Bukhari

Hadith Commentary:
You had a written questionnaire sent to the Jews regarding this murder case; from this, the purpose of the chapter is established.

Hadith Commentary:
➊
The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) paid the blood money (diyah) of the slain person from his own side in order to end the dispute, and also with the intention of winning their hearts (ta’leef al-qalb, i.e., conciliating them). Otherwise, they had no rightful claim to it, because they themselves were not willing to take an oath, nor did they trust the oath of the Jews.
➋
The purpose of the chapter heading is to show that the ruler of the time can send written instructions to his officials regarding the collection of zakat (obligatory charity) or matters related to jihad (struggle in the path of Allah). However, in the hadith, there is no mention of writing to one’s own deputy; rather, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) wrote to his opposing party, the Jews.
If it is permissible to write to them, then what objection can there be to writing to one’s own staff?
(Fath al-Bari: 13/229)

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
In one narration, it is stated that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:
“They (the Jews) will pay the blood money (diyah) of your companion or be prepared for war.”
He further said:
“Will you claim the right to your companion’s blood by taking oaths?”
They replied:
“How can we take oaths when we were not present there, nor did we see anything?”
So the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:
“Then they will take fifty oaths and thereby absolve themselves from you.”
They said:
“How can we accept the oaths of disbelievers?”
Then the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam paid the blood money (diyah) himself.
(Sahih al-Bukhari, al-Jizyah, Hadith: 3173)
The purpose is that, in order to resolve such disputes, the blood money (diyah) should be paid from the public treasury (bayt al-mal).
When there is no bayt al-mal, the government should pay the blood money (diyah) of the murdered person from its own treasury.

(2)
The intent of Imam al-Bukhari rahimahullah with this hadith is that, in the case of qasamah (oath-taking in murder cases), the judgment will be to pay blood money (diyah) instead of retribution (qisas), as is clarified in the aforementioned hadith.
The position of Imam al-Bukhari rahimahullah appears to be that, in qasamah, the taking of oaths should begin with the defendant (muda’a alayh), as is found in the presented hadith.
According to our inclination, first the claimant (mudda’i) should be asked for evidence; if he does not have evidence, then he should be told to take fifty oaths.
If he does not take the oaths, then the defendant (muda’a alayh) should be asked to take the oaths, as is clarified in one narration.
The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:
“If you present two witnesses against the killer, he will be handed over to you.”
They said:
“O Messenger of Allah! Where can we bring witnesses from? The murdered person was found at the door of the Jews.”
He said:
“Then you take fifty oaths that such-and-such person killed our man.”
They said:
“O Messenger of Allah! How can we take an oath regarding something about which we are not certain?”
The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:
“Then the Jews will take fifty oaths and thereby absolve themselves from the accusation.”
They said:
“O Messenger of Allah! Why should we accept oaths from the Jews?”
Then the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, in order to resolve the dispute, paid the blood money (diyah) himself.
(Sunan al-Nasa’i, al-Qasamah, Hadith: 4724)
In one narration, it is stated that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam asked the claimant for witnesses, so they said:
“O Messenger of Allah! There are no Muslims living there who could testify in our favor; only Jews live there, and they could dare to do even greater things, meaning they could take false oaths.”
(Sunan Abi Dawud, al-Diyat, Hadith: 4524)

Hadith Commentary:
The translation of the chapter is derived from the fact that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) maintained peace with the Jews of Khaybar by paying the blood money (diyah) from his own side. The translation of the chapter, that whoever does not fulfill a covenant, its sin is not established from the hadith.
Perhaps Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) intended to write a hadith in this chapter but did not get the opportunity, or he did not find a hadith on this subject that met his conditions.
When the right is established upon the killer, the people of the slain must pay the blood money (diyah).
If the killer confesses to the murder, then retribution (qisas) can also be taken.
This is the case of qasamah (oath-taking).
In this, fifty oaths are taken from the claimant that it is my belief regarding such-and-such person that he is the one who killed.
From this, the conciliatory nature, peace-loving policy, and generosity of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) are also established. Despite the fact that the slain was a Muslim who was killed in the environment of the Jews, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) overlooked this act of the Jews so that the atmosphere of peace would remain.
And so that no prolonged conflict would arise, he himself paid the blood money (diyah) to the heirs of the Muslim slain from the public treasury (bayt al-mal). From such incidents, those people should take a lesson who make the false propaganda that Islam was spread by the sword.
In the world of religions, only Islam is such a religion that is the greatest supporter of granting maximum peace to mankind.

Hadith Commentary:
➊
The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) maintained the treaty with the Jews of Khaybar by paying blood money to the heirs of the murdered person from his own side.
If, due to some expediency, a previous treaty can be maintained by giving wealth, then, when necessary, peace can also be made with the disbelievers by giving wealth.
➋
The fundamental condition for making peace with polytheists and disbelievers by giving wealth is that there should be benefit for the Muslims in this peace.
If, on the contrary, peace is made by taking wealth from the disbelievers, then that wealth should be spent in the expenditures of jizyah.
Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah), as per his habit, has established the gravity of breach of covenant and similar matters from the ahadith mentioned in other places.
He has alluded to these ahadith through the title.
➌
From this hadith, the peace-loving nature, generosity, and conciliatory approach of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) are established. Despite the fact that the murdered person was a Muslim who was killed in the area of the Jews, the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) overlooked their action so that an atmosphere of peace would be maintained and no discord would arise.
When it appeared that the matter between the two parties would not reach a decisive conclusion, he himself paid the blood money to the Muslim heirs of the murdered person from the public treasury (bayt al-mal).
And Allah knows best.

Hadith Commentary: Benefits and Issues: "He was at peace with them at that time":

There are two viewpoints regarding the peace treaty with them during those days.

(1)
Khaybar had not yet been conquered, but there was an agreement to live with the people there in peace and security. Because in some narrations, it is mentioned that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) had threatened the Jews, saying, "Listen to the declaration of war from Allah and His Messenger." If Khaybar had already been conquered, then there would have been no need to announce war; the Muslims could have expelled them from Khaybar as they did during the era of Umar (radi Allahu anhu).

(2)
The second viewpoint is that this incident occurred after the conquest of Khaybar (Fath al-Bari, vol. 12, p. 390, Maktabah Darussalam).

1638. Commentary: Its details will come ahead (in the chapter of Qasamah), that Abdullah bin Sahal radi Allahu anhu was killed in Khaybar. So the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam paid his blood money (diyah). The inference from this is that the leader or the one in charge of charity is permitted to give from the wealth of charity to the deserving such an amount that the right of the entitled person is fully fulfilled and the needy becomes self-sufficient.

Benefits and Issues:
➊ For settlement in cases of murder or other matters, oaths may be taken from disbelievers as well, provided that the other party considers them valid, and the oaths are taken in the name of Allah.

➋ In an Islamic government, the blood of any person cannot be wasted.

➌ If the accused cannot be identified and the matter remains ambiguous, the blood money (diyah) will be paid from the public treasury (bayt al-mal).

➍ There is no harm in working or being employed among disbelievers, provided that a person is able to safeguard his religion, Islam.

➎ If something is to be presented in a gathering, the younger should, out of respect, allow the elder to speak first.

➏ In the case where a claim of murder is established through qasamah (oaths), there is a difference of opinion among the jurists regarding whether the accused should be killed in retribution (qisas); however, there is consensus that blood money (diyah) becomes obligatory.

Benefits and Issues:
The correct and preferred opinion is that first, fifty people from among the claimants will take oaths to establish their claim; then, oaths and so on will be taken from the opposing party.

Malik ibn Anas narrated this report as mursal. Imam Malik rahimahullah narrates this report from two teachers: Abu Layla and Yahya ibn Sa‘id. When he narrates from Yahya ibn Sa‘id, he narrates it as mursal, meaning he does not mention the intermediary of Sahl ibn Abi Hathmah radi Allahu anhu. When he narrates from Abu Layla, he narrates it as musnad (connected). Therefore, this narration of Imam Malik is authentic on the basis of corroborating reports and supporting narrations. The narration of Yahya ibn Sa‘id (4722) is coming ahead, while the narration transmitted from Abu Layla has already passed (Hadith: 4714).

(1) The clarification of this contradiction is as follows: All the other narrators of this hadith state that the murdered person was Abdullah bin Sahal, who was the cousin of Muhayyisa, whereas Amr bin Shu‘aib says (as will be mentioned in the following hadith) that the murdered person was the younger son of Muhayyisa, meaning Abdullah bin Sahal was not the one killed. The second contradiction is that, contrary to all other narrators, he has narrated this from his great-grandfather, Abdullah bin Amr radi Allahu anhu, whereas all the narrators have narrated it from Sahal bin Abi Hathmah radi Allahu anhu. The third contradiction is that he says the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam divided the blood money (diyah) among the Jews and, cooperating with them, took half the blood money, i.e., fifty camels, upon himself, whereas all the narrators say that the entire blood money, i.e., one hundred camels and she-camels, was paid by the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam from his own side (from the public treasury/bayt al-mal). The detail mentioned in this hadith is not correct; rather, the detail mentioned by the other narrators is correct and authentic. This narration opposes the authentic narrations and many trustworthy narrators; therefore, this narration is shaadh (anomalous), i.e., weak, whereas the other narrations in comparison are preserved, i.e., authentic. And Allah knows best.

(2) The mention of testimony (shahadah) is found only in the narration of Sa‘id bin Ubayd al-Ta’i. The other narrators have not mentioned testimony. The detailed narrations, which are from Bukhari and Muslim, mention that the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam first demanded oaths from the claimants. Upon their refusal, he demanded oaths from the defendants. In this regard, the mention of testimony by Sa‘id bin Ubayd al-Ta’i appears to be an anomaly (shudhoodh). It is possible that by [خَالَفَھُمْ سَعِیْدُ بْنُ عُبَیْدِ نِ الطَّائِیُّ], Imam al-Nasa’i rahimahullah intended to point towards this very matter.

(1) This blessed hadith is an explicit proof for the legitimacy of qasamah. The ruling remains the same even now. The majority of the scholars hold this view.

(2) From this hadith, it is understood that in important matters, preference should be given to the elder. He should be given the opportunity to speak first, provided he possesses the necessary competence. However, if the elder lacks such ability, then the statement of the younger will be considered.

(3) In qasamah, in order to establish the occurrence of murder, it is necessary to take oaths with certainty and firmness; either the murdered person was seen being killed, or information about the killer was received from a reliable source. Apart from this, murder cannot be established merely on the basis of conjecture.

(4) Abdullah ibn Sahal and Muhayyisah were paternal cousins. They had land in Khaybar which they had received from the spoils of Khaybar.

(5) “You claim the right” — In some narrations, it is mentioned that the oaths were first taken from the Jews, because they were the defendants, and the oath is the right of the defendant. In this hadith, it is mentioned that the oaths were first taken from the claimants. In qasamah, action will be according to the second scenario, and such narrations are given preference, even though in general matters, the burden of proof is upon the claimant and the oath is upon the defendant. And Allah knows best.

Urdu marginal note:
"From his own side" means from the Bayt al-Mal (public treasury), because the Bayt al-Mal was under his authority.

Benefits and Issues:

➊
When a person is killed and the identity of the killers is unknown, then fifty men from the claimant tribe will swear oaths regarding the suspected individuals, declaring that these are our killers.
If they take the oath, then the blood money (diyah) will be taken from the defendants.
If these people do not take the oath, then fifty men from the defendants will swear that we did not kill him, nor do we know the killer.
If they refuse to take the oath, then it will be necessary for them to produce the killer, and if they do take the oath, then they will be acquitted and no blood money will be taken from them.
In this case, the blood money will be paid from the public treasury (bayt al-mal).

➋
No child, woman, slave, or insane person should be included among those who take the oath.
If the number of fifty individuals cannot be completed, then those present will complete the number of fifty oaths. (Hashiyah Sunan Ibn Majah by Muhammad Fuad Abdul Baqi)

➌
In important matters, elders should speak, and in the presence of elders, the youth should not take the initiative to speak.

Takhrij:
«أخرجه البخاري، الأحكام، باب كتاب الحاكم إلي عماله والقاضي إلي أمنائه، حديث:7192، ومسلم، القسامة والمحاربين....، باب القسامة، حديث:1669.»©Explanation:
➊ This hadith establishes the proof for qasamah.
➋ Qasamah is when, due to the inability to identify the killer, oaths are taken from the suspected individuals that they did not commit the murder and that they have no knowledge of the killer.
➌ This method existed in the pre-Islamic era as well, and Islam has permitted it.
➍ In this, fifty people give sworn testimony that neither they, nor their tribe, nor the people of their village killed the person.
➎ It should be known that this oath is only for cases of blood (murder); in other cases of hudud (prescribed punishments), such sworn testimony is not accepted.
➏ In qasamah, if the heirs or relatives of the murdered person present evidence, or in the absence of evidence, take an oath that these are the killers of their murdered relative, then the defendant becomes liable for blood money (diyah).
If the claimant is unable to do either of these, and the defendant or defendants take fifty oaths, then they are acquitted.
➐ The oaths will be accepted from those individuals whom the claimant selects.
➑ This hadith also establishes the important issue that in collective matters, the elder should speak first.
➒ In the case of qasamah, the first oath is upon the heirs of the murdered person; if they refuse or abstain, then those against whom the claim is made will take the oath and be acquitted, and nothing will be imposed upon them. If they do not take the oaths, then blood money (diyah) will be obligatory upon them.
© Narrators of the Hadith:
«حضرت عبداللہ بن سہل رضی اللہ عنہ » Abdullah bin Sahal bin Zayd bin Ka'b bin Amir al-Ansari al-Harithi.
He was killed in Khaybar and found in a spring with his neck broken.
«حضرت مُحَیِّصہ رضی اللہ عنہ » Abu Sa'id Muhayyisah bin Mas'ud bin Ka'b al-Harithi al-Ansari al-Madani.
He was the paternal cousin of Abdullah bin Sahal, the murdered person.
He is a well-known and renowned companion.
He accepted Islam before the Hijrah.
He participated in all the battles except Uhud and Khandaq.
The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) sent him to Fadak to invite the people of Fadak to accept Islam.
«حضرت حُوَیِّصَہ رضی اللہ عنہ » He is the real elder brother of Muhayyisah.
He accepted Islam in the 3rd year of Hijrah.
He participated in all the battles with the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), including Uhud and Khandaq.
«حضرت عبدالرحمن بن سہل رضی اللہ عنہ » He was the brother of Abdullah bin Sahal.
His mother's name was Layla bint Nafi' bin Amir.
It is said that he participated in Badr, Uhud, and all the remaining battles.
He was the companion who was bitten by a snake.
Hazrat 'Umara bin Hazm, according to the instruction of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), performed ruqyah (incantation) for him.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah has expressed doubt about this in al-Isabah and considered it unlikely.

Benefit:
After narrating this hadith, Imam Tirmidhi states:
➊ "This hadith is hasan sahih (good and authentic)."
➋ Some scholars have acted upon this hadith regarding qasamah.
➌ Some jurists of Madinah consider retribution (qisas) to be valid on the basis of qasamah.
➍ Some scholars of Kufa and certain other people say: "Qisas is not obligatory on the basis of qasamah; only blood money (diyah) is obligatory."

Qasamah: In the case of an unknown murder, taking oaths from the suspected individuals or the people of the locality is called qasamah. Its procedure is as follows: If a person is found murdered and no one knows the identity of the killer, and there is no testimony against the accused, then based on certain circumstantial evidence, the heirs of the murdered person may present a claim against a specific individual, alleging that so-and-so killed their relative. For example, if there is enmity between the murdered person and the accused, or the murdered person is found near the house of the accused, or the belongings of the murdered person are found with someone—these are all circumstantial evidences. In such a case, the claimant will take fifty oaths against the accused and thus become entitled to the blood of the murdered person. If the claimant refuses to take the oaths, then the accused will take oaths and be acquitted from blood money (diyah). If neither party takes oaths, then the blood money will be paid from the public treasury (bayt al-mal).