has been lost, whether through negligence or otherwise, and is no longer in his possession.” Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam said that he may take it even if the other man has debts; this is also al-Shāfi‘ī’s view. This disagreement reflects Mālik’s differing statements in al-Mudawwana concerning whether an indebted person may pledge property as security and repay some of his creditors. Ibn al-Mājishūn said: “I consider that he should employ whatever means he can to recover what is rightfully his.” Thus, there are four views on the matter:
The first: taking it is prohibited.
The second: doing so is disliked.
The third: it is permissible.
The fourth: taking it is recommended. This is Ibn al-Mājishūn’s view, whether or not the other man has debts. It has also been said that this applies only if he has no debts; if he does, one may take only the amount to which one would be entitled in a proportional distribution among the creditors. This constitutes a fifth view on the matter.
The strongest view is that taking it is permissible, “for the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, permitted this to Hind bint ‘Utba ibn Rabī‘a ibn ‘Abd Shams when she complained to him that her husband, Abū Sufyān ibn Harb, did not give her enough food for herself and her children. He told her: ‘Take what is reasonably sufficient for you and your children.’” His words, peace and blessings be upon him, “reasonably sufficient,” mean that she should take the amount due to her, without overstepping and taking more than her entitlement. His saying, peace and blessings be upon him, “Do not betray one who betrays you,” is interpreted in the same way: do not overstep by taking more than is due to you, thereby betraying him in return, just as he betrayed you first. Someone who takes what is rightfully his is not a betrayer; rather, he has acted properly, as the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, permitted Hind bint ‘Utba to do. On this interpretation, both hadiths are reconciled rather than understood as contradictory.
Our teacher, the jurist Ibn Rizq, may Allah be pleased with him, used to tell us that this hadith was given in response to a question put to the Prophet, peace be upon him, about a man having intercourse with a woman entrusted to him by another man. He had previously entrusted that other man with his own wife, but the latter had betrayed him and had intercourse with her. Because of this context, which he used to mention, Ibn Rizq considered the general wording of this hadith a weak basis for supporting Mālik’s position on this matter. Yet even if this hadith was occasioned by a particular incident, as he used to relate—may Allah have mercy on him—its wording is general and stands independently. Mālik expressed differing views