Azami 7023

Bukhari narrated it in the Book of Agency (2316), and in the Book of Punishments (6774, 6775) through multiple routes, from Ayub, from Abdullah bin Abu Mulayka, from Uqba bin Harith, who said, then he mentioned it.Also included in this chapter is what was narrated from Qabisa bin Dhuwayb, that the Prophet ﷺ said, "Whoever drinks wine, flog him. If he does it again, flog him. If he does it again a third or fourth time, kill him." Then a man who had drunk wine was brought, and he flogged him. Then he was brought again, and he flogged him. Then he was brought again, and he flogged him. Then he was brought again, and he flogged him. The killing was lifted, and it became a concession.Sufyan, who is Ibn Uyayna, said, "Zuhri narrated this hadith while Mansur bin Mutamir and Mukhawwal bin Rashid were present with him, and he said to the two of them, 'Be the ones who carry this hadith to the people of Iraq.'"Abu Dawud narrated it (4485) from Ahmad bin Abdah Dabbi, who said, Sufyan narrated to us, he said, Zuhri informed us from Qabisa bin Dhuwayb, then he mentioned it.Shafii narrated it in Umm (6/177) from Sufyan bin Uyayna, and through his route Baghawi narrated it in Sharh al-Sunnah (10/335), and Bayhaqi (8/314). Bayhaqi also narrated it through another route from Muhammad bin Ishaq, from Zuhri, from Qabisa bin Dhuwayb, who said, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, then he mentioned the same.And at the end of it he said, a man from the Ansar named Nuayman was brought to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and he struck him four times. So the Muslims concluded that the killing had been deferred, and that flogging had become obligatory.Qabisa bin Dhuwayb was born in the year of the conquest, according to the more correct view. His narration from Abu Bakr and Umar is disconnected.Shafii said, "The killing is abrogated by this hadith and others, and this is something in which I know of no disagreement among any of the scholars."Tirmidhi said, "This was only at the beginning, then it was abrogated after that." Then he said, "The practice is upon this hadith among the generality of the scholars, and we do not know of any disagreement among them about this, whether in earlier or later times."What strengthens this is what has been narrated from the Prophet ﷺ through many routes, that he said, "It is not lawful to shed the blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, except for one of three, a life for a life, a married adulterer for his adultery, and one who abandons his religion."Nawawi said in Sharh Muslim, "What Tirmidhi said about the hadith of the wine drinker is as he said. It is an abrogated hadith. Consensus has indicated its abrogation."Tirmidhi also said, at the beginning of the book Ilal with which he concluded Sunan Tirmidhi, "Everything contained in this book of hadith is acted upon, and some of the scholars have acted upon it, with the exception of two hadiths, the hadith of Ibn Abbas that the Prophet ﷺ combined Dhuhr and Asr in Madinah, and Maghrib and Isha, without fear, travel, or rain, and the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ that he said, 'If he drinks wine, flog him, and if he does it again a fourth time, kill him.' We have explained the flaw in both hadiths in the book." End of quote.Hafiz said, "Nawawi followed up on this and accepted his statement regarding the hadith of this chapter, but not the other one."Ibn Munzir said, "This was indeed part of the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, then the killing of the wine drinker on the fourth occurrence was removed by the well-established reports from the Prophet of Allah ﷺ, and by the consensus of the generality of the scholars among the people of Hijaz, the people of Iraq, and the people of Syria, and everyone whose statement we have preserved among the scholars agrees on this, except for a rare dissenter whose view does not count as a real disagreement." Awsat (16/13).Khattabi said in his Ma'alim, "A command may come as a threat, without the actual carrying out of the act being intended, rather what is meant by it is deterrence and warning, as in his saying ﷺ, 'Whoever kills his slave, we will kill him, and whoever mutilates his slave, we will mutilate him.' Yet if he killed his slave, he would not be killed for it, according to the majority of the scholars, and likewise if he mutilated him, he would not be mutilated for it, by agreement. It is also possible that killing on the fifth occurrence was obligatory, then it was abrogated due to the occurrence of consensus among the ummah that he is not to be killed. It has been narrated from Qabisa bin Dhuwayb something that indicates this."Munziri said, "The Muslims are agreed on the obligation of the prescribed punishment for wine, and they are agreed that he is not to be killed if it recurs from him, except for a rare group who said, he is to be killed after being punished four times, based on the hadith, and this is abrogated according to the majority."Munziri's statement, "except for a rare group," gives the understanding that their view came later, preceded by the earlier consensus. And success comes from Allah.I have read in some books that Shaykh Ahmad Shakir, may Allah have mercy on him, wrote a treatise which he called Kalimat Fasl fi Qatl Mudmini Khamr, but I have not read it. If the Shaykh gathered in his treatise the hadiths about killing the wine drinker on the fourth occasion along with their routes, then I have gathered them myself in the previous chapter, and I have then explained that all these hadiths are abrogated. And if Shaykh Ahmad Shakir related the statements of some scholars permitting killing on the fourth occasion, then the consensus on its abrogation predates their statement, so no weight is to be given to them.