سنن ترمذي
Tirmidhi
كتاب الحدود عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلمThe Book on Legal Punishments (Al-Hudud)
باب مَا جَاءَ فِي التَّعْزِيرِChapter: What Has Been Related About At-Taz'ir (Unregulated Punishments)
Hadith 1463
اُردوEn
حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ , حَدَّثَنَا اللَّيْثُ , عَنْ يَزِيدَ بْنِ أَبِي حَبيبٍ , عَنْ بُكَيْرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْأَشَجِّ , عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ بْنِ يَسَارٍ , عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ , عَنْ أَبِي بُرْدَةَ بْنِ نِيَارٍ , قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : " لَا يُجْلَدُ فَوْقَ عَشْرِ جَلَدَاتٍ , إِلَّا فِي حَدٍّ مِنْ حُدُودِ اللَّهِ " , قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى : هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ , لَا نَعْرِفُهُ إِلَّا مِنْ حَدِيثِ بُكَيْرِ بْنِ الْأَشَجِّ , وَقَدِ اخْتَلَفَ أَهْلُ الْعِلْمِ فِي التَّعْزِيرِ , وَأَحْسَنُ شَيْءٍ رُوِيَ فِي التَّعْزِيرِ , هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ , قَالَ : وَقَدْ رَوَى هَذَا الْحَدِيثَ ابْنُ لَهِيعَةَ , عَنْ بُكَيْرٍ , فَأَخْطَأَ فِيهِ , وَقَالَ : عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ , عَنْ أَبِيهِ , عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ , وَهُوَ خَطَأٌ , وَالصَّحِيحُ حَدِيثُ اللَّيْثِ بْنِ سَعْدٍ , إِنَّمَا هُوَ عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ , عَنْ أَبِي بُرْدَةَ بْنِ نِيَارٍ , عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ .
´Narrated Abu Burdah bun Niyar:` That the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "No one is to be lashed more than ten lashes except for a legal punishment among Allah's punishments."
Related hadith on this topic
Explanation & Benefits
Shaykh Dr. Abdur Rahman Freywai
Explanation:
1:
The correct context of this hadith is that it pertains to the disciplining of one’s children, slaves, and servants—that a person may teach manners to those under his authority and may give a punishment of up to ten lashes. As for other offenses for which the Shari‘ah has not prescribed a specific hadd (legal punishment), such as for the treacherous, robbers, bandits, and pickpockets, where there is no specific hadd, then it is dependent on the opinion of the ruler. If the ruler wishes to give a discretionary (ta‘zir) punishment in such cases, he may give more than ten lashes, as much as he deems appropriate, even up to the death penalty. As for the hadith under discussion, it and similar disciplinary matters are not related to acts of disobedience (ma‘siyah), for example, a father punishing his young children as a means of discipline.
2:
Ibn al-Qayyim rahimahullah says:
In this hadith, the “hudud” (limits) refers to such rights that are connected to the commands and prohibitions of Allah. Thus, in the verse: “And whoever transgresses the limits of Allah, then those are the wrongdoers” (), and similarly, “These are the limits of Allah, so do not approach them” (), the meaning of “hudud” is the same. If the matter concerns the commands and prohibitions of the Shari‘ah, then the ruler is permitted to choose appropriate punishments.
1:
The correct context of this hadith is that it pertains to the disciplining of one’s children, slaves, and servants—that a person may teach manners to those under his authority and may give a punishment of up to ten lashes. As for other offenses for which the Shari‘ah has not prescribed a specific hadd (legal punishment), such as for the treacherous, robbers, bandits, and pickpockets, where there is no specific hadd, then it is dependent on the opinion of the ruler. If the ruler wishes to give a discretionary (ta‘zir) punishment in such cases, he may give more than ten lashes, as much as he deems appropriate, even up to the death penalty. As for the hadith under discussion, it and similar disciplinary matters are not related to acts of disobedience (ma‘siyah), for example, a father punishing his young children as a means of discipline.
2:
Ibn al-Qayyim rahimahullah says:
In this hadith, the “hudud” (limits) refers to such rights that are connected to the commands and prohibitions of Allah. Thus, in the verse: “And whoever transgresses the limits of Allah, then those are the wrongdoers” (), and similarly, “These are the limits of Allah, so do not approach them” (), the meaning of “hudud” is the same. If the matter concerns the commands and prohibitions of the Shari‘ah, then the ruler is permitted to choose appropriate punishments.
Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhi – Majlis ‘Ilmi Dar al-Da‘wah, New Delhi Edition, Page: 1463
Shaykh Safi ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri
Takhrij:
«أخرجه البخاري، الحدود، باب كم التعزير والأدب، حديث:6848، ومسلم، الحدود، باب قدر أسواط التعزير، حديث:1708.»
©Explanation:
The Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi'i scholars have opposed this hadith, because these scholars have deemed it permissible to administer more than ten lashes as punishment.
There is a lengthy detail regarding this issue, which there is no opportunity to present at this place.
In any case, the preferred opinion is that which this hadith indicates: that, apart from the prescribed legal punishments (hudud), it is not permissible to administer more than ten lashes.
© Hadith Narrator:
«حضرت ابوبُرْدَہ رضی اللہ عنہ » was from the confederate tribe of Banu Bali among the Ansar.
He was honored with the companionship of the Prophet (sharaf al-sahabah).
His name was Hani ibn Niyar.
He participated in battles other than Badr as well.
He passed away in 41, 42, or 45 AH.
«أخرجه البخاري، الحدود، باب كم التعزير والأدب، حديث:6848، ومسلم، الحدود، باب قدر أسواط التعزير، حديث:1708.»
©Explanation:
The Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi'i scholars have opposed this hadith, because these scholars have deemed it permissible to administer more than ten lashes as punishment.
There is a lengthy detail regarding this issue, which there is no opportunity to present at this place.
In any case, the preferred opinion is that which this hadith indicates: that, apart from the prescribed legal punishments (hudud), it is not permissible to administer more than ten lashes.
© Hadith Narrator:
«حضرت ابوبُرْدَہ رضی اللہ عنہ » was from the confederate tribe of Banu Bali among the Ansar.
He was honored with the companionship of the Prophet (sharaf al-sahabah).
His name was Hani ibn Niyar.
He participated in battles other than Badr as well.
He passed away in 41, 42, or 45 AH.
Source: Bulugh al-Maram: Commentary by Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri, Page: 1075
