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ‏}‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ مَالِكٌ فَإِنْ كَانَ فِي ثُلُثِ الْمَيِّتِ مَا يَعْتِقُ فِيهِ الْمُدَبَّرُ كُلُّهُ عَتَقَ وَكَانَ عَقْلُ جِنَايَتِهِ دَيْنًا عَلَيْهِ يُتَّبَعُ بِهِ بَعْدَ عِتْقِهِ وَإِنْ كَانَ ذَلِكَ الْعَقْلُ الدِّيَةَ كَامِلَةً وَذَلِكَ إِذَا لَمْ يَكُنْ عَلَى سَيِّدِهِ دَيْنٌ ‏.‏ وَقَالَ مَالِكٌ فِي الْمُدَبَّرِ إِذَا جَرَحَ رَجُلاً فَأَسْلَمَهُ سَيِّدُهُ إِلَى الْمَجْرُوحِ ثُمَّ هَلَكَ سَيِّدُهُ وَعَلَيْهِ دَيْنٌ وَلَمْ يَتْرُكْ مَالاً غَيْرَهُ فَقَالَ الْوَرَثَةُ نَحْنُ نُسَلِّمُهُ إِلَى صَاحِبِ الْجُرْحِ ‏.‏ وَقَالَ صَاحِبُ الدَّيْنِ أَنَا أَزِيدُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ إِنَّهُ إِذَا زَادَ الْغَرِيمُ شَيْئًا فَهُوَ أَوْلَى بِهِ وَيُحَطُّ عَنِ الَّذِي عَلَيْهِ الدَّيْنُ قَدْرُ مَا زَادَ الْغَرِيمُ عَلَى دِيَةِ الْجَرْحِ فَإِنْ لَمْ يَزِدْ شَيْئًا لَمْ يَأْخُذِ الْعَبْدَ ‏.‏ وَقَالَ مَالِكٌ فِي الْمُدَبَّرِ إِذَا جَرَحَ وَلَهُ مَالٌ فَأَبَى سَيِّدُهُ أَنْ يَفْتَدِيَهُ فَإِنَّ الْمَجْرُوحَ يَأْخُذُ مَالَ الْمُدَبَّرِ فِي دِيَةِ جُرْحِهِ فَإِنْ كَانَ فِيهِ وَفَاءٌ اسْتَوْفَى الْمَجْرُوحُ دِيَةَ جُرْحِهِ وَرَدَّ الْمُدَبَّرَ إِلَى سَيِّدِهِ وَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ فِيهِ وَفَاءٌ اقْتَضَاهُ مِنْ دِيَةِ جُرْحِهِ وَاسْتَعْمَلَ الْمُدَبَّرَ بِمَا بَقِيَ لَهُ مِنْ دِيَةِ جُرْحِهِ ‏.‏

حدثني مالك، انه بلغه ان عمر بن عبد العزيز، قضى في المدبر اذا جرح ان لسيده ان يسلم ما يملك منه الى المجروح فيختدمه المجروح ويقاصه بجراحه من دية جرحه فان ادى قبل ان يهلك سيده رجع الى سيده . قال مالك والامر عندنا في المدبر اذا جرح ثم هلك سيده وليس له مال غيره انه يعتق ثلثه ثم يقسم عقل الجرح اثلاثا فيكون ثلث العقل على الثلث الذي عتق منه ويكون ثلثاه على الثلثين اللذين بايدي الورثة ان شاءوا اسلموا الذي لهم منه الى صاحب الجرح وان شاءوا اعطوه ثلثى العقل وامسكوا نصيبهم من العبد وذلك ان عقل ذلك الجرح انما كانت جنايته من العبد ولم تكن دينا على السيد فلم يكن ذلك الذي احدث العبد بالذي يبطل ما صنع السيد من عتقه وتدبيره فان كان على سيد العبد دين للناس مع جناية العبد بيع من المدبر بقدر عقل الجرح وقدر الدين ثم يبدا بالعقل الذي كان في جناية العبد فيقضى من ثمن العبد ثم يقضى دين سيده ثم ينظر الى ما بقي بعد ذلك من العبد فيعتق ثلثه ويبقى ثلثاه للورثة وذلك ان جناية العبد هي اولى من دين سيده وذلك ان الرجل اذا هلك وترك عبدا مدبرا قيمته خمسون وماية دينار وكان العبد قد شج رجلا حرا موضحة عقلها خمسون دينارا وكان على سيد العبد من الدين خمسون دينارا . قال مالك فانه يبدا بالخمسين دينارا التي في عقل الشجة فتقضى من ثمن العبد ثم يقضى دين سيده ثم ينظر الى ما بقي من العبد فيعتق ثلثه ويبقى ثلثاه للورثة فالعقل اوجب في رقبته من دين سيده ودين سيده اوجب من التدبير الذي انما هو وصية في ثلث مال الميت فلا ينبغي ان يجوز شىء من التدبير وعلى سيد المدبر دين لم يقض وانما هو وصية وذلك ان الله تبارك وتعالى قال {من بعد وصية يوصى بها او دين} . قال مالك فان كان في ثلث الميت ما يعتق فيه المدبر كله عتق وكان عقل جنايته دينا عليه يتبع به بعد عتقه وان كان ذلك العقل الدية كاملة وذلك اذا لم يكن على سيده دين . وقال مالك في المدبر اذا جرح رجلا فاسلمه سيده الى المجروح ثم هلك سيده وعليه دين ولم يترك مالا غيره فقال الورثة نحن نسلمه الى صاحب الجرح . وقال صاحب الدين انا ازيد على ذلك انه اذا زاد الغريم شييا فهو اولى به ويحط عن الذي عليه الدين قدر ما زاد الغريم على دية الجرح فان لم يزد شييا لم ياخذ العبد . وقال مالك في المدبر اذا جرح وله مال فابى سيده ان يفتديه فان المجروح ياخذ مال المدبر في دية جرحه فان كان فيه وفاء استوفى المجروح دية جرحه ورد المدبر الى سيده وان لم يكن فيه وفاء اقتضاه من دية جرحه واستعمل المدبر بما بقي له من دية جرحه

রেওয়ায়ত ৮. মালিক (রহঃ) বলেনঃ উম্মে ওয়ালাদ যদি কাহাকেও জখম করে তবে এই জখমের দীয়াত কর্তাকে নিজ মাল হইতে পরিশোধ করিতে হইবে। কিন্তু উম্মে ওয়ালাদের মূল্য হইতে জখমের দীয়াত যদি অধিক হয়, তবে কর্তার জিম্মায় উহার মূল্যের অধিক দেওয়া জরুরী হইবে না। কারণ ক্রীতদাস এবং দাসীর কর্তা উহাদের একজন কর্তৃক কাহাকেও জখম করার দরুন যদি দাস বা দাসীকে জখমী ব্যক্তির নিকট সোপর্দ করিয়া দেয় তবে ইহার অতিরিক্ত তাহার উপর আর কিছু জরুরী হইবে না। জখমের দীয়্যত বেশি হইয়া থাকিলেও (অতিরিক্ত দীয়্যতের জন্য) কর্তা উম্মে ওয়ালাদকে জখমী ব্যক্তির নিকট সোপর্দ করিতে পারিবে না, ইহাই নিয়ম। (উম্মে ওয়ালাদকে বিক্রি করা, দান করা জায়েয নহে), কেননা, যখন সে উম্মে ওয়ালাদের মূল্য দিয়া দিল, তবে যেন সে উম্মে ওয়ালাদকেই সোপর্দ করিয়া দিল, তাহার উপর ইহার অধিক কিছু জরুরী নহে)। ইহাই সুন্দরতম যাহা (এই বিষয়ে) আমি শুনিয়াছি। কর্তার জিম্মায় উম্মে ওয়ালাদের মূল্যের অধিক কোন খেসারত বহন করার দায়িত্ব নাই।

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community about a mudabbar is that the owner cannot sell him or change the position in which he has put him. If a debt overtakes the master, his creditors cannot sell the mudabbar as long as the master is alive. If the master dies and has no debts, the mudabbar is included in the third (of the bequest) because he expected his work from him as long as he lived. He cannot serve him all his life, and then he frees him from his heirs out of the main portion of his property when he dies. If the master of the mudabbar dies and has no property other than him, one third of him is freed, and two thirds of him belong to the heirs. If the master of the mudabbar dies and owes a debt which encompasses the mudabbar, he is sold to meet the debt because he can only be freed in the third (which is allowed for bequest) ." He said, "If the debt only includes half of the slave, half of him is sold for the debt. Then a third of what remains after the debt is freed. " Malik said, "It is not permitted to sell a mudabbar and it is not permitted for anyone to buy him unless the mudabbar buys himself from his master. He is permitted to do that. Or else some one gives the master of the mudabbar money and his master who made him a mudabbar frees him. That is also permitted for him." Malik said, "His wala' belongs to his master who made him a mudabbar." Malik said, "It is not permitted to sell the service of a mudabbar because it is an uncertain transaction since one does not know how long his master will live. That is uncertain and it is not good." Malik spoke about a slave who was shared between two men, and one of them made his portion mudabbar. He said, "They estimate his value between them. If the one who made him mudabbar buys him, he is all mudabbar. If he does not buy him, his tadbir is revoked unless the one who retains ownership of him wishes to give his partner who made him mudabbar his value. If he gives him to him for his value, that is binding, and he is all mudabbar." Malik spoke about the christian man who made a christian slave of his mudabbar and then the slave became muslim. He said, "One separates the master and the slave, and the slave is removed from his christian master and is not sold until his situation becomes clear. If the christian dies and has a debt, his debt is paid from the price of the slave unless he has in his estate what will pay the debt. Then the mudabbar is set free." 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