Azami 7046

Reported by Abu Dawud (4363), Nasai (4077), Ahmad (61), and Ibn Abu Asim in Diyat (302), all of them through Yazid bin Zuray, from Yunus bin Ubayd, from Humayd bin Hilal, from Abdullah bin Mutarrif, from Abu Barza, who related it.Nasai said, "This hadith is among the finest and best of hadiths." Daraqutni also said in Ilal (1/236-237), "Yunus bin Ubayd reported it and made its isnad sound." I say, it contains Abdullah bin Mutarrif, who is Ibn Shakhir, a truthful narrator, though he has been corroborated. Nasai (4071), Ahmad (54), and Hakim (4/354) all reported it through routes going back to Shuba, from Tawba Anbari, who said, I heard Abu Sawwar Qadi say, from Abu Barza Aslami, who said, a man spoke harshly to Abu Bakr Siddiq. Abu Barza said, "Shall I strike off his neck?" Abu Bakr rebuked him and said, "That is not for anyone after the Messenger of Allah ﷺ."The hadith has other routes mentioned by Ibn Abu Asim, Daraqutni in his Ilal, and others. Abu Dawud said, Ahmad bin Hanbal said, meaning that Abu Bakr was not entitled to kill a man except for one of the three things the Messenger of Allah ﷺ mentioned, "disbelief after faith, adultery after marriage, or taking a life for a life other than in retaliation," while the Prophet had the right to kill (meaning anyone who insulted him).Khattabi also mentioned this view in his Maalim, saying, Hasan bin Yahya informed me, from Ibn Munzir, who said, Ahmad bin Hanbal said something similar. This is found in Awsat of Ibn Munzir (13/485).Sheikh Islam bin Taymiya, may Allah have mercy on him, said, "A number of scholars have used this as evidence for the permissibility of killing one who insults the Prophet ﷺ, among them Abu Dawud, Ismail bin Ishaq Qadi, Abu Bakr bin Abdul-Aziz, Qadi Abu Yaala, and others. This is because when Abu Barza saw the man reviling Abu Bakr and speaking harshly to him until Abu Bakr grew angry, he asked permission to kill him for it, informing him that had he ordered it he would have carried it out. Abu Bakr said, 'That is not for anyone after the Prophet ﷺ.'"He said, "This hadith contains two privileges specific to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. The first is that he is to be obeyed in whomever he orders to be killed (unlike anyone else, who is not to be obeyed in ordering someone's death except by right). The second is that he has the right to kill whoever reviles him and speaks harshly of him. This second meaning remains attached to him even after his death, so whoever reviles him or speaks harshly of him, killing him is permissible, indeed even more firmly established after his death, since his sanctity after death is more complete, and leniency toward his honor after death is not possible. This hadith establishes that insulting him in general permits killing, and its general wording is used as evidence for killing both the disbeliever and the Muslim who does so." End of quote. See Sarim Maslul ala Shatim Rasul ﷺ (pp. 128-129). Likewise, whoever reviles any of the prophets of Allah is to be killed without being asked to repent.I say, Ibn Munzir said, "The generality of the scholars have agreed that the punishment for one who reviles the Prophet ﷺ is death." Among those who held this view are Malik, Layth, Ahmad, and Ishaq, and it is the position of Shafii. He said, and it is reported from Numan (Abu Hanifa), "He is not to be killed," meaning that what they (the disbelievers in general) are upon, namely shirk, is graver. Ijmaa (p. 144). See also his Awsat (13/483). This is because Abu Hanifa and his followers said that the covenant of protection is not nullified by such insult, nor is the dhimmi to be killed for it, though he is to be disciplined for openly displaying it, just as one is disciplined for openly displaying other reprehensible acts. Among the forms of discipline, if the ruler judges it fit to kill one who reviles the Prophet ﷺ, he may kill him as a matter of governance, not as a fixed legal punishment. As for a Muslim who reviles the Prophet ﷺ, he thereby becomes a disbeliever and is to be killed without disagreement, and this is the position of the four Imams and others. Khattabi said, "I do not know of any Muslim who disputed the obligation of killing him."As for what is reported from Ali , that a Jewish woman used to revile the Prophet ﷺ and speak ill of him, and a man strangled her until she died, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ declared her blood to be void, this is a broken chain. It was reported by Abu Dawud (4362) from Uthman bin Abu Shayba and Abdullah bin Jarrah, from Jareer, from Mughira, from Shaybi, from Ali, who related it.There is disagreement over whether Shaybi heard directly from Ali bin Abu Talib. Bukhari affirmed that he did hear from him, in his Sahih (6812), from Adam, who said, Shuba told us, Salama bin Kuhayl told us, saying, I heard Shaybi narrating from Ali concerning when he stoned the woman on a Friday, and he said, "I stoned her by the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ." Daraqutni was asked about this in his Ilal (4/97) and said, "He heard one single statement from him, nothing else," referring to what Bukhari mentioned, thereby denying that he heard from him in general. Likewise Ahmad said that his narration from Ali is not reliable. Marasil (290).Likewise, what is reported concerning Umayr bin Umaya is not sound, that he had a sister, and whenever he went out to see the Prophet ﷺ she would harm him and revile the Prophet ﷺ, and she was a polytheist. One day he wrapped the sword around himself for her, then placed it upon her and killed her. Her sons rose up and cried out, saying, "We know who killed her, will our mother be killed for?" These were a people whose fathers and mothers were polytheists. When Umayr feared that someone other than the actual killer might be killed, he went to the Prophet ﷺ and told him. The Prophet asked, "Did you kill your sister?" He said, "Yes." The Prophet asked, "Why?" He said, "Because she used to harm me on your account." So the Prophet sent for her sons and questioned them, and they named someone other than the actual killer. He then informed them that it was Umayr, and he declared her blood forfeit. They said, "We hear and obey."This was reported by Ibn Abu Asim in Diyat (310) and Tabarani in Kabir (17/64), both from the hadith of Yaqub bin Humayd, who said, Abdullah bin Yazid told us, from Saeed bin Abu Ayub, that Yazid bin Abu Habib told him that Aslam bin Yazid and Zayd bin Ishaq told him, from Umayr bin Umaya, who related it. Its isnad is daif because of Yaqub bin Humayd bin Kasib Madani, who is sometimes attributed to his grandfather, and the majority of scholars have deemed him daif.Aqeeli reported from Zakariya bin Yahya Hulwani, "I saw Abu Dawud Sijistani declare the hadith of Yaqub bin Kasib to be unreliable, and he said he died leaving behind the backs of his books unexamined. I asked him about it, and he said, 'We found in his musnad hadiths we did not recognize, so we demanded the original sources from him and he put us off. Then he later produced them, and we found the hadiths in the originals altered with fresh ink, having been broken chains that he had made into connected chains, adding to them.'"The isnad also contains Aslam bin Yazid, and likewise Zayd bin Ishaq, though some say Yazid bin Ishaq, and some of these narrators are unknown, and the transmitters did not establish them precisely. This may well trace back to Yaqub bin Humayd, for he made many errors and used to narrate strange and unusual reports.