Muslim

Hadith Commentary: Benefits and Issues: (1)
By "Rabi‘" is meant Rabi‘ bint Nadr bin Dumdum, who is the paternal aunt of Anas bin Malik bin Nadr, and the sister of Anas bin Nadr radi Allahu anhu. By "Harithah" is meant Harithah bin Suraqah, who was martyred in the Battle of Badr. And when Umm Rabi‘, upon the Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) pronouncement of the ruling of retribution (qisas) that Allah’s law is: if the guardian does not pardon, then there is retribution (qisas), responded by saying, "By Allah, I have trust and reliance upon Allah that the opposing party will be pleased with pardon or blood money (diyah), so practically the incident of retribution will not occur." On this basis, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said at the end: "There are some servants of Allah, if they swear by Allah with reliance upon Him, He fulfills their oath." Therefore, the objection cannot arise that Umm Rabi‘ rejected the Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) ruling of retribution. If she had rejected it, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) would not have praised her, but rather would have expressed anger and displeasure. Therefore, one should not insist on the apparent meaning of every speaker’s words, nor should one immediately issue a verdict of disbelief (kufr) or sinfulness upon the apparent statement or action of a person of good character and piety. Rather, one should try to ascertain their intent and purpose, and take into account their circumstances and conditions, lest, due to emotional intensity—whether of joy or grief—or due to a lapse in expression, such an act is committed unconsciously. For every action and statement of a person should be viewed in light of their character, conduct, and general behavior.

(2)
From this hadith, it is established that mutual retribution (qisas) and retaliation between men and women applies not only in cases of life and soul, but also in limbs and body parts. In matters of life and soul, there is retribution between men and women; on this, the four Imams and the majority are agreed. (Al-Mughni, vol. 11, p. 500, issue no. 1432) There is a difference of opinion regarding retribution in limbs and body parts. According to the Imams of Hijaz—Malik, Shafi‘i, and Ahmad—retribution applies between men and women in these cases as well. However, according to Imam Abu Hanifah, there is no retribution between men and women in limbs; in such a case, there will be blood money (diyah).

(3)
From the aforementioned narration of Sahih Muslim, it appears that the crime or offense was committed by Rabi‘’s sister, whereas from the narrations of Sahih Bukhari, it appears that the offense was committed by Rabi‘ herself. Similarly, in the narration of Sahih Muslim, there is mention of wounding, while in Bukhari, there is mention of breaking the front tooth (thaniyyah). The third difference is that, according to the narration of Sahih Muslim, the oath was taken by Rabi‘’s mother, while according to most narrations of Bukhari, the oath was taken by Rabi‘’s brother, the uncle of Anas radi Allahu anhu, Anas bin Nadr. Therefore, there is a difference among the commentators in reconciling this contradiction. Some scholars are of the opinion that these are two separate incidents: in one, Rabi‘’s sister wounded someone and the oath was taken by her mother; in the other, Rabi‘ broke a woman’s front tooth and the oath was taken by her brother, Anas bin Nadr radi Allahu anhu. Others are of the view that it is a single incident, and that wounding and breaking a tooth are not contradictory, and that the offense was committed by Anas bin Nadr radi Allahu anhu’s sister, Rabi‘. The narrator’s confusion led him to make it "the sister of Rabi‘." Therefore, Imam Bayhaqi has said that if these are not two incidents, then the narration of Thabit is preferred. Although Hafiz Ibn Hajar inclines to the view that there are two incidents, and in the case of it being a single incident, the one who took the oath was Anas bin Nadr radi Allahu anhu. The correct view is that the narration of Sahih Bukhari is preferred, and it is from Humayd, not from Thabit. Therefore, Imam Bayhaqi’s preferring the narration of Thabit, which is the narration of Muslim, is not correct, and there is no problem in considering them as two incidents, because the narrator of both incidents is Anas bin Malik radi Allahu anhu, who is a distinguished member of that family, and both of his students, Thabit and Humayd, who narrate from him, were long-time companions of his.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
In another place, Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has narrated this report in detail, the wording of which is as follows:
The paternal aunt of Anas radi Allahu anhu, Rubayyi‘ bint Nadr, broke the tooth of an Ansari girl.
The relatives of Rubayyi‘ sought forgiveness from her, but she refused. Then they offered to pay blood money (diyah), but she rejected that as well and presented herself before the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, demanding retribution (qisas) and refusing to accept anything except qisas. Therefore, the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam decreed qisas.
Upon hearing this, her brother Anas radi Allahu anhu said:
O Messenger of Allah! Will my sister Rubayyi‘’s tooth be broken? Never! By the One Who sent you with the truth, her tooth will not be broken. Upon hearing this, the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:
“O Anas! Allah’s command demands only qisas.”
Meanwhile, those people agreed to accept blood money and granted pardon.
The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:
“There are some servants of Allah that if they swear by Allah, Allah fulfills their oath.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, al-Tafsir, Hadith: 4500)

(2)
The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:
“Allah’s command demands only qisas.”
By this, he indicated the following verses:
“And in wounds there is (the law of) retribution (qisas).”
()
“Punish them with the like of that with which you were punished.”
()
Rather, there is a clear text in the Qur’an that for a tooth, there is a tooth.

(3)
When Anas radi Allahu anhu heard the verdict of qisas and said what he did, it was not to reject the verdict, but rather, out of trust and certainty in Allah, he negated its occurrence. Thus, the matter happened according to his wish.
(Fath al-Bari: 12/280)
It should be noted that in the hadith, “breaking” does not mean “extracting.” Thus, Imam Abu Dawud rahimahullah says that Imam Ahmad rahimahullah was asked:
How is qisas carried out in the case of a tooth? He replied:
It is to be filed down by the same amount.
(Sunan Abi Dawud, al-Diyat, Hadith: 4595)

Hadith Commentary:
This narration is extremely concise.
Its details will be mentioned later.
"The command of the Book of Allah is only retribution (qisas)."
This means that if the heirs of the murdered person agree to accept blood money (diyah), then that is a preferable situation; otherwise, the decision of the Book of Allah is that retribution (qisas) shall be taken from the killer.

If a tooth is completely uprooted, then the tooth of the one who broke it may be uprooted in retribution (qisas), but in such a manner that the other teeth are not weakened. And the same tooth that was uprooted should be uprooted from the other party as well. However, if it is not completely uprooted but only broken from the top, then the other party will pay appropriate compensation. In this case, there will be no retribution (qisas), because breaking exactly the same amount of tooth is not possible, and breaking more is not permissible. Therefore, compensation will be given. And Allah knows best.