Hadith 4610

الْمُحَارَبَةُ لِلَّهِ الْكُفْرُ بِهِ.
By this, what is meant is disbelief in «يحاربون».
حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْأَنْصَارِيُّ ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ عَوْنٍ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنِي سَلْمَانُ أَبُو رَجَاءٍ مَوْلَى أَبِي قِلَابَةَ ، عَنْ أَبِي قِلَابَةَ : أَنَّهُ كَانَ جَالِسًا خَلْفَ عُمَرَ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ ، فَذَكَرُوا ، وَذَكَرُوا ، فَقَالُوا : وَقَالُوا : قَدْ أَقَادَتْ بِهَا الْخُلَفَاءُ فَالْتَفَتَ إِلَى أَبِي قِلَابَةَ وَهْوَ خَلْفَ ظَهْرِهِ ، فَقَالَ : مَا تَقُولُ يَا عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ زَيْدٍ ؟ أَوْ قَالَ : مَا تَقُولُ يَا أَبَا قِلَابَةَ ؟ قُلْتُ : مَا عَلِمْتُ نَفْسًا حَلَّ قَتْلُهَا فِي الْإِسْلَامِ إِلَّا رَجُلٌ زَنَى بَعْدَ إِحْصَانٍ ، أَوْ قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ ، أَوْ حَارَبَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَقَالَ عَنْبَسَةُ : حَدَّثَنَا أَنَسٌ بِكَذَا ، وَكَذَا ، قُلْتُ : إِيَّايَ حَدَّثَ أَنَسٌ ، قَالَ : قَدِمَ قَوْمٌ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَكَلَّمُوهُ ، فَقَالُوا : قَدِ اسْتَوْخَمْنَا هَذِهِ الْأَرْضَ ، فَقَالَ : " هَذِهِ نَعَمٌ لَنَا تَخْرُجُ فَاخْرُجُوا فِيهَا فَاشْرَبُوا مِنْ أَلْبَانِهَا ، وَأَبْوَالِهَا " ، فَخَرَجُوا فِيهَا فَشَرِبُوا مِنْ أَبْوَالِهَا ، وَأَلْبَانِهَا ، وَاسْتَصَحُّوا وَمَالُوا عَلَى الرَّاعِي ، فَقَتَلُوهُ ، وَاطَّرَدُوا النَّعَمَ ، فَمَا يُسْتَبْطَأُ مِنْ هَؤُلَاءِ ، قَتَلُوا النَّفْسَ ، وَحَارَبُوا اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ ، وَخَوَّفُوا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَقَالَ : سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ ، فَقُلْتُ : تَتَّهِمُنِي ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا بِهَذَا أَنَسٌ ، قَالَ : وَقَالَ : " يَا أَهْلَ كَذَا ، إِنَّكُمْ لَنْ تَزَالُوا بِخَيْرٍ مَا أُبْقِيَ هَذَا فِيكُمْ ، أَوْ مِثْلُ هَذَا " .
Narrated Abu Qilaba: That he was sitting behind `Umar bin `Abdul `Aziz and the people mentioned and mentioned (about at-Qasama) and they said (various things), and said that the Caliphs had permitted it. `Umar bin `Abdul `Aziz turned towards Abu Qilaba who was behind him and said. "What do you say, O `Abdullah bin Zaid?" or said, "What do you say, O Abu Qilaba?" Abu Qilaba said, "I do not know that killing a person is lawful in Islam except in three cases: a married person committing illegal sexual intercourse, one who has murdered somebody unlawfully, or one who wages war against Allah and His Apostle." 'Anbasa said, "Anas narrated to us such-and-such." Abu Qilaba said, "Anas narrated to me in this concern, saying, some people came to the Prophet and they spoke to him saying, 'The climate of this land does not suit us.' The Prophet said, 'These are camels belonging to us, and they are to be taken out to the pasture. So take them out and drink of their milk and urine.' So they took them and set out and drank of their urine and milk, and having recovered, they attacked the shepherd, killed him and drove away the camels.' Why should there be any delay in punishing them as they murdered (a person) and waged war against Allah and His Apostle and frightened Allah's Messenger ?" Anbasa said, "I testify the uniqueness of Allah!" Abu Qilaba said, "Do you suspect me?" 'Anbasa said, "No, Anas narrated that (Hadith) to us." Then 'Anbasa added, "O the people of such-and-such (country), you will remain in good state as long as Allah keeps this (man) and the like of this (man) amongst you."
Hadith Reference صحيح البخاري / كتاب تفسير القرآن / 4610
Hadith Grading محدثین: أحاديث صحيح البخاريّ كلّها صحيحة
Related hadith on this topic
Explanation & Benefits
Maulana Dawood Raz
Hadith Commentary:
In another narration, it is stated that Abu Qalabah said: "O Commander of the Faithful, you have with you leaders of such a large army and the nobles of the Arabs. Suppose fifty of them testify against a married man who is in the fortress of Damascus, claiming that he committed adultery, but they did not witness it with their own eyes—would you stone him?" He replied, "No." I said, "If fifty of them testify against a man who is in Homs, and they did not see him, claiming that he committed theft, would you have his hand cut off?" He replied, "No."

The meaning intended by Abu Qalabah was that in the case of qasamah, retribution (qisas) is not carried out; rather, blood money (diyah) is imposed. In the case of an unknown murder, fifty people from that locality take an oath that they are free from involvement in it—this is called qasamah.
Source: Sahih Bukhari: Commentary by Maulana Dawood Raz, Page: 4610
Shaykh Abdul Sattar al-Hammad
Hadith Commentary:

When, in the case of an unknown murder, fifty men from that locality swear an oath that they are free from liability, this is called qasamah. Is there retribution (qisas) or blood money (diyah) in qasamah? There is a difference of opinion on this. The intent of Abu Qilabah rahimahullah was that in qasamah, there is no retribution (qisas), rather only blood money (diyah) is to be given, whereas the other members of the gathering held the view that there is retribution (qisas) in it. In another narration, Abu Qilabah clarified his position in these words: He said, "O Commander of the Faithful! You have with you the commanders of the army and the nobles of the Arabs. If fifty of them testify against a married man who is a resident of Damascus that he committed adultery, while they did not see him with their own eyes, would you stone him to death based on their testimony?" He replied, "No." Abu Qilabah said, "If fifty of them testify against a man for theft who is in Homs, and they did not see him, would you cut off his hand based on their testimony?" He replied, "No." Then he said, "The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) has ordered the killing of three types of people; killing on the basis of qasamah is not among them."
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Diyat, Hadith: 6898)


Abu Qilabah rahimahullah restricted the causes that necessitate execution to only three, in which qasamah is not included. Then Anbasah radi Allahu anhu narrated the hadith of the ‘Uraniyyin, thereby restricting execution to the case of highway robbery, that the muharibun (those who wage war against society) are to be killed. His intent was that the permissibility of execution is not limited to those three causes. Abu Qilabah replied that the incident of the ‘Uraniyyin does not fall outside those three matters.


In any case, the inclination of Imam al-Bukhari rahimahullah also appears to be that there is no retribution (qisas) in qasamah, rather only blood money (diyah) is to be given, as he has indicated in the chapter on qasamah in Kitab al-Diyat, which we will explain further ahead, insha Allah ta‘ala.


The aforementioned verse should not be restricted only to incidents of highway robbery, but rather it should be understood in its broad meaning: misleading propaganda against Islam, criminal conspiracies, treason against the Islamic government, and armed rebellion—all of these are included in waging war against Allah and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and spreading corruption in the land (fasad fi’l-ard). Thus, after narrating this hadith, Abu Qilabah said that they committed theft, murder, apostatized after faith, and waged war against Allah and His Messenger, and for this reason, they were subjected to a severe punishment.
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Wudu’, Hadith: 233)
Source: Hidayat al-Qari: Commentary on Sahih Bukhari, Urdu, Page: 4610
Shaykh Abdul Sattar al-Hammad
Hadith Commentary:
(1)
In this lengthy hadith, an account is narrated of a debate that took place in the presence of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz rahimahullah between Abu Qilabah and those present.
We have not been able to ascertain on what grounds Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz rahimahullah abandoned the practice of qasamah, even though it was acted upon during the blessed era of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and was also adopted by the Rightly Guided Caliphs radi Allahu anhum.
There are narrations regarding Amir Muawiyah radi Allahu anhu that he implemented retribution (qisas) on the basis of qasamah, as mentioned by Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah.
Abdullah ibn Zubayr radi Allahu anhuma also acted in accordance with it.
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz rahimahullah himself, when he was the governor of Madinah Tayyibah, implemented retribution (qisas) on the basis of qasamah.
(2)
Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah has written that the summary of the disagreement regarding qasamah is whether it is actionable or not. If it is actionable, then will it result in the payment of blood money (diyah) or can retribution (qisas) also be taken on its basis? Then, will the oath-taking begin with the claimants (mudda‘in) or will the defendants (mudda‘a alayhim) be made to swear first? There is also disagreement regarding its conditions.
(Fath al-Bari: 12/289) (3)
In any case, the intention of Imam Bukhari rahimahullah is not to deny qasamah, as some commentators have claimed. However, in this matter, he has agreed with Imam Shafi‘i rahimahullah that retribution (qisas) will not be taken on its basis, but only blood money (diyah) can be taken. However, he differs from Imam Shafi‘i rahimahullah in that the oath is not upon the claimant (mudda‘i), but rather upon the defendant (mudda‘a alayh), as he has referenced at the beginning with the statement of Sa‘id ibn Ubayd.
From this detail, it is clear that denial of qasamah is not the position of Imam Bukhari rahimahullah.
And Allah knows best.
Source: Hidayat al-Qari: Commentary on Sahih Bukhari, Urdu, Page: 6899