thus Allah, Mighty and Majestic, states in this verse that he complied with the command to stand in prayer given at the beginning of the surah. His words, “Less than two thirds of the night” [al-Muzzammil: 20], correspond to His words at the beginning of the surah, “Or add to it” [al-Muzzammil: 4], meaning to half. His words “and half of it” correspond to “Half of it” at the beginning of the surah, while “and a third of it” corresponds to “or subtract a little from it,” meaning from half. This indicates that reducing one half to one third counts as a small reduction. This follows the reading in which both “half of it” and “a third of it” have accusative endings—a reading clearer in meaning than the one in which both have genitive endings.
Section
According to Mālik, may Allah have mercy on him, whenever a distinction must be made between a small and a substantial amount, one third falls within the category of a small amount, except in three cases. The first is calamity damage: here, he regards one third as substantial, requiring a corresponding reduction in the price. The second is a woman’s entitlement to compensation equal to a man’s: she receives the same compensation for injuries amounting to less than one third of the full blood money; once they reach one third, she reverts to the compensation prescribed for her. The third concerns the blood money borne by the liable kin group: they bear one third or more, but not less. Apart from these three cases, one third is treated as a small amount. His distinction between these three cases and all others rests on the fact that intention has no bearing on these three, whereas it must be considered in the others: no one is presumed to venture into a substantial amount of what is prohibited for the sake of a small amount.
Section
As for the underlying rationale, the buyer necessarily enters the transaction expecting a small amount of the fruit to be lost, rather than expecting all of it to remain intact. This is established by customary experience, and there is no point in arguing with anyone who denies it. Anyone who claims that the buyer enters the transaction expecting the fruit to remain untouched by the loss of some ripe or unripe dates, a ratl or two, what needy passers-by take, or the little that birds eat, has departed from customary experience. Once this is established, it follows that the buyer has no recourse for a small loss but does have recourse for a substantial one, since he did not enter the transaction accepting that. Rather, he entered it expecting the greater part to remain intact. Thus Mālik’s position, may Allah have mercy on him, becomes clear.