Nasai

(1) The difference mentioned in the translation of the chapter heading, upon examining the ahadith cited under this chapter, becomes clear to be of two types: One difference is that this narration from Humayd is reported by several of his students, for example: Abdullah ibn Umar al-Umari, Isma'il ibn Abi Kathir, Khalid ibn Harith al-Hujaymi, and Muhammad ibn Abi 'Adi. However, the words "ṣalabahum" ("he crucified them" or "he hung them on the cross") are narrated only by Abdullah ibn Umar al-Umari; none of the other aforementioned students of Humayd narrate these words. Therefore, the addition of the words "ṣalabahum" in this narration is not correct; rather, this addition is munkar (rejected), because Abdullah al-Umari is opposing other trustworthy narrators, while he himself is weak.

(2) The second difference is that the words "abwāliha" ("its urine") in this narration, although correct, are narrated by two students of Humayd, Abdullah ibn Umar al-Umari and Isma'il ibn Abi Kathir, from the chain Humayd from Anas. However, Humayd's students Khalid al-Hujaymi and Muhammad ibn Abi 'Adi narrate the words "abwāliha" from the chain Humayd from Qatadah from Anas. Preference is also given to their narration, because it is more firmly established than that of al-Umari and Isma'il. And Allah knows best.

(3) Although it is permissible to hang a criminal on the cross as a punishment so that people may take heed from it, the addition of the words about crucifixion mentioned in this narration is munkar (rejected), because in this, Abdullah al-Umari, who is a weak narrator, has opposed the trustworthy narrators.

Hadith Commentary:
Such faithless, wicked, vile, and ungrateful people should indeed be given a severe punishment so that others may take heed, and the servants of Allah may remain safe from their oppression.

The relevance of this hadith to the chapter heading is difficult.

Because in this hadith, there is mention of hot iron rods being passed through the eyes, which is fire, but it is not mentioned here that they (the criminals) had also punished the Muslims with fire.

And perhaps Imam Bukhari rahimahullah, in accordance with his usual practice, has alluded to another chain of this hadith, which has been narrated by Taymi.

In that narration, it is stated that those people had treated the Muslim shepherds in the same manner.

(Wahidi)

Hadith Commentary:
➊
The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) treated those apostates in the same manner as they had treated the government shepherd. Thus, it is stated in Sahih Muslim:
The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) had hot iron rods passed over the eyes of those apostates because they had passed hot rods over the eyes of the Messenger of Allah’s (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) shepherd.
(Sahih Muslim, al-Qasamah wa al-Muharibin, Hadith 4360(1671))
He did this as retribution (qisas).
➋
In those hadiths where such an act is prohibited, the prohibition refers to doing so without retribution (qisas). Therefore, the hadiths regarding permissibility and prohibition each have their own context.
In any case, faithless, wicked, and treacherous people should be given such a severe punishment that others may take heed, and the rest of the people may be saved from their oppression and violence.
(Fath al-Bari: 6/185)

Hadith Commentary:

These bandits committed such oppression against the Muslim shepherd. Therefore, under the principle of "an eye for an eye" (al-‘ayn bil-‘ayn), the same was done to them.

Hasan al-Basri (rahimahullah) said this regarding Hajjaj because he wanted to use such a precedent as justification for his own acts of oppression. However, his acts of oppression were explicitly unlawful. This most severe punishment was given to them as retribution (qisas).

They had done the same to the shepherd, so the same was done to them.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
It is said that Hajjaj bin Yusuf was very oppressive. He would commit the harshest acts of oppression, taking even the slightest pretext as justification. The milk of a lawful animal contains healing. If someone’s stomach becomes distended, physicians prescribe the milk of a she-camel (naqat) as a remedy. Its use expels harmful substances, and the stomach returns to its normal state. These unfortunate people suffered from the same ailment. While residing in Madinah Tayyibah, their stomachs had become distended, so the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) sent them to the camel enclosure and instructed them to drink the milk of the she-camels. Thus, when they became healthy, they killed the shepherd and mutilated his body, then drove away the camels. The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) prescribed for them the same punishment that they had inflicted upon the government shepherd. Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) has established from this hadith that the milk of she-camels may be used as medicine.

Hadith Commentary:
These people were, in reality, bandits and highway robbers. Although they came to Madinah and accepted Islam, their original disposition did not leave them. When they found an opportunity, they committed robbery again, shed blood, took away the camels, and as retribution, they were given the aforementioned punishment.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
These people were, in reality, bandits and highway robbers. Although they outwardly accepted Islam after coming to Madinah Tayyibah, there was no real transformation in their inherent character. When the opportunity arose, they killed the shepherd and took away the camels. Then, they were given the same punishment as mentioned in the hadith.
(2)
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has established from this hadith that the urine of camels can be used as medicine.

Hadith Commentary:

Due to the incompatibility of the climate, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) sent those people from Madinah to Harrah. Later, they became apostates and turned into bandits, committing such acts for which the punishment they received was appropriate.

The purpose of the chapter is evident from the hadith. The correspondence between the hadith and the chapter is clear because the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) ordered them to leave Madinah due to the climate being unsuitable for them.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
It is permissible to move from a region whose climate is not suitable, just as the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) sent the mentioned people from Madinah Tayyibah to Harrah. However, they became apostates and turned to criminal behavior. They committed such acts that they were given the punishment appropriate to them.

(2)
In any case, the correspondence between the chapter heading and the hadith is evident, as the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) ordered them to leave Madinah Tayyibah due to the climate being unsuitable for them. Hafiz Ibn Hajar (rahimahullah) has written that Imam Bukhari’s (rahimahullah) intent is that if, due to plague or the like, the climate becomes unsuitable, then it is not permissible to flee to another place, as will be mentioned later. However, without such a reason, if the climate is unsuitable, it is not prohibited to go to another place. And Allah knows best. (Fath al-Bari: 10/220)

Hadith Commentary: The aforementioned refers to the twelve bandits.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
After cutting off the thief’s hand, it is cauterized with fire to stop the bleeding so that death does not occur due to blood loss. The method is that after the hand is cut, it is placed in hot oil, but cauterization can be done in other ways as well. There are several methods for this.
(2)
After cutting off the hands and feet of those apostates, they were not cauterized because the intention was to kill them. However, in the case of the thief, the intention is not to put him to death; therefore, it is necessary to cauterize to stop the bleeding.
(Fath al-Bari: 12/135)
(3)
In this hadith, the people of ‘Uraina are explicitly mentioned, whereas in the previous hadith, the tribe of ‘Ukl was mentioned. The reconciliation is that they belonged to both tribes, as clarified in another hadith.
(Sahih al-Bukhari, al-Maghazi, Hadith: 4192)

Explanation:
These were eight men: four from the tribe of ‘Uraina, three from the tribe of ‘Ukl, and one from another tribe. They were sent to a place called Dhu al-Majda, six miles from Madinah, where the camels of the public treasury (Bayt al-Mal) used to graze. Upon regaining their health, they committed such treachery that they killed the shepherds, gouged out their eyes, and absconded with the camels. Therefore, in retribution (qisas), they were given an equally severe punishment. This was necessary for wisdom, prudence, and the establishment of peace. Considering the context of that time, this was not a barbaric punishment, as non-Muslims object. They should study their own ancient histories to see what severe punishments were prescribed for their enemies in those times.

Islam, by giving instructions on the principle of retribution (qisas), has established lasting peace. The best example of this can still be observed today in the government of Saudi Arabia. «والحمدللّٰه على ذلك ايدهم اللّٰه بنصره العزيز آمين.»

The urine of animals whose meat is lawful to eat is pure.

Although the preferred opinion is indeed this, nevertheless, there is a difference of opinion among the scholars on this issue.

(Malikis, Hanbalis) The urine of animals whose meat is lawful to eat is pure. This is also the position of Imam Nakha’i, Imam Awza’i, Imam Zuhri, Imam Muhammad, Imam Zufar, Imam Ibn Khuzaymah, Imam Ibn Mundhir, and Imam Ibn Hibban rahimahumullah ajma’in. [المغني 490/12] 1

Their evidences are as follows:

➊ The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam instructed the ‘Uraniyyin to drink the milk and urine of camels (as a remedy). [بخاري 233] 2

➋ The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam permitted prayer in sheepfolds (even though most of the area there is inevitably contaminated with their urine and feces). [ترمذي 348] 3

➌ There is no cure in forbidden things, as is the statement of Ibn Mas’ud radi Allahu anhu that «إن الله لم يجعل شفائكم فيما حرم عليكم» “Indeed, Allah the Exalted has not placed your cure in things He has made unlawful for you.” [بخاري قبل الحديث 5614] 4

And it is narrated from Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu that «نهي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن كل دواء خبيث» “The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam forbade every foul medicine (from being used).” [أبوداود 3870] 5

The ‘Uraniyyin used camel urine as a remedy by the command of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and were cured, which is clear evidence of its permissibility and purity, because there is no cure in what is unlawful.

(Shafi’is, Hanafis) Whether the urine is from an animal or a human, it is absolutely impure and filthy. [الدر المختار 295/1] 6

(Ibn Hajar rahimahullah) He has also transmitted this view from the majority. [فتح الباري 291/1]

Their evidences are as follows:

➊ The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said: “These two graves are being punished... One of them is being punished because «فكان لا يستتر من البول» he did not protect himself from (the splashes of) urine.” [بخاري 216] 7

The answer given to this is that the urine mentioned in this hadith refers only to human urine, not to the urine of all animals, as Imam Bukhari rahimahullah writes that the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said regarding the person in the grave: “He did not protect himself from his own urine.” And the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam did not mention anything other than human urine. [بخاري قبل الحديث 217] 8

(Preferred Opinion) The position of the Hanbalis and Malikis is preferred, because the original ruling regarding everything is purity, unless there is a Shari’ah evidence proving its impurity. [نيل الأوطار 100/1] 9

------------------

1 [المغني 490/12، القوانين الفقهية ص/33، كشاف القناع 220/1، الشرح الصغير 1 /47]

2 [بخاري 233، كتاب الوضوء : باب أبوال الإبل والدواب والغنم، مسلم 1671، أبو داود 4364، نسائي 160/1، ترمذي 72، ابن ماجة 2578، ابن ابي شيبة 75/7، أحمد 107/3، ابن حبان 1386، دارقطني 131/1، بيهقي 4/10]

3 [صحيح : ترمذي 348، كتاب الصلاة : باب ما جاء فى الصلاة فى مرابض الغم . . .، مسلم 817]

4 [بخاري قبل الحديث 5614، كتاب الأشربة : باب شراب الحلواء والغسل]

5 [صحيح : صحيح أبو داود 3278، كتاب الطب : باب الأدوية المكر وهة، أبوداود 3870، ترمذي 2045، ابن ماجة 3459، أحمد 305/2]

6 [فتح القدير 146/1، الدر المختار 295/1، مراقي الفلاح ص/25، مغني المحتاج 79/1، المبسوط۔ 54/1، الهداية 36/1]

7 [بخاري 216، 218 كتاب الوضوء : باب من الكبائر أن لا يستر من بوله، مسلم 292، أبو داود 20، ترمذي 70، نسائي 28/1، ابن ماجة 347، بيهقي 104/1، ابن خزيمة 56، ابن حبان 3118، ابن الجارود 130]

8 [بخاري قبل الحديث 217 كتاب الوضوء : باب ما جاء فى غسل البول]

9 [نيل الأوطار 100/1، الروضة الندية 73/1، فتح الباري 384/1]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

10. It is not correct to declare the urine of all non-edible animals as impure

➊ Because there is no clear evidence for this.

➋ And the narration that is presented in this regard: «لا بأس ببول ما أكل لحمه» “There is no harm in the urine of animals whose meat is lawful to eat,” is weak and not a valid proof, because in its chain of narration is Suwar ibn Mus’ab, who is weak, as Imam Bukhari rahimahullah declared him munkar al-hadith and Imam Nasa’i rahimahullah declared him matruk. [ضعيف : دارقطني 128/1] 1

Imam Ibn Hazm rahimahullah writes that this report is false and fabricated. [المحلي بالآثار 180/1]

Therefore, the preferred opinion is that one should suffice with certainty only regarding the impurity of human urine and feces. As for the rest of the animals, if there is a clear text establishing the ruling of purity or impurity regarding their urine or feces, then they should be included under that ruling. If there is no such evidence, then returning to the original ruling (of purity) is more correct and closer to analogy. [نيل الأوطار 101/1] 2

------------------

1 [ضعيف : دارقطني 128/1، ميزان الاعتدال 246/2]

2 [نيل الأوطار 101/1، السيل الجرار 311/1، الروضة الندية 74/1]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Hadith Commentary:
These were eight men: four from the tribe of ‘Uraina, three from the tribe of ‘Ukl, and one from another tribe.
They were sent to a place called Dhu al-Majda, six miles from Madinah,
where the camels of the Bayt al-Mal (public treasury) used to graze.
When they regained their health, they committed such treachery that they killed the shepherds, gouged out their eyes, and absconded with the camels.
Therefore, in retribution (qisas), they were given a punishment just as severe.
This was necessary for wisdom, prudence, and the establishment of peace.
According to the standards of that time, this was not a barbaric punishment, as non-Muslims object.
They should themselves study their own ancient histories to see what severe punishments were prescribed for their enemies in those times.
Islam, by giving instructions on the principle of retribution (qisas), has established lasting peace.
The best example of this can still be observed today in the government of Saudi Arabia.
And all praise is due to Allah for that. May Allah support them with His mighty help. Ameen.

Hadith Commentary:
➊
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah is discussing the rulings regarding the urine and dung of animals, stating that not all excrement is impure; rather, the urine and dung of those animals whose meat is consumed—such as camels, cows, goats, sheep, and buffalo—are pure.
In this regard, he first presents an action of Abu Musa radi Allahu anhu, which Imam Bukhari’s teacher, Abu Nu‘aym, has narrated with a connected chain in his compilation (Kitab al-Salat). The details are that Abu Musa led prayer outside Kufa at Dar al-Barid, where dung was present, even though there was an open field nearby. He was told that he could arrange to pray in the nearby wilderness or open area, but he replied:
“Here and there are both the same.”
In fact, Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari radi Allahu anhu was the governor of Kufa, and for the delivery of official mail, stations were established between cities, called Dar al-Barid.
At that time, horses and camels were used for carrying mail, and arrangements for tying them and providing fodder were made at these stations, where dung was present and the ground was often wet with their urine. Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari radi Allahu anhu would pray there.
This was not due to any necessity, as there was an open field right in front.
If ever someone suggested that he pray elsewhere, he would say that, in terms of location, there is no difference between the two, even though Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari radi Allahu anhu was extremely cautious in general matters, to the extent that he would keep a bottle with him while urinating to protect himself from splashes. His praying in such a place is evidence that the urine and dung of “ma’kul al-lahm” (animals whose meat is eaten) are not impure.

➋
In this regard, Imam Bukhari rahimahullah’s second proof is the hadith of the ‘Uraniyyin. The incident mentioned in this hadith concerns the people of the tribes of ‘Ukl and ‘Uraynah, whose number was eight (Hadith: 3018).
This hadith clarifies that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam prescribed camel milk and urine for them as medicine.
Furthermore, it is explicitly stated in Sahih al-Bukhari that Muslims used to seek treatment with camel urine and saw no harm in it.
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Tibb, Hadith: 5781)
If camel urine were impure, the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam would never have prescribed it as medicine, because the Prophetic hadith states:
“Allah has not placed healing in unlawful things.”
(Sunan Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Tibb, Hadith: 3873)
In Sahih al-Bukhari, these words are attributed to Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu.
(Sahih al-Bukhari, al-Ashriba, Chapter:
No. 15)
In addition, the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:
“In the milk and urine of camels is a cure for abdominal illnesses.”
(Sunan Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Tibb, Hadith: 3874)
It is thus clear that camel urine is not unlawful.
If it were unlawful, the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam would not have prescribed it as medicine, for he himself forbade the use of unlawful things as medicine.
(Sunan Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Tibb, Hadith: 3874)
According to Imam Malik rahimahullah, Imam Ahmad rahimahullah, Ibn Khuzaymah rahimahullah, Ibn Mundhir rahimahullah, Ibn Hibban rahimahullah, and many other scholars of the Salaf, the urine of ma’kul al-lahm animals is pure.
On the other hand, according to Imam Shafi‘i rahimahullah, Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah, and many other scholars, the urine of all animals is impure.
Those who hold the second opinion interpret the narration about avoiding urine to include the urine of animals as well as humans, but their stance is not correct, because the exception of lawful animals’ urine is established from hadith.
And all other narrations regarding the impurity of the urine of ma’kul al-lahm animals are weak.
In any case, the urine of animals whose meat is eaten is not impure, as is clearly understood from the hadith under discussion.
And the command to avoid urine refers to human urine, as Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has stated.
Moreover, the hadith of the two graves and the incident of Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari radi Allahu anhu are clear evidence of this, and any objections or doubts raised regarding this have no substance.
If camel urine were impure and its use as medicine was permitted only out of necessity, then at the very least the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam would have clarified this and instructed those who used it to wash their mouths afterward, whereas no such clarification is found in the books of hadith. Furthermore, the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam forbade the use of unlawful things as medicine.
(Sunan Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Tibb, Hadith: 3874)

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
The group of warriors and militants from the tribes of ‘Ukl and Quraynah consisted of eight individuals.
(Sahih al-Bukhari, al-Jihad, Hadith: 3018)
(2)
Hajjaj ibn Yusuf asked Anas radi Allahu anhu, “What was the most severe punishment that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam ever inflicted in his lifetime?” In response, Anas radi Allahu anhu narrated this hadith.
When Hasan al-Basri rahimahullah learned of this, he expressed regret, saying:
“I wish you had not done so.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, al-Talab, Hadith: 5685)
(3)
The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam did not give them water despite their request, even though he was extremely kind and exceedingly compassionate towards his ummah. The hadith scholars have mentioned two reasons for this:
* They had forgotten the blessing of being given to drink, for it was by drinking the milk that they had regained their health. Due to this ingratitude for the blessing, they were deprived of water.
* Among those camels were also the camels of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, whose milk was the means of sustenance for his family.
When they drove away those camels, the family of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam also remained thirsty that night.
He supplicated:
“O Allah, keep them thirsty who have kept the family of Muhammad thirsty tonight.”
Their being kept thirsty was the result of this supplication.
However, this narration is mursal.
In any case, they were treated in recompense (as retribution) in the same manner as they had acted, as Abu Qilabah stated at the end of the hadith.
(Fath al-Bari: 12/136)

Hadith Commentary:
In Arabia, they used to cauterize (seal) the severed hands and feet with burning oil; in this way, the bleeding would stop. However, these individuals were left without cauterization, and thus they died writhing in agony.
(kathalika jaza’uz-zalimeen)

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
Among the Arabs, it was customary to cauterize (brand) the hands and feet with burning oil after cutting them off; in this way, the wounds would heal quickly. However, these oppressors were left without being cauterized, and thus they writhed in agony and died. According to the clarification of the commentators, the above-mentioned noble verse was revealed in the context of this incident.

(2)
The inclination of Imam Bukhari rahimahullah appears to be that those people were disbelievers and apostates, as is evident from the title he established. Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah has written that although this verse was revealed concerning disbelievers and apostates, in terms of the generality of the wording, it applies to every combatant who, along with raising arms against Muslims, commits banditry. However, their punishments differ:
If they are disbelievers, then it is at the discretion of the ruler of the time as to how to deal with them; and if they are Muslims, then the nature of their crime will be considered.
If he has committed murder, then he will be killed in retaliation; if he has looted wealth, then his hand will be cut off.
If he has not committed murder or looted wealth, then for the restoration of peace, he can be exiled.
And Allah knows best (Fath al-Bari: 12/134)

Hadith Commentary:

Rather, they committed the utmost ingratitude and mutilated the shepherd, and made off with the camels.
That is why they were treated in the same manner.
The incident is a single one, but the greatest jurist, Imam Bukhari rahimahullah, has derived from it several political rulings.
This is the hallmark of a true jurist; there is no doubt that Imam Bukhari rahimahullah was a foremost jurist, a keen diagnostician of Islam, and a master physician of the Qur’an and Hadith. Whatever the opponents may say to diminish his stature, it has never affected, nor will it ever affect, his God-given greatness.

Hadith Commentary:
Those individuals turned out to be extremely ungrateful and disloyal.
The treatment they received was the result of their own actions.
They had behaved in a similar manner with the camel herder.
At this point, there is a problem: according to the hadith of ‘Ubadah, when the prescribed punishment (hadd) is carried out on someone, it becomes an expiation for his sin. However, regarding the militants, Allah the Exalted has said:
“This punishment is a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they will have a severe torment.” ()
According to this verse, the punishment in this world will not be an expiation for them.
The answer to this has been given by Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah, who said that the hadith of ‘Ubadah ibn Samit radi Allahu anhu is specific to the people of Islam, but the killing of a disbeliever or polytheist will not be an expiation for him, because disbelief and polytheism are unforgivable crimes, which will not be forgiven without repentance, as Allah the Exalted has said:
“Indeed, Allah does not forgive associating partners with Him.” ()
In any case, the matter of a Muslim and a disbeliever is separate.
(Fath al-Bari: 12/137)
And Allah knows best.

Hadith Commentary:
The shepherd’s name was Yasar al-Nubi (radi Allahu anhu). When the people of the tribe apostatized and began to flee with the camels, this shepherd resisted them.
Upon this, they cut off his hands and feet, and drove thorns into his tongue and eyes, due to which he attained martyrdom (radi Allahu anhu).
In retribution, the same was done to those bandits as is mentioned in the narration.
These bandits belonged to both the tribes of ‘Ukil and ‘Uraina.
Harrah is a stony plain located outside of Madinah.
Those bandits were suffering from the disease of dropsy (istisqa’), so the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) prescribed this remedy for them.

Hadith Commentary:
1.
The people of ‘Ukl and ‘Uraynah did not accept Islam sincerely from their hearts; rather, they professed Islam reluctantly, as is evident from the apparent wording of the narration. Their number was eight. (Sahih al-Bukhari, al-Diyat, Hadith: 6899) When they began to flee with the camels, the shepherd resisted them, upon which they cut off his hands and feet. For this reason, those bandits were dealt with in retribution in the same manner as they had done to the shepherd.

When they came to Madinah Tayyibah, they were afflicted with the disease of dropsy (istisqa’). The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) prescribed for them a remedy of drinking the milk and urine of camels. When they became healthy, they committed the aforementioned heinous crime.

The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) sent about twenty young men from among the Ansar in pursuit of them, and also dispatched a tracker with them. (Sahih Muslim, al-Qasamah wa al-Harbin, Hadith: 4353) Hafiz Ibn Qayyim (rahimahullah) has stated that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) supplicated in these words: “O Allah! Make the path blind for the ‘Uraynah people and make it even narrower than a bracelet.” Allah, the Exalted, accepted this supplication, and thus the path was constricted for them. (Zad al-Ma‘ad: 3/286)

Hadith Commentary:

The Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) sent them to the pasture of the zakat camels, knowing that they were travelers and ill, because they were suffering from dropsy (istisqa’). However, those wrongdoers not only killed the guardian of the camels there, but also mutilated him, and then fled with the camels. Later, they were captured and given the same punishment in retribution (qisas).

Imam al-Bukhari (rahimahullah) established from this that it is permissible to give the milk and similar benefits of zakat camels to travelers, and that they may also ride them.

In summary, the author’s purpose in this chapter is to establish the permissibility of allocating zakat wealth to a single category, contrary to those who say that it is obligatory to distribute it among all eight categories.

(Fath al-Bari)

That is, the author’s objective in this chapter is to prove that zakat wealth can be spent on just one eligible recipient, as opposed to those who consider it necessary to encompass all eight categories.

The severe punishment given to those people was only in retribution (qisas), and nothing more.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) has established that in places where zakat is to be spent, it is also permissible to suffice with giving the benefits of zakat property instead of the zakat wealth itself, because drinking the milk of the camels given in charity or riding them are among their benefits. The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) permitted travelers to make use of them.

(2)
Ibn Battal (rahimahullah) has said that it is valid to give zakat to only one of the eight categories of zakat recipients. Although this statement is correct, to consider it as the objective of Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) is questionable. It is possible that he only permitted benefiting from the camels allotted to their share. Furthermore, the hadith does not clarify that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) made them owners of the camels given in charity; rather, the hadith only mentions drinking the milk.

(Fath al-Bari: 3/461)

(3)
It should be noted that the corroboration (mutaba‘ah) of Abu Qilabah has already been mentioned earlier in the Book of Purification (Kitab al-Taharah) (: Sahih al-Bukhari, al-Taharah, Hadith: 233), and the corroboration of Humayd has been narrated with a connected chain by Muslim, al-Nasa’i, and others (: Sahih Muslim, al-Qasamah wa al-Muharibin, Hadith: 4353(1671); Sunan al-Nasa’i, al-Muharibah, Hadith: 4034, 4033). Likewise, the corroboration of Thabit has been narrated by Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) himself in the Book of Medicine (Kitab al-Tibb, Hadith: 5685) with his own connected chain.

(Fath al-Bari: 3/462)

Hadith Commentary:
Benefits and Issues:
Since it was required to kill those people, because they had killed the shepherd by leaving him thirsty, therefore, they were treated in the same manner as they had treated the shepherd.

Hadith Commentary: Benefits and Issues: (1)
After the expedition of Dhi Qarad in 6 AH, a group of individuals—four from the tribe of ‘Uraina, three from ‘Ukl, and another man—who had become weak and ill due to severe hunger, came to the service of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and accepted Islam. They began living with the Ashab al-Suffah. Later, after eating and drinking in Madinah, they regained their health. However, since they were Bedouins, they suffered from indigestion (jaw‘, which refers to a stomach illness) or the climate of Madinah did not suit them (istiḥkām refers to incompatibility with the climate), causing their bellies to swell. Therefore, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) granted them permission to leave Madinah due to the incompatibility of the climate. This proves that for the sake of changing climate or due to incompatibility, it is permissible to change one’s area or home. About six miles outside Madinah, at a place called Dhi Jadr, the camels given in charity would graze. They expressed a desire to drink milk, so the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) ordered them to go to the camels of charity, and at that time, his own she-camels were also going there, so he sent them along. Or, since the administrator and overseer of the charity was the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) himself, in some narrations, the camels are attributed to him.

(2)
Based on this hadith, there arose a difference of opinion among the Imams regarding the urine of animals whose meat is lawful to eat (ma’kul al-lahm). According to this hadith, Imam Malik, Imam Ahmad, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, Ibn al-Mundhir among the Shafi‘is, Ibn Khuzaymah and others, Shu‘bi, ‘Ata’, Nakha‘i, Zuhri, Ibn Sirin, and Thawri hold that the urine of animals whose meat is lawful is pure. However, according to Imam Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi‘i, Abu Yusuf, Abu Thawr, and others, the urine of all animals is impure. This is also the position of Ibn Hazm. Dawud, al-Zahiri, Ibn ‘Ulayyah, and according to one opinion, some others, hold that all urine is pure except human urine.

The Hanafis and Shafi‘is have interpreted this as a permission given for medical treatment, granted out of necessity. However, treatment with something unlawful is itself a matter of difference. According to Imam Ahmad, it is never permissible to use unlawful things for treatment, because the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said: “Allah, the Exalted, has not placed healing in anything He has forbidden.” According to the Shafi‘is, in light of this hadith, it is permissible to use all impure and filthy things for treatment except intoxicants, provided it is certain that there is benefit. The position of the Malikis is the same as the Hanbalis. Drinking wine when water is not available, or eating carrion when food is not available, will certainly save life, but with treatment and medicine, recovery is not certain; therefore, this is an invalid analogy. According to the Hanafis, the well-known opinion of Imam Abu Hanifah is that it is not permissible to use unlawful things for treatment. According to Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad, it is permissible, and most Hanafi scholars have accepted Abu Yusuf’s position with the condition that a qualified Muslim doctor says that there is no treatment for this illness except with this unlawful medicine, and that this medicine is curative.

(For details, see Takmila, vol. 2, pp. 298–304.) (2)
After regaining health, these people committed apostasy and treachery, drove away sixteen (16) camels, and slaughtered one of them. When the Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) servant Yasar pursued them, they cut off his hands and feet, pierced his tongue and eyes with thorns, until he died.
(Tabaqat Ibn Sa‘d, vol. 2, p. 93) (3)
And according to Ibn Hajar, the shepherd whom they killed was only Yasar (radi Allahu anhu). When the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) learned of this, he dispatched a detachment of twenty horsemen under the leadership of Kurz ibn Jabir al-Fihri to pursue them. The next day, with the guidance of a woman, after they had finished eating, they were all surrounded and captured, tied up, mounted behind the horsemen, and brought to Madinah. They were then treated in the same manner as they had treated the shepherd, and no greater punishment was inflicted, even though, due to their treachery, betrayal, and extremely cruel and brutal actions in response to kindness, they deserved an even more severe punishment, and were not worthy of any mercy, pardon, or compassion. Furthermore, in the implementation of hudud (prescribed punishments) and judicial matters, no leniency or gentleness is permissible.

(4)
These people, with oppression and treachery, committed highway robbery and apostasy (turning away from Islam), so it is necessary to shed light on both these issues.
1. Highway robbery and banditry: A bandit or highway robber is an individual or group whose fear and terror make it difficult for people to travel, and people’s lives and property are not safe from them, and they possess such power and strength that the public cannot defend themselves against them. According to Imam Ibn Hazm, a bandit is any tyrant who terrifies the people of the land and blocks the road, and he may do this anywhere and at any time, by day or night, on a public road, in an alley, in the wilderness, or in a city or town. According to the Hanafis and Hanbalis, it is necessary for the bandit to possess weapons or instruments of war, while according to the Malikis and Shafi‘is, the mere use of threat and force to seize property is sufficient for punishment. The punishment for bandits and highway robbers depends on their actions and excesses. If the bandits are caught before committing robbery, before they have seized property or killed anyone, then according to the Hanafis, they will be imprisoned as a punishment until they repent and demonstrate good conduct. If they seize property equal to the threshold for theft but do not kill, their hands and feet will be cut off from opposite sides. If, during the act of robbery, they kill but do not seize property, they will be executed, and since this is not qisas (retaliation), the heirs of the victim cannot pardon them. If the bandits both kill and seize property, then according to ‘Allamah Taqi, the Imam has the discretion: if he wishes, he may have their hands and feet cut off from opposite sides and then execute them, or crucify them, or do all three, or execute them and then crucify them, or only execute them, or only crucify them.
(Takmila, vol. 2, p. 311)
But according to Dr. Tanzilur Rahman, if they have committed both murder and robbery, their hands and feet should be cut off from opposite sides, then they should be executed and crucified, or, without cutting off their hands and feet, they should be executed and crucified. Even if only one member of the group committed the murder, the Islamic laws of hudud, qisas, diyat, and ta‘zirat, p. 75, the Shafi‘is’ position is the same as the Hanafis, except in the last case, when they have committed both murder and robbery, they will be executed and crucified without cutting off their hands and feet. The Malikis, in the third case, when the bandits have killed but not robbed, agree with the Hanafis and Shafi‘is that the bandits will be executed as a hadd (prescribed punishment), not as qisas, so the heirs of the victim cannot pardon them. In the remaining three cases, the ruler has the discretion to execute them, or execute and crucify them, or cut off their hands and feet from opposite sides, or after ta‘zir (beating), exile them.
(Takmila, vol. 2, p. 312)
But Dr. Tanzilur Rahman’s statement differs from this, p. 76 (Islamic Laws). The Hanbalis’ position is also the same as the Shafi‘is, except in the first case, when they have only threatened or intimidated, without killing or robbing, they will not be allowed to remain in any one area.

The source of these punishments is the verse of Surah al-Ma’idah, verse 22: “Indeed, the recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger...” in which the word “or” (aw) is, according to Imam Malik rahimahullah, for choice, and according to the other Imams, for explanation and detail, meaning the punishment will be according to the crime.
And in the verse “...they be exiled from the land...” the majority interpret exile as imprisonment, and according to some, banishment.

The second crime of the people of Banu ‘Uraina and Banu ‘Ukl was apostasy, i.e., turning away from the religion. Just as Islam protects people’s lives and property, and those who endanger people’s lives and property or violate their honor are given exemplary punishment so that people’s wealth and religion remain safe, likewise, whoever denies Islam, separates from the Muslim community, and tries to mislead them and cause turmoil and corruption in the religion, is given a severe punishment, and that punishment is execution, upon which the jurists of the Ummah, including the four Imams, are agreed.
There is no difference of opinion in this, because there are authentic hadiths regarding the execution of the apostate.
(For details, see: Islamic Laws, Hudud, Qisas, Diyat, and Ta‘zirat, Dr. Tanzilur Rahman, pp. 146–160)

Explanation:
1:
The Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) instructed them to drink the urine of camels for medicinal purposes.
From this, it is understood that the urine of lawful (halal) animals is pure.
If it were impure, permission to drink it would not have been given,
because it is not permissible to seek treatment with something that is forbidden or impure.

1:
That is, its urine is not impure; in case of necessity, its use for treatment is permissible, and this is the view of the verifying scholars among the hadith experts (muhaddithin). The evidences of those who consider it impure are merely analogical arguments (qiyas).

English Translation:

“They were having their teeth struck”—perhaps upon reading these words, someone’s “sense of human rights” may be stirred, thinking this is an insult to humanity. But is it known why this treatment was meted out to them? The answer is that the Prophet of Mercy (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) treated them in exact accordance with the Qur’anic command, as retribution (qisas). They had mercilessly taken the life of an innocent shepherd. Along with this, they were notorious bandits, apostates, and ingrates as well—so what deficiency remained? Therefore, this was neither mutilation (muthla) nor oppression or torture upon them; rather, it was the recompense for what they themselves had done. Such action is necessary for the establishment of public order, and is an essential matter for the prevention of mischief-makers, oppression, transgression, murder, and rebellion. Today’s so-called humanitarians have no need to feel pity for such ruthless criminals. If people of such character were worthy of pity, then the Prophet of Mercy (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) would have been the first to show them mercy. Those jurists (fuqaha) who have declared this to be mutilation (muthla) and thus abrogated should certainly take into account the punishment of stoning (rajm). Does not rajm fall under this abrogated interpretation of mutilation? Even though in that case, the criminal has not even treated any innocent person in such a manner. Certainly, the crime of these people was far graver than the crime of adultery.

Commentary:
To the east and west of Madinah Munawwarah are two vast rocky plains, each of which is called a Harrah.

(1) The aforementioned narration from Sunan al-Nasa’i is also found in Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, Jami‘ al-Tirmidhi, Sunan Ibn Majah, as well as Musnad Ahmad. In all these books, including the two Sahihs, this narration is mentioned in more than one place in each book. Here, in Sunan al-Nasa’i at this location, it is stated that eight individuals from the tribe of ‘Ukl came to the service of the Noble Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), whereas in other narrations of Sunan al-Nasa’i, in some, the people who came are referred to as from the tribe of ‘Uraina, and in some narrations, they are described as people from both ‘Ukl and ‘Uraina. (See the ahadith mentioned under this chapter.) Furthermore, the situation is the same in the ahadith narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim themselves: in some narrations, they are described as individuals from the tribe of ‘Ukl, in some as from ‘Uraina, and in some as from both ‘Ukl and ‘Uraina. See: (Sahih al-Bukhari, al-Jihad, al-Zakat, Chapter: Using the camels of charity and their milk..., Hadith: 1501; and Sahih al-Bukhari, al-Jihad wa al-Siyar, Chapter: If a polytheist burns a Muslim, should he be burned? Hadith: 3018; and Sahih Muslim, al-Qasama wa al-Muharibin, Chapter: The ruling on highwaymen and apostates, Hadith: 1671 and after.) Apparently, there seems to be a contradiction in these ahadith, but in reality, there is absolutely no contradiction. The actual fact is that those who came were people from both the tribes of ‘Ukl and ‘Uraina. Their number was eight: four individuals were from the tribe of ‘Uraina, three from ‘Ukl, and one person was from another tribe besides these two. Since all these eight individuals together came to the blessed service of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and accepted Islam, in some ahadith they are referred to as people of the tribe of ‘Ukl, in some as ‘Uraina, and in some as both ‘Ukl and ‘Uraina. And Allah knows best.

(2) “Did not find it agreeable”: Since those people had come from another region, due to the climate not being agreeable to them, they became ill, as generally happens when travelers go to another country and face health issues. Some recover after a while, and for some, the climate does not suit them even for a long time.

(3) “Drink the milk and urine”: Milk was their preferred food. Urine was prescribed for the treatment of their stomach. From this, it is deduced that the urine of animals whose meat is eaten is pure (tahir). That is why the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) ordered them to drink it. Those who do not accept this, consider it a necessity for treatment. According to them, treatment with an impure (najis) thing is also permissible. Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah) also does not accept this. He considers it specific only to those people. This discussion has already passed in the Book of Purification (Kitab al-Taharah).

(4) “They killed”: In reality, these people were bandits. It is possible that they came with evil intentions from the outset, or that their display of Islam was a deception. It is also possible that their intention was correct at the time of accepting Islam, but since they were originally bandits, when they saw only two herdsmen with so many camels, their intention became corrupt. Thus, they killed the herdsman of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and drove away the camels. In some historical narrations, the number of those camels is mentioned as fifteen. And Allah knows best.

(5) “They killed the herdsman of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam)”: In this narration of Sunan al-Nasa’i (4029), the wording is in the singular, whereas in another narration of Sunan al-Nasa’i (4040), the wording is plural, i.e., “they killed the herdsmen.” Similarly, in the narrations of Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, both singular and plural wordings are found. Imam al-Bukhari (rahimahullah) has narrated this hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari at fourteen places. At thirteen places, the wording is singular, while at one place, the wording is plural. See: (Sahih al-Bukhari, al-Hudud, [باب ] Kitab al-Muharibin... Hadith: 6802). Similarly, in Sahih Muslim, Imam Muslim (rahimahullah) has also used both singular and plural wordings. For the plural wording, see: (Sahih Muslim, al-Qasama wa al-Muharibin, Chapter: The ruling on highwaymen and apostates, Hadith: 1671). The actual fact of this incident is that there were only two herdsmen. This is explicitly stated in Sahih Abu ‘Awanah. One was the one referred to as the herdsman of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), and he was the one whom those people killed. His name was Yasar. He was a freed slave of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). Upon seeing him perform prayer in a beautiful manner, the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) set him free. The second herdsman, upon witnessing all this, fled and reached Madinah Tayyibah, where he informed that those people had killed his companion and driven away the she-camels. Consequently, the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) sent a group of the noble Companions (radi Allahu anhum) in pursuit of them. They caught up with those wicked people on the way, captured them, and brought them to the blessed presence of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). Thus, in retribution for the herdsman, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) dealt with all his killers, who were also bandits and robbers, in the same manner as they had dealt with the herdsman of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam): their hands were cut off with severity, hot iron rods were passed over their eyes, and they were thrown in the sun. In this way, they writhed in agony and died of thirst. The name of the murdered herdsman was Yasar ibn Zayd Abu Bilal; the name of the other, the informant, could not be ascertained. Most of the narrators of this hadith agree that only the herdsman of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was killed, and no other herdsman was killed with him. Those few narrators who used the plural wording did so figuratively. It is also possible that, since the minimum number for a plural (aqall al-jam‘) is two, and there were two herdsmen, and those people intended to kill both, but one escaped, some narrators used the plural wording. The preferred and correct view is that only one herdsman was killed. This is also supported by the historical narrations of the scholars of Maghazi, in which only the killing of one herdsman, Yasar, is mentioned. And Allah knows best. For details, see: (Fath al-Bari: 1/441, 442).

(6) “Until they died”: The Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not give them this severe punishment without reason; rather, their crimes were more than one. They apostatized from Islam, killed the herdsman, and not only did they suffice with murder, but they also cut off his hands and feet, passed iron rods over his eyes, then threw this innocent person hungry and thirsty on hot stones in the sun, and as his blood drained, he became beloved to Allah. They looted the camels and other belongings. The punishment that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) gave them was only in retaliation for what they had done to the herdsman. The punishments for the other crimes are included under this. When a criminal shows no mercy while committing a crime, then there should be no mercy shown when taking retribution; otherwise, crimes will not cease. The criminal should be given a punishment equivalent to his crime. The meaning of the above-mentioned verse of the Noble Qur’an is also this. The jurists who have considered this type of punishment abrogated due to a weak narration such as “There is no retribution except by the sword (la qawada illa bi’s-sayf)” are incorrect, because the meaning of “Qisas has been prescribed for you (kutiba ‘alaykum al-qisas)” refutes this position. The above-mentioned verse (the verse of Muharaba) is explicit in this regard, and the hadith of the chapter clearly supports it. And Allah knows best. (This discussion has already passed.)

(7) If, before being apprehended, the criminal sincerely repents, then, insha’Allah, there is hope for forgiveness, even if it concerns the rights of the servants (‘ibad). And Allah knows best.

307. Commentary:

➊ "It is as if this hadith is mursal." A mursal narration is one in which a tabi'i says: The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said such-and-such, or did such-and-such.

➋ "Because of disbelief (kufr)"—in reality, they had several crimes: disbelief (kufr), murder, robbery, savagery. Punishment for each crime was necessary. Since disbelief (kufr) is the greatest crime, only that was mentioned, as the saying goes, "in the elephant's foot, all feet are included." Otherwise, such killing is not carried out solely on the basis of disbelief; rather, this treatment was meted out to them due to their collective crimes, among which disbelief was also included.

➌ These people belonged to two tribes: 'Ukl and 'Uraynah. In the first narration, 'Ukl is mentioned, and in this one, 'Uraynah. This is not a contradiction. For details, see: [فتح الباري : 438/1 ، 439 ، تحت حدیث : 233]

Urdu marginal note:
"They used to live on the outskirts"—the purpose is that it was a place separate and isolated from Madinah. There were quite a few camels. There were only one or two herdsmen. These circumstances awakened their "bandit-like nature," and they forgot Islam.

306. Commentary:
➊ Since those people were accustomed to desert life, the urban environment did not suit them and they suffered from indigestion.

➋ “Drink the urine of camels.” From this, it is deduced that the urine of animals whose meat is lawful to eat (ma’kul al-lahm), i.e., animals whose meat is permissible, is pure; otherwise, the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) would not have ordered them to drink the urine. Moreover, if the principles of Shariah are considered, the same conclusion is reached, because animals whose meat is lawful are kept in homes, their milk is drunk, they are used for riding, and they must be cared for. Therefore, it is impossible to keep the house, clothes, and body pure from their urine and dung. In fact, it is quite possible that while milking, the animal may begin to urinate and some drops of urine may fall into the milk. Now, if their urine and dung are considered impure, people would face great difficulty. Furthermore, their urine and dung do not have the foul odor found in the filth of humans and unlawful animals. That is why, in villages, people plaster their floors, walls, and roofs with the dung of these animals. Their dung is used as fuel, and this is a natural use, as both Muslims and non-Muslims participate in it. Therefore, there remains no doubt about the purity of the urine and dung of these animals. The majority of scholars hold this view.

➌ Those scholars who consider the urine of ma’kul al-lahm animals to be impure respond to this hadith by saying that it is permissible to use impure things for medicinal purposes, because treatment is also a necessity. This is the opinion of Imam Abu Yusuf rahimahullah, whereas Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah does not consider even medicinal use of this urine to be permissible. He considers this hadith to be specific only to those people who were given the command, because the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) knew through revelation that their cure was in the urine. We cannot say about any other patient that he will definitely be cured. However, this view appears to be quite weak. That is why even the students of Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah do not agree with him on this issue.

➍ The act of passing hot rods through their eyes, cutting off their hands and feet, leaving them on hot stones, and not giving them water despite their request, causing them to die in agony—this was done as retribution (qisas), because they had done exactly the same cruel act to the Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) shepherd. Therefore, they were given the same punishment, which was obligatory. The Noble Qur’an says: «كتب عليكم القصاص فى القتلي» [البقرة 178 : 2]
“It is prescribed for you to take retribution (qisas) in the case of those murdered.”
Qisas means equality and resemblance, so there is no objection to this. According to the hadith scholars (muhaddithin), even now, if a murderer has killed someone in a brutal manner, then in view of the command of qisas and to serve as a deterrent to others, the murderer should be killed in the same way. However, according to some jurists (Malikis and Hanafis), this hadith is abrogated, because the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said: «لاقود الا بالسيف» [سنن ابن ما جه، الديات، حديث : 2668]
That is, qisas should be carried out only with a single blow of the sword. But it should be noted that this narration is weak, it is against the command of qisas, and the narration in the chapter is in accordance with the Qur’an and is of the highest level in terms of chain of transmission. Therefore, the view of the hadith scholars is correct.

(1) The clarification of the difference mentioned in the chapter heading is as follows: When Talhah bin Musarrif narrated this report, he said: “from Yahya bin Sa‘id, from Anas,” i.e., he narrated it as a connected and continuous (musnad) chain. However, when Mu‘awiyah bin Salih (and Yahya bin Ayyub) narrated it, they said: “from Yahya bin Sa‘id, from Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyib,” i.e., they narrated it as mursal (with a missing link). And Allah knows best.

(2) “Because of disbelief (kufr)”—the intent is that they had also committed disbelief; otherwise, the cutting off of hands and feet and the gouging of eyes was not due to disbelief, but rather as retribution (qisas), because the punishment for apostasy (riddah) is simple execution.

(3) “Abdulmalik”—he was a learned king from Banu Umayyah who stabilized the faltering ship of the Umayyad dynasty and established a strong government. After him, his descendants ruled with firmness, but his knowledge was suppressed by his government, and these two (knowledge and government) rarely go together.

Benefits and Issues:

➊ Among these individuals, some were from the tribe of ‘Ukl, and some were affiliated with the tribe of ‘Uraynah.

➋ If the climate of a certain place is not suitable, it is permissible to move to another appropriate location. This ruling does not pertain to attempting to flee from an epidemic.

➌ It is permissible to lend something from the public treasury (bayt al-mal) to someone without transferring ownership, so that the person may benefit from it as needed.

➍ There is a remedy for abdominal swelling in the milk of she-camels.

➎ It is permissible, as a form of treatment, to drink the urine of those animals whose meat is lawful to eat.