Azami 6962

(Without his saying, "A slave-girl of the Messenger of Allah committed fornication"), Muslim narrated it in the Hudud (1706) from Muhammad bin Abu Bakr Muqaddami, who said, Sulayman Abu Dawud told us, Zaida told us, from Suddi, from Saad bin Ubayda, from Abu Abdul-Rahman, and he related it. In one narration he added, "Leave her until she recovers." His statement, "Carry out the punishment on your slaves," appears to be interpolated into the hadith from Ali's own words, and is not a raised statement, but it carries the ruling of a raised statement, because it is what the Messenger of Allah ﷺ commanded regarding the flogging of the fornicating slave-girl.Abu Dawud (4473), Ahmad (679), and Bayhaqi (8/245) all narrated it through different routes from Abdul-Ala Thalabi, from Abu Jameela, from Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, who said, A slave-girl belonging to the family of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ committed fornication, so he said, "O Ali, go and carry out the punishment on her." I went, and found that blood was flowing from her without stopping, so I came back to him and he said, "O Ali, have you finished?" I said, "I went to her while her blood was flowing." He said, "Leave her until her bleeding stops, then carry out the punishment on her, and carry out the punishments on those whom your right hands possess." This wording is Abu Dawud's.In Ahmad's wording, from Ali, that a slave-girl belonging to them committed fornication and became pregnant, so Ali came to the Prophet ﷺ and informed him, and he said to him, "Leave her until she gives birth or delivers, then flog her." He narrated it through Shuba, from Abdul-Ala. Abu Dawud pointed to this narration, saying, "Abu Ahwas likewise narrated it from Abdul-Ala, and Shuba narrated it from Abdul-Ala, saying in it, 'Do not strike her until she gives birth,' but the first is more sahih."Abdul-Ala is Ibn Amir Thalabi, who has some weakness in him, but Bayhaqi narrated it coupled with Abdullah bin Abu Jameela, and Abdullah bin Abu Jameela is unknown, but he is not accused of lying, so there is no harm in strengthening the hadith by it.One's heart is at ease with the soundness of what came in this hadith, namely that the slave-girl did not belong to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, but rather belonged to some of his kinsfolk, because Allah purified the household of the Prophet ﷺ from impurity. Although the hadith of Muslim is more sahih than this narration, it was not as fitting for the station of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, for it is inconceivable that such an indecency would occur within his noble possession, that she became pregnant from fornication and gave birth. So it appears that some narrators abridged the hadith and erred in doing so.Among the points of jurisprudence in it is that one may set aside acting upon the apparent meaning for something more fitting, and the permissibility of independent reasoning. It also shows that someone liable to a punishment short of execution is to have it delayed if ill. Among the sayings of the scholars is that a woman is not to be stripped when punishments are carried out, unlike a man, for it is permissible to strip him except for his private parts, including the two private areas, and the judge may specify this.On this subject there is also what was related from Ayesha as a raised hadith, "If the slave-girl commits fornication, flog her, and if she commits fornication, flog her, and if she commits fornication, flog her, then sell her, even for a dafeer." The dafeer is a rope. Ibn Majah (2566) and Ahmad (24361) both narrated it from the hadith of Layth bin Saad, from Yazid bin Abu Habib, from Ammar bin Abu Farwa, that Muhammad bin Muslim told him, that Urwa told him, that Amra bint Abdul-Rahman told him, that Ayesha told her, and she related it.Ammar bin Abu Farwa Umawi, their freedman from Madinah, of whom Bukhari said, "He is not corroborated in his hadith." Aqeeli mentioned him in Duafa (1340) and cited this hadith, explaining that others narrated it from Zuhri, from Ubaydullah bin Abdullah, from Abu Hurairah and Zayd bin Khalid. I say, no one narrated from him except Yazid bin Abu Habib, so he too is unknown, in addition to his contradicting the narrators from Zuhri.Imam Ahmad and Ishaq acted upon these hadiths, saying that a man may carry out the punishment on his slave without the ruler's involvement. Some of them said that the slave should be handed over to the ruler, and the owner should not carry out the punishment himself. Tirmidhi (1440), after relating the two views, said, "The first view is more sahih."I say, Ibn Abu Zinad said, from his father, that the jurists of Madinah whose views were relied upon used to say, "No one should carry out any of the punishments without the ruler, except that a man may carry out the punishment for fornication on his male slave and his slave-girl." Bayhaqi (8/245) related it with his chain from Ibn Abu Zinad, from his father.Abu Hanifa said that the master does not have the right to carry out the punishment on his slave without the ruler, because carrying out punishments is among the rights of the ruler and his deputy. This is closer to being correct, for the sake of preserving security and stability in the land, and because this kind of striking may lead to death and destruction.