Yahya related to me from Malik from Abd ar Rahman ibn al-Qasim from his father that A'isha umm al-muminin said, "We went out on a journey with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and, when we came to Bayda' or Dhat al-Jaysh, a necklace of mine broke. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ stopped to look for it and the people stopped with him. There was no water nearby and the people were not carrying any with them, so they came to Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and said, 'Don't you see what A'isha has done? She has made the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and the people stop when there is no water nearby and they are not carrying any with them.' " A'isha continued, "Abu Bakr came and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ had fallen asleep with his head on my thigh . Abu Bakr said, 'You have made the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and the people stop when there is no water nearby and they are not carrying any with them ' " She continued, "Abu Bakr remonstrated with me and said whatever Allah willed him to say, and began to poke me in the waist. The only thing that stopped me from moving was that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ had his head on my thigh. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ slept until morning found him with no water. Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, sent down the ayat of tayammum and so they did tayammum. Usayd ibn Hudayr said, 'This is not the first baraka from you, O family of Abu Bakr.'" A'isha added, "We roused the camel I had been on and found the necklace under it." Malik was asked whether a man who did tayammum for one prayer should do tayammum when the time of the next prayer came or whether the first tayammum was enough. He said, "No, he does tayammum for every prayer, because he has to look for water for every prayer. If he looks for it and does not find it then he does tayammum." Malik was asked whether a man who did tayammum could lead others in prayer if they were in wudu. He said, "I prefer that someone else should lead them. However, I see no harm in it if he does lead them in prayer." Yahya said that Malik said that a man who did tayammum because he could not find any water, and then stood and said the takbir and entered into the prayer, and then someone came with some water, did not stop his prayer but completed it with tayammum and did wudu for future prayers. Yahya said that Malik said, "Whoever rises for prayer and does not find water and so does what Allah has ordered him to do of tayammum has obeyed Allah. Someone who does find water is neither purer than him nor more perfect in prayer, because both have been commanded and each does as Allah has commanded. What Allah has commanded as far as wudu is concerned is for the one who finds water, and tayammum is for the one who does not find water before he enters into the prayer." Malik said that a man who was in a state of major ritual impurity could do tayammum and read his portion of Qur'an and do voluntary prayers as long as he did not find any water. This applied only to circumstances in which it was allowable to pray with tayammum.

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had asked Ibn Shihab about the ila of the slave. He said that it was like the ila of the free man, and it put an obligation on him. The ila of the slave was two months.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that Said al-Musayyab and Abu Bakr ibn Abd ar-Rahman said about a man who made a vow to abstain from intercourse with his wife, "If four months pass it is a divorce. The husband can go back to his wife as long as she is in her idda."

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Marwan ibn al-Hakam decided about a man who had made a vow to abstain from intercourse with his wife, that when four months had passed, it was a divorce and he could return to her as long as she was in her idda. Malik added, "That was also the opinion of Ibn Shihab." Malik said that if a man made a vow to abstain from intercourse with his wife and at the end of four months he declared his intent to continue to abstain, he was divorced. He could go back to his wife, but if he did not have intercourse with her before the end of her idda, he had no access to her and he could not go back to her unless he had an excuse - illness, imprisonment, or a similar excuse. His return to her maintained her as his wife. If her idda passed and then he married her after that and did not have intercourse with her until four months had passed and he declared his intent to continue to abstain, divorce was applied to him by the first vow. If four months passed, and he had not returned to her, he had no idda against her nor access because he had married her and then divorced her before touching her. Malik said that a man who made a vow to abstain from intercourse with his wife and continued to abstain after four months and so divorced her, but then returned and did not touch her and four months were completed before her idda was completed, did not have to declare his intent and divorce did not befall him. If he had intercourse with her before the end of her idda, he was entitled to her. If her idda passed before he had intercourse with her, he had no access to her. This is what Malik preferred of what he had heard on the subject. Malik said that if a man made a vow to abstain from intercourse with his wife and then divorced her, and the four months of the vow were completed before completion of the idda of the divorce, it counted as two pronouncements of divorce. If he declared his intention to continue to abstain and the idda of the divorce finished before the four months the vow of abstention was not a divorce. That was because the four months had passed and she was not his on that day. Malik said, "If someone makes a vow not to have intercourse with his wife for a day or a month and then waits until more than four months have passed, it is not ila. Ila only applies to someone who vows more than four months. As for the one who vows not to have intercourse with his wife for four months or less than that, I do not think that it is ila because when the term enters into it at which it stops, he comes out of his oath and he does not have to declare his intention." Malik said, "If someone vows to his wife not to have intercourse with her until her child has been weaned, that is not ila. I have heard that Ali ibn Abi Talib was asked about that and he did not think that it was ila."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Said ibn Amr ibn Sulaym az- Zuraqi that he asked al-Qasim ibn Muhammad about a man who made divorce conditional on his marrying a woman i.e. if he married her he would automatically divorce her. Al-Qasim ibn Muhammad said, "If a man marries a woman whom he has made as his mother's back, i.e. has made haram for him, Umar ibn al-Khattab ordered him not to go near her if he married her until he had done the kaffara for pronouncing dhihar."

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that a man asked al-Qasim ibn Muhammad and Sulayman ibn Yasar about a man who pronounced dhihar from his wife before he had married her. They said, "If he marries her, he must not touch her until he has done the kaffara for pronouncing dhihar."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Hisham ibn Urwa that his father said that a man who pronounced a dhihar from his four wives in one statement, had only to do one kaffara. Yahya related the same as that to me from Malik from Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman. Malik said, "That is what is done among us. Allah, the Exalted said about the kaffara for pronouncing dhihar, 'It is to free a slave before they touch one another. If he does not find the means to do that, then fasting for two consecutive months before they touch one another. If he cannot do that, it is to feed sixty poor people. ' " (Sura 58 ayats 4,5). Malik said that a man who pronounced dhihar from his wife on various occasions had only to do one kaffara. If he pronounced dhihar, and then did kaffara, and then pronounced dhihar after he had done the kaffara, he had to do kaffara again. Malik said, "Some one who pronounces dhihar from his wife and then has intercourse with her before he has done kaffara, only has to do one kaffara. He must abstain from her until he does kaffara and ask forgiveness of Allah. That is the best of what I have heard. " Malik said, "It is the same with dhihar using any prohibited relations of fosterage and ancestry." Malik said, "Women have no dhihar." Malik said that he had heard that the commentary on the word of Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, "Those of you who pronounce the dhihar about their wives, and then retract what they have said," (Sura 56 ayat 3), was that a man pronounced dhihar on his wife and then decided to keep her and have intercourse with her. If he decided on that, he must do kaffara. If he divorced her and did not decide to retract his dhihar of her and to keep her and have intercourse with her, there would be no kaffara incumbent on him. Maliksaid, "If he marries her after that, he does not touch her until he has completed the kaffara of pronouncing dhihar." Malik said that if a man who pronounced dhihar from his slave-girl wanted to have intercourse with her, he had to do the kaffara of the dhihar before he could sleep with her. Malik said, "There is no ila in a man's dhihar unless it is evident that he does not intend to retract his dhihar."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Hisham ibn Urwa that he heard a man ask Urwa ibn az-Zubayr about a man who said to his wife, "Any woman I marry along with you as long as you live will be like my mother's back to me." Urwa ibn az-Zubayr said, "The freeing of slaves is enough to release him from that."

ahya related to me from Malik that he asked Ibn Shihab about the dhihar of a slave. He said, "It is like the dhihar of a free man." Malik said, "He meant that the same conditions were applied in both cases." Malik said, "The dhihar of the slave is incumbent on him, and the fasting of the slave in the dhihar is two months. " Malik said that there was no ila for a slave who pronounced a dhihar from his wife. That was because if he were to fast the kaffara for pronouncing a dhihar, the divorce of the ila would come to him before he had finished the fast.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman from al-Qasim ibn Muhammad that A'isha umm al-muminin, said, "There were three sunnas established in connection with Barira: firstly was that when she was set free she was given her choice about her husband, secondly, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said about her, 'The right of inheritance belongs to the person who has set a person free,' thirdly, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ came in and there was a pot with meat on the boil. Bread and condiments were brought to him from the stock of the house. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, 'Didn't I see a pot with meat in it?' They said, 'Yes, Messenger of Allah. That is meat which was given as sadaqah for Barira, and you do not eat sadaqa.' The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, 'It is sadaqah for her, and it is a gift for us.' "

ahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar said that a female slave who was the wife of a slave and then was set free, had the right of choice as long as he did not have intercourse with her. Malik said, "If her husband has intercourse with her and she claims that she did not know, she still has the right of choice. If she is suspect and one does not believe her claim of ignorance, then she has no choice after he has had intercourse with her."