Bukhari

Hadith Commentary:
In this hadith, there is mention of an "umm walad" (a slave woman who has borne a child to her master).
The sole purpose of bringing this hadith here is this mention.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) ruled that the mentioned boy is the brother of ‘Abd ibn Zam‘ah.
From this, it is understood that the mother of this boy, that is, Zam‘ah’s slave woman, is an umm walad.
In this incident, there is an indication towards the emancipation of an umm walad, because she was considered to be under Zam‘ah’s bed (i.e., his legal sexual partner).
In this respect, she and Zam‘ah’s wife are equal.
(2)
Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) intends, through this hadith, to refute those individuals whose position is that if a slave woman gives birth to a child, the child will not be attributed to the owner of the bed (sahib al-firash) unless the owner acknowledges it.
This position is contrary to this hadith.
Since the boy’s resemblance was similar to ‘Utbah, as a precaution the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) ordered Lady Sawdah (radi Allahu anha) to observe veiling (hijab) from him; otherwise, what would be the meaning of veiling from one’s brother?

Hadith Commentary:
Although, according to the established Islamic legal principle, you (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) declared this child to be the son of Zam‘ah, thus making Umm al-Mu’minin Sawdah (radi Allahu anha) his sister, nevertheless, as a precaution, she was instructed to observe veiling (hijab) from this child.
This was because his appearance resembled that of ‘Utbah, and there was a strong presumption that he was the son of ‘Utbah.
From this hadith, it is derived that, in the face of established and formal legal proof, an opposing presumption or conjecture holds no weight.
The relevance to the chapter is as follows: the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) maintained the ownership of Zam‘ah, even though Zam‘ah was a disbeliever, and he was granted the same rights over his slave-woman as Muslims are granted. Thus, the transactions of a disbeliever—such as sale, gift, etc.—regarding their slave-men and slave-women are also valid and enforceable.
(Wahidi)

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
In this case, whether the claim of Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas radi Allahu anhu was accepted or that of ‘Abd bin Zam’ah, in both situations the child would belong to the disbelievers, yet the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam heard this case. He maintained Zam’ah’s ownership of the slave woman and did not deny it. From this, it is understood that a polytheist is permitted to dispose of his property in every manner.
(2)
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has established from this that the manumission (freeing) by disbelievers is valid. Their slave women and their property will be considered their ownership, and in other matters as well, their rights will be acknowledged. It will not be said that since these people are disbelievers, therefore, they have no legal standing. If a situation of war arises with them, then its rules and regulations are separate.
(3)
Legally, physical resemblance will not be considered; rather, the child will be attributed to the household in which he was born. The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam instructed Sawdah radi Allahu anha to observe veil (hijab) out of precaution, because the child’s appearance resembled that of ‘Utbah bin Abi Waqqas.
And Allah knows best.

Hadith Commentary:
Hazrat Sa’d (radi Allahu anhu) was the executor (wasi) on behalf of his disbelieving brother.
That is why he made a claim on his behalf,
in which there was some substance.
However, according to the law, that claim was not valid.
Because the Islamic legal principle is: “The child is for the (owner of the) bed, and for the adulterer is the stone.”
Therefore, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) dismissed his claim.
However, under the principle of “avoid doubtful matters” (ittaqū al-shubuhāt), he ordered Hazrat Sawdah (radi Allahu anha) to observe veiling (purdah) from that boy.
Sometimes, certain facts come before the judge that make it unavoidable for him to decide at his own discretion, above and beyond all arguments.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
Utbah bin Abi Waqqas had died in a state of disbelief. He had instructed his brother regarding making a claim, so at the time of the conquest of Makkah, Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas (radi Allahu anhu) acted upon this and took into his custody the son of Zam’ah’s slave woman. When ‘Abd bin Zam’ah (radi Allahu anhu) disputed regarding him, both brought the case before the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).
From this, it is understood that the one for whom the deceased has made a bequest can make a claim to obtain his right; there is no disagreement about this.
It is as if Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah), through this chapter heading and the presented hadith, has stated the source of this consensus of the Ummah.

(2)
It is also understood from this that qiyafah (physiognomy) cannot be made the basis of a judgment; rather, decisions are made on the basis of principles, because making qiyafah the basis can lead to many disputes.
(Fath al-Bari: 5/94)

Hadith Commentary:
The translation of the chapter heading is derived from the fact that Utbah said, "Take care of my son, take him," and Sa'd (radi Allahu anhu), who was the executor (wasi) of his brother, made a claim regarding him.
The name of this child was Abdur Rahman. Although the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) had decided that he was the son of Zam‘ah, and thus the brother of Sawdah, yet because his appearance resembled Utbah, as a precaution, Sawdah (radi Allahu anha) was instructed to observe veiling (purdah) from him.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
The heading established by Imam Bukhari rahimahullah consists of two parts:
• The testator instructing the executor (wasi) to look after his child.
• What kind of claim can the executor make? Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas radi Allahu anhu was the executor (wasi) of his brother Utbah.
Utbah had said to Sa’d radi Allahu anhu: “Take care of the child born from my seed and keep him with you.”
From this, it is understood that the testator can instruct someone regarding the care of his children.
There is no legal (shar’i) objection to this.
The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam did not object to this, and likewise, the executor can make a claim regarding someone, such as saying that a certain boy is the son of a certain person.
Sa’d radi Allahu anhu made such a claim, even though the judgment was not in his favor; nevertheless, there is no legal (shar’i) objection to making such a claim.
(2)
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has also established a heading in the Book of Disputes (Kitab al-Khusumat) with these words:
(Bab da‘wa al-wasi lil-mayyit)
“The executor making a claim on behalf of the deceased.”
There too, he has presented this very hadith as evidence.
In any case, both parts of the heading are established from this hadith.
And Allah is the One whose help is sought.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
In this hadith, it is mentioned that Sa’d radi Allahu anhu claimed the boy as his nephew, while ‘Abd bin Zam’ah claimed him as his brother. The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, based on the principle of “the child belongs to the bed (firaash),” attributed the son to ‘Abd bin Zam’ah, and due to clear resemblance, ordered Sawdah radi Allahu anha to observe veiling (hijab) from him.

(2)
In any case, lineage is not established merely by a claim. For example, if a person dies and leaves behind a son and has no other heir, and then the son acknowledges someone as his brother, according to Imam Malik rahimahullah and the scholars of Kufa, this acknowledgment does not establish lineage, nor will the acknowledged person be given a share in inheritance. Imam Shafi’i rahimahullah holds that the son stands in place of his father, so his acknowledgment is as if the deceased himself had acknowledged during his lifetime. However, the first opinion is more plausible, because calling someone your brother is to attribute him as a son to your father, whereas it is not permissible to attribute someone to a non-relative. Yes, if there are supporting indications, then it is a different matter. In this case, there is no such indication on the basis of which, by the brother’s acknowledgment, someone could be established as the father’s son.
(‘Umdat al-Qari: 47/16)

Hadith Commentary:
SubhanAllah! Praise be upon the subtle understanding of Imam Bukhari rahimahullah.
He established the purpose of the chapter from this hadith in such a way that if the judgment of a judge were to be effective both outwardly and inwardly—that is, in the eyes of people and in the sight of Allah—as the Hanafis claim, then when the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam gave the ruling that the child belonged to Zama‘a, he would become the brother of Sawdah radi Allahu anha. In that case, why did the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam command Sawdah radi Allahu anha to observe veiling (hijab) from him?
When the command for veiling was given, it became clear that the judgment of the judge does not alter the inner and real matter; although outwardly he was considered the brother of Sawdah, in reality, in the sight of Allah, he was not her brother. For this reason, the command for veiling was given.

Hadith Commentary:
➊
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has, with great precision, substantiated the title he established, in such a way that if the judge’s decision were to be effective in both the apparent and the real (inner) sense, then according to the decision of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, that boy would have become the brother of Sayyidah Sawdah radi Allahu anha, and the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam would not have ordered Sayyidah Sawdah radi Allahu anha to observe veiling (hijab) from him. When the command for veiling was given, it means that the decision of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was only to resolve the apparent dispute, not to change the reality and the inner truth.

➋
Although outwardly the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam declared that boy to be the brother of Sayyidah Sawdah radi Allahu anha, in the sight of Allah Ta’ala he was not her brother. For this reason, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam ordered Sayyidah Sawdah radi Allahu anha to observe veiling from him. If this decision had been effective in the inner reality as well, then there would have been no command to observe veiling from a brother.

And Allah knows best.

Hadith Commentary:
The incident described in the narration is as follows: Utbah bin Abi Waqqas was the brother of the famous Companion, Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas radi Allahu anhu. Utbah was among the fiercest enemies of Islam and died upon disbelief. Utbah committed adultery with a slave woman belonging to a man named Zam’ah, and she became pregnant. When Utbah was on his deathbed, he made a bequest to his brother, Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas radi Allahu anhu, stating that the pregnancy of Zam’ah’s slave woman was from him. Therefore, whatever child is born from her womb, you should take him into your custody. Accordingly, a boy was born from the womb of Zam’ah’s slave woman, and he was raised in their household.

When Makkah was conquered, Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas radi Allahu anhu wished, in accordance with his brother’s bequest, to take the child into his own care. However, Zam’ah’s son, ‘Abd bin Zam’ah, argued that this was the child of his father’s slave woman, and thus he was the rightful heir. When this case was brought before the Prophetic court, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam established the legal principle: “Al-waladu lil-firash wa lil-‘ahir al-hajar”—the child is attributed to the (owner of the) bed, and for the adulterer is the stone (i.e., deprivation). The child will be considered as belonging to the one whose bed (i.e., marital bond) he was born upon, even if he is the result of another man’s adultery. The share of the adulterer is only the legal punishment of stoning.

According to this law, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam gave the child to ‘Abd bin Zam’ah. However, the child bore a resemblance to Utbah bin Abi Waqqas, and due to this suspicion, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam instructed Umm al-Mu’minin Sawdah radi Allahu anha—who, being the daughter of Zam’ah, was apparently the boy’s sister—that she should observe veiling (hijab) from him as she would from a stranger, due to the doubt regarding his lineage.

According to Imam Bukhari rahimahullah, the instruction for Sawdah radi Allahu anha to observe veiling was given as a precaution due to this doubt, since the slave woman had illicit relations with Utbah and the child resembled him. Imam Bukhari rahimahullah’s purpose is to establish the explanation of doubtful matters (mushtabihat) and the ruling to avoid them.

Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah states:
“And the point of evidence from it is his (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) statement: ‘Observe veiling from him, O Sawdah,’ along with his ruling that he was her brother through her father. But when he saw the clear resemblance in him to someone other than Zam’ah, he ordered Sawdah to observe veiling from him as a precaution, according to the majority.”
(Fath al-Bari)

That is, the evidence for doubtful matters here is the blessed instruction of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam to Sawdah radi Allahu anha: apparently, he is your brother, and Islamic law also establishes this, but there is certainly doubt that he may be Utbah’s son, as he also resembles him. Therefore, it is better that you observe veiling from him. Sawdah radi Allahu anha acted upon this Prophetic instruction until she departed from this world.

The meaning of “al-walad lil-firash” is “the child belongs to the owner of the bed,” i.e., the child will legally be considered as belonging to the owner of the bed upon which the child was born, meaning the lawful and legal owner or husband. The child will be considered his, even if he is from the sperm of another, if such a case is established. In such a case, the adulterer is only liable for stoning.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
In the era of ignorance (Jahiliyyah), slave women would commit fornication (zina), and prominent nobles would visit them. When a slave woman became pregnant as a result of this wrongdoing, sometimes her owner would claim the child, and sometimes the adulterer would admit that the pregnancy was from him.

The case of the slave woman belonging to the father of Umm al-Mu’minin Sawdah (radi Allahu anha), Zam‘ah, was similar. ‘Uqbah bin Abi Waqqas committed fornication with her, as a result of which she became pregnant.

On his deathbed, he bequeathed to his brother Sa‘d bin Abi Waqqas (radi Allahu anhu) that the pregnancy of Zam‘ah’s slave woman was from his own seed. When the child is born, he should take him into his custody.

At the time of the conquest of Makkah, Sa‘d bin Abi Waqqas (radi Allahu anhu) wanted to take the child into his custody, but Zam‘ah’s son objected, saying that this is my brother and was born on my father’s bed.

The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) invalidated the law of Jahiliyyah and ruled in favor of ‘Abd bin Zam‘ah, saying:
“The child belongs to the owner of the bed (sahib al-firash), and the adulterer is deprived of him.”
However, the child resembled ‘Uqbah bin Abi Waqqas. On the basis of this suspicion, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) instructed his noble wife, Sawdah bint Zam‘ah (radi Allahu anha), to observe veiling (hijab) from this boy, even though, as the daughter of Zam‘ah, she was his sister.

(2)
According to Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah), Sawdah (radi Allahu anha) was instructed to observe veiling (hijab) out of precaution due to this doubt, because the slave woman had illicit relations with ‘Uqbah, and the child’s appearance also resembled him.

Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) interpreted this hadith as an explanation of doubt and established from it the ruling to avoid doubtful matters.

Hafiz Ibn Hajar (rahimahullah) writes:
The basis of Imam Bukhari’s (rahimahullah) reasoning is the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) instructing Sawdah (radi Allahu anha) to observe veiling from this boy, even though the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) had, by law and Shari‘ah, declared him to be her brother. However, there was a public suspicion that he was actually the son of ‘Uqbah, as was apparent from the resemblance in appearance. Therefore, as a precaution, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) instructed veiling.

(Fath al-Bari: 4/371)

Hadith Commentary:
Vocabulary of the Hadith:
LIL-'AAHIR AL-HAJAR:
According to the idiom of the Arabs, (LAHU AL-HAJARU or BIFIHI AL-HAJARU) means failure and disappointment.
And in this hadith, this is the intended meaning,
although according to the general meaning, it would mean: "For the adulterer, there are stones."
Benefits and Issues:
"Firaash" refers to the woman with whom intercourse has taken place,
whether she is free or a slave-woman. This boy about whom there was a dispute,
his name was 'Abdur Rahman, who was from the slave-woman of Zam‘ah, the father of (the Mother of the Believers) Sawdah radi Allahu anha.
With whom the brother of Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas committed adultery, and as a result, this child was born.
Therefore, ‘Utbah ibn Abi Waqqas had made a bequest to his brother Sa‘d that this is my child.
‘Utbah died as a disbeliever, and at the time of the conquest of Makkah, Sa‘d took hold of this child due to his resemblance to his brother.
Zam‘ah had already died in a state of disbelief before the conquest of Makkah.
And his son ‘Abd became Muslim at the time of the conquest of Makkah.
Therefore, he disputed with Sa‘d, saying that this is from my father's slave-woman who was assigned to him,
so he is my brother.
The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam ruled in favor of ‘Abd according to the principle,
because Zam‘ah had not denied it, and the boy was from his assigned slave-woman.
Therefore, he was considered his (Zam‘ah's) child. However, since the child resembled ‘Utbah, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, out of caution and prudence, said to ‘Abd's sister, Sawdah radi Allahu anha:
"Observe veiling from him."
And a woman only becomes "mafrooshah" (assigned to the bed) when her husband or owner has had intercourse with her, or at least there is a possibility of intercourse.
If there is no possibility of intercourse—
for example, after the marriage contract, the bride has not been sent to the groom, nor is there any possibility of their union (e.g., at the time of marriage, the man is in America and the woman is in Pakistan),
and after that, the man has not come to Pakistan, nor has the woman gone to America, but even so, the woman gives birth to a child—then, according to the three Imams and the majority of scholars, the child will not be considered the husband's.
But according to the Hanafis, since for "firaash" (bed) only the marriage contract is sufficient,
therefore, even if there is no possibility of intercourse, the child will be considered the husband's,
provided that pregnancy is possible.

Benefits and Issues:
➊
Since these were matters from the time of ignorance (Jahiliyyah) and those people were involved in such actions, they did not consider such children to be a source of shame. However, Islam established this principle and law:
The child belongs to the (owner of the) bed.
In the mentioned incident, it was evident from the child’s appearance that he was a child of fornication (walad al-zina) and the son of Utbah, but the principle and rule were given precedence, and he was attached to the owner of the bed.
Legally, although he became the brother of Sawdah (radi Allahu anha), due to the claim and the resemblance in appearance to the fornicator, his lineage remained doubtful.
Therefore, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) ordered Sawdah (radi Allahu anha) to observe veiling (hijab) from him because his being her brother was doubtful.
Although, according to the rule, he was made a member of their family.

➋
One translation of (walil-‘ahiri al-hajar) is deprivation for the fornicator; in this case, the letter “jeem” will have sukoon (jazm) instead of a fatha.
The meaning in both cases will be the same: the fornicator will not be entitled to the child; rather, punishment will be his share.
Either the punishment of stoning (rajm) or one hundred lashes, and he will remain deprived of the child.

(1) The child over whom there was a dispute was born from the slave woman of Zam‘ah. In reality, he was from the illegitimate seed of ‘Utbah. In the era of ignorance (Jahiliyyah), children born as a result of fornication (zina) with slave women would be attributed to the fornicator who claimed them. The claim of Sa‘d radi Allahu anhu was based on this pre-Islamic custom, but Islam abolished this vile practice; now, a child will not be attributed to the fornicator. If the woman’s husband or master does not deny, the child will be considered his son. If he denies, then the child will be attributed to the mother who gave birth.

(2) The noble wife of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, Sawdah radi Allahu anha, was also the daughter of Zam‘ah. In this respect, that child would also be her brother, but since in reality he was from the seed of ‘Utbah, therefore, despite being a legal brother, she was commanded to observe veiling (purdah) from him because he was not a real brother. This dispute occurred at the time of the conquest of Makkah.

(3) It has been deduced from this hadith that physiognomy (qiyafah shanasi) will be considered valid only where there is no stronger evidence opposing it. The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam did not give consideration to resemblance (mushabahat) here, nor in the case of li‘an, because in these cases there were stronger evidences opposing it—namely, the legal principle that the child will be attributed to the owner of the bed, and the legislation of li‘an. However, in the incident of Zayd ibn Harithah, it was considered because there was no stronger evidence opposing it. And Allah knows best. The decision of a ruler or judge does not change the reality and essence of a case, even if he makes the decision based on apparent evidences. For example, if someone gives false testimony and the judge decides accordingly, then the thing decided in someone’s favor will not become lawful (halal) for him according to the Shari‘ah. You (the Prophet) declared the child to be the brother of ‘Abd ibn Zam‘ah, based on the legal principle, but commanded Sawdah to observe veiling from him, because in reality he was not her brother, as there was clear resemblance to ‘Utbah. In this regard, there is also a clear statement of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam that if I decide in someone’s favor based on apparent evidences, that thing does not actually become lawful for him; rather, he should consider that I am giving him a piece of the Fire (of Hell). He should not take it. (Sahih al-Bukhari, al-Shahadat, Hadith: 2680; and Sahih Muslim, al-Aqdiyah, Hadith: 1713)

The father's intent is that just as the children of a wife are considered to belong to the husband, similarly, the children of a slave woman (amah) will also be considered to belong to the master, provided that the husband or master does not deny it. The wife is also a "bed" (firaash), and so is the slave woman. This is the position of the majority (jumhoor). The Hanafis do not consider the slave woman to be "firaash," and do not regard the child from the slave woman as belonging to the master unless he claims it. However, this is not correct. This hadith explicitly establishes the slave woman as "firaash."

Benefits and Issues:
➊
In the era of ignorance (Jahiliyyah), establishing illicit relations with someone’s slave woman was not considered wrong.
In Islam, sexual relations can only be established with one’s own wife or one’s owned slave woman (mamlukah).
Every other kind of sexual relation is a punishable crime. (See: Surah Al-Mu’minun, verses: 5, 6, 7)
Just as a boy born from one’s wife is considered the man’s son, similarly, a boy born from one’s owned slave woman is also the man’s free son, not a slave.

➌
In Jahiliyyah, a child born as a result of illicit relations was considered the son of the person from whose relations he was born.
According to this same custom of Jahiliyyah, Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas wanted to take into his care the child born from Zam‘ah’s slave woman, considering him his brother’s child.

➍
The position of ‘Abd ibn Zam‘ah was that the child was legally his brother because he was the son of his father’s slave woman, regardless of who his real father was.

➎
From the child’s apparent form and resemblance, it was evident that he was born from Sa’d’s brother, but legally he was declared the brother of ‘Abd ibn Zam‘ah.

➏
Since it was clear that, although the boy was legally the brother of Sawdah radi Allahu anha, in reality he was not her brother, the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam ordered Umm al-Mu’minin Sawdah radi Allahu anha to observe veiling (purdah) from him.

➐
Sometimes an issue has two aspects, due to which two different rulings are established.
In one case, one aspect is given preference, and in another case, the other aspect is preferred—just as, despite the boy being declared the son of Zam‘ah, his sister Sawdah radi Allahu anha was ordered to observe veiling from him.

Takhrij al-Hadith:
[وأخرجه البخاري 6749، من حديث مالك به ورواه مسلم 1457 من حديث ابن شهاب الزهري به]

Jurisprudential Explanation:
➊ A man married a woman, and then (nine months) later, that woman gave birth to a boy or girl. This boy or girl was born on the man's bed; therefore, according to this hadith, it is established that this is the child of that man, unless the father denies it or there is some legal (shar‘i) indication.
● Some people say, "So-and-so is the son of so-and-so, and this is proven only by following (taqlid)." This statement of such people is false, because the proof of a son or daughter is established from this authentic hadith (and other ahadith). When the marriage (nikah) is established, then the offspring is automatically established, which is born on the father's bed after the marriage. "Father's bed" means that he is the husband of that woman.

➋ Exercising caution and avoiding doubtful matters is superior. The Noble Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said: «دَعْ مَا يَرِيبُكَ إِلَى مَا لَا يَرِيبُكَ» "Leave that which causes you doubt for that which does not cause you doubt (that which is certain)." [سنن الترمذي: 2518 وسنده صحيح، وقال الترمذي: ”هٰذا حديث صحيح“ و صححه ابن خزيمة : 2348 وابن حبان، الموارد:512 والحاكم 13/2 والذهبي]

➌ In obedience to the Noble Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, the Mothers of the Believers and the noble Companions were always at the forefront and ever ready. Radi Allahu anhum ajma‘in.

➍ In the absence of any legal (shar‘i) indication, all the legal texts (nusus shar‘iyyah) will be acted upon according to their apparent meaning.

➎ The punishment for adultery (zina) is rajm (stoning to death), provided the adulterer is married. The hadith of «الوَلَدُ لِلْفِرَاشِ وَلِلْعَاهِرِ الْحَجَرُ» is mutawatir (conveyed by numerous chains). See: [قطف الازهار المتناثره فى الاخبار المتواتره 82 و نظم المتناثر من الحديث المتواتر 181]
● Likewise, it is also mutawatir that Ma‘iz bin Malik radi Allahu anhu was stoned to death due to adultery. See: [قطف الازهار 83 ولفظ الآلي المتناثره فى الأحاديث المتواتره 47 ونظم المتناثر 182]
◄ Besides these, there are many other ahadith as well; therefore, it is established that giving the punishment of rajm to a married adulterer is proven by mutawatir, definitive, and certain ahadith. The denial of the punishment of rajm by some hadith rejecters is false and rejected. Also see: [الموطأ حديث: 54، البخاري: 6633, 6634]

Benefit:
It is established from this hadith that the child belongs to the one on whose bed he is born. Also, as stated in this hadith, for the adulterer there are stones (i.e., stoning as punishment), this is authentically established from the hadith. The details of this issue have already been discussed elsewhere. Furthermore, it is also proven from this hadith that in matters of dispute, thorough investigation should be conducted. The disbelievers used to make remarks about the lineage of Sayyiduna Usamah radi Allahu anhu, because he was very dark-skinned, while Sayyiduna Zayd radi Allahu anhu was very fair-skinned. If a physiognomist (qiyafah shanas) makes such a statement for which there is some supporting indication of its correctness, then his statement will be accepted. On this occasion, the silence of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam after hearing the statement of the physiognomist is evidence of the correctness of his statement. It is also established from this hadith that it is not necessary for all the children among the offspring to bear the features and complexion of their father.