Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu'z Zinad from al-Araj from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, "Were it not that I would be overburdening my community I would have ordered them to use a tooth-stick."

Malik related to me that Ibn Shihab said, "I asked Said ibn al- Musayyab about renting land for gold or silver, and he said, 'There is no harm in it.' "

Malik said, "That is the sunnah about which there is no dispute among us."

Malik said that he heard that Said ibn al-Musayyab, when asked about pre-emption and whether there was a sunnah in it, said, "Yes. Pre-emption is in houses and land, and it is only between partners."

Malik related to me that he heard the like of that from Sulayman ibn Yasar. Malik spoke about a man who bought out one of the partners in a shared property, by paying the man with an animal, a slave, a slave-girl, or the equivalent of that in goods. Then another partner decided to exercise his right of pre-emption after that, and he found that the slave or slave-girl had died, and no one knew what her value had been. The buyer claimed, "The value of the slave or slave-girl was 100 dinars." The partner with the right of pre-emption claimed, "The value was 50 dinars." Malik said, "The buyer takes an oath that the value of what he payed was 100 dinars. Then if the one with the right of pre-emption wishes, he can compensate him, or else he can leave it, unless he can bring a clear proof that the slave or slave-girl's value is less than what the buyer said. If someone gives away his portion of a shared house or land and the recipient repays him for it by cash or goods, the partners can take it by pre-emption if they wish and pay off the recipient the value of what he gave in dinars or dirhams. If someone makes a gift of his portion of a shared house or land, and does not take any remuneration and does not seek to, and a partner wants to take it for its value, he cannot do so as long as the original partner has not been given recompense for it. If there is any recompense, the one with the right of pre-emption can have it for the price of the recompense." Malik spoke about a man who bought into a piece of shared land for a price on credit, and one of the partners wanted to possess it by right of pre-emption . Malik said, "If it seems likely that the partner can meet the terms, he has right of pre-emption for the same credit terms. If it is feared that he will not be able to meet the terms, but he can bring a wealthy and reliable guarantor of equal standing to the one who bought into the land, he can also take possession." Malik said, "A person's absence does not sever his right of pre-emption. Even if he is a way for a long time, there is no time limit after which the right of preemption is cut off." Malik said that if a man left land to a number of his children, then one of them who had a child died and the child of the deceased sold his right in that land, the brother of the seller was more entitled to pre-empt him than his paternal uncles, the partners of his father. Malik said, "This is what is done in our community." Malik said, "Pre- emption is shared between partners according to their existing shares. Each of them takes according to his portion. If it is small, he has little. If it is great, it is according to that. That is if they are tenacious and contend with each other about it." Malik said, "As for a man who buys out the share of one of his partners, and one of the other partners says, 'I will take a portion according to my share,' and the first partner says, 'If you wish to take all the preemption, I will give it up to you. If you wish to leave it, then leave it.' If the first partner gives him the choice and hands it over to him, the second partner can only take all the pre-emption or give it back. If he takes it, he is entitled to it. If not, he has nothing." Malik spoke about a man who bought land, and developed it by planting trees or digging a well etc., and then someone came, and seeing that he had a right in the land, wanted to take possession of it by pre-emption. Malik said "He has no right of preemption unless he compensates the other for his expenditure. If he gives him the price of what he has developed, he is entitled to pre- emption . If not, he has no right in it." Malik said that someone who sold off his portion of a shared house or land and then, on learning that someone with a right of pre-emption was to take possession by that right, asked the buyer to revoke the sale, and he did so, did not have the right to do that. The pre-emptor has more right to the property for the price for which he sold it. In the case of someone who bought along with a section of a shared house or land, an animal and goods (that were not shared), so that when any one demanded his right of pre-emption in the house or land he said, "Take what I have bought altogether, for I bought it altogether," Malik said, "The pre-emptor need only take possession of the house or land. Each thing the man bought is assessed according to its share of the lump sum the man paid. Then the pre-emptor takes possession of his right for a price which is appropriate on that basis. He does not take any animals or goods unless he wants to do that." Malik said, "If someone sells a section of shared land, and one of those who have the right of preemption surrenders it to the buyer and another refuses to do other than take his pre-emption, the one who refuses to surrender has to take all the preemption, and he cannot take according to his right and leave what remains. In the case where one of a number of partners in one house sold his share when all his partners were away except for one man, the one present was given the choice of either taking the pre-emption or leaving it, and he said, 'I will take my portion and leave the portions of my partners until they are present. If they take it, that is that. If they leave it, I will take all the pre-emption,' Malik said, 'He can only take it all or leave it. If his partners come, they can take from him or leave it as they wish. If this is offered to him and he does not accept, I think that he has no pre-emption.' "

Yahya related to me from Malik from Rabia ibn Abd ar-Rahman from Handhala ibn Qays az-Zuraqi from Rafi ibn Khadij that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade renting out fields. Handhala said, "I asked Rafi ibn Khadij, about paying in gold and silver, and he said, 'There is no harm in it.' "

Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab that he asked Salim ibn 'Abdullah ibn Umar about renting out fields. He said, "There is no harm in it for gold or silver." Ibn Shihab said, "I said to him, 'What do you think of the hadith which is mentioned from Rafi ibn Khadij?'" He said, ''Rafi has exaggerated. If I had a field, I would rent it out."

Malik related to me that he had heard that Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf rented land, and he continued to have it in his possession until he died. His son said, "I thought that it was ours because of the length of time which it had remained in his hands, until he mentioned it to us at his death. He ordered us to pay some rent which he owed in gold or silver."

Malik related to me from Hisham ibn Urwa that his father used to rent out his land for gold and silver. Malik was asked about a man who rented his field for 100 sa of dates or part of its produce of wheat or from other than its produce. He disapproved of that.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Said ibn al- Musayyab and from Abu Salama ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ decreed for partners the right of preemption in property which had not been divided up. When boundaries had been fixed between them, then there was no right of pre-emption.

Yahya said that Malik said, "The best of what has been heard about a sharecropper stipulating on the owner of the property the inclusion of some slave workers, is that there is no harm in that if they are workers that come with the property. They are like the property. There is no profit in them for the share-cropper except to lighten some of his burden. If they did not come with the property, his toil would be harder. It is like share-cropping land with a spring or land with a watering trough. You will not find anyone who receives the same share for share-cropping two lands which are equal in property and yield, when one property has a constant plentiful spring and the other has a watering trough, because of the lightness of working land with a spring, and the hardship of working land with a watering trough." Malik added, "That is what is done in our community." Malik said, "A share-cropper cannot employ workers from the property in other work, and he cannot make that a stipulation with the one who gives him the share-cropping contract. Nor is it permitted to one who share-crops to stipulate on the owner of the property inclusion of slaves for use in the garden who are not in it when he makes the share-cropping contract." "Nor must the owner of the property stipulate on the one who uses his property for share-cropping that he take any of the slaves of the property and remove him from the property. The share-cropping of property is based on the state which it is currently in." "If the owner of the property wants to remove one of the slaves of the property, he removes him before the share-cropping, or if he wants to put someone into the property, he does it before the share-cropping. Then he grants the share-cropping contract after that if he wishes. If any of the slaves die or go off or become ill, the owner of the property must replace them."