Tirmidhi

Explanation:
1:
Ibn Khatal’s name was Abdullah or Abd al-‘Uzza.
When the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) entered Makkah, he said:
“Whoever fights us should be killed.”
After that, he mentioned the names of some people,
among whom was also the name of Ibn Khatal.
Regarding all of them, he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said: “Wherever they are found, they should be killed, even if they are clinging to the curtains of the Ka‘bah.”
Ibn Khatal had become Muslim.
The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) sent him to collect zakat (obligatory charity),
and assigned an Ansari Muslim to accompany him.
Ibn Khatal had a slave who was Muslim,
who was with him to serve him.
He ordered his Muslim slave to slaughter a ram and prepare food.
Coincidentally, the slave fell asleep,
and when he woke up, the food was not prepared.
So Ibn Khatal killed his Muslim slave,
and then apostatized and became a polytheist.
He had two slave girls who were singers,
and they used to speak disrespectfully about the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).
This is the reason why he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) ordered him to be killed.

Hadith Commentary:
Ibn Khatal had turned away from Islam and become an apostate.
He was also a murderer of a man and used to sing satirical songs against the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).
Accordingly, on this occasion, he was taken out from the curtains of the Ka'bah and his neck was struck between Zamzam and Maqam Ibrahim.
The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) then forbade in the future that any man of Quraysh should be rendered helpless and killed in this manner.
The word "luha" refers to an iron helmet which is worn in battle for the protection of the head.

Hadith Commentary:
1.
The name of Ibn Khatal was Abdullah.
After accepting Islam, he became an apostate, and he also unjustly killed a man.
He had two slave girls who used to sing satirical songs about the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).
This accursed man was killed while standing between the Well of Zamzam (Zamzam well) and the Station of Ibrahim (Maqam Ibrahim).
(Fath al-Bari: 8/21.)

2.
The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was not in the state of ihram at that time, because this is also evident from other narrations. Thus, Hazrat Jabir (radi Allahu anhu) narrates that when the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) entered Makkah, there was a black turban on his head.
(Musnad Ahmad: 3/363)

Hadith Commentary:
This wretched Abdullah bin Khatal became an apostate, killed a Muslim, and joined the disbelievers. He would have prostitutes sing satirical verses against the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and the Muslims.
This hadith specifies (makes an exception to) that hadith which states that whoever enters the Sacred Mosque (Masjid al-Haram) is safe from fear. From this, it is derived that the legal punishment of retribution (qisas) can be carried out even within the Sacred Mosque. The "iron helmet" itself, which was used in the battlefield to protect the head, was similar to the iron coat of mail (called "zara") that was used to protect the rest of the body.

Hadith Commentary:
➊
Some people are of the opinion that it is not permissible to kill prisoners.
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has established that if circumstances demand, it is permissible to do so, and in fact, it is even allowed to kill someone while he is bound. This is exactly how Ibn Khatal was treated.
That wretched man became an apostate after accepting Islam, then, after unjustly killing a Muslim, he joined the disbelievers and would have his slave girls insult the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.

➋
The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam ordered that he be killed even within the Haram (sanctuary).
Although anyone who enters the Haram is entitled to security, according to this hadith, the killing of Ibn Khatal was an exception. Furthermore, the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:
“I was granted permission to fight in the Haram for a short period of time.
After that, until the Day of Resurrection, no one will be permitted to violate the sanctity of the Haram.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Hunting and Slaughtering, Chapter: 1834)

Hadith Commentary:
Ibn Khatal’s name was Abdullah. He had initially accepted Islam. The Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) sent a Companion to collect zakat, and with him was a Muslim slave. Ibn Khatal ordered this Muslim slave to prepare food, while he himself went to sleep. When he awoke, the Muslim slave had not prepared the food. In anger, he killed the slave and then apostatized from Islam. He kept two singing slave-girls and would have them sing satirical songs against the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). This wretched man proved to be such an eternal enemy that he was killed even inside the Sacred Ka‘bah. The one who killed Ibn Khatal was Abu Barzah al-Aslami (radi Allahu anhu); some have mentioned that it was al-Zubayr (radi Allahu anhu).

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah’s intent is that those who intend to perform Hajj or Umrah are required to enter Makkah in the state of ihram (sacral state).
For others, who come to Makkah for personal needs or due to some emergency, it is not correct to impose the obligation of ihram upon them. Accordingly, the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam entered Makkah without ihram at the time of the conquest of Makkah, because there was a helmet on his blessed head.
If he had been in the state of ihram, his head would have been uncovered.
On this basis, one who enters Makkah due to some emergency is exempt from ihram.
(2)
It should be noted that Ibn Khatal had killed a Muslim.
After that, he became an apostate, so the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam ordered him to be killed in the Sacred Sanctuary (Haram). Accordingly, Abu Barzah al-Aslami radi Allahu anhu carried out the punishment upon him.

Hadith Commentary: Benefits and Issues: From this hadith, Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah has deduced that it is permissible to recite remembrances (adhkar) in prayer other than those that are transmitted, provided that they are not contrary to what is transmitted. On this, Allamah Saeedi writes: This is not correct, because this remembrance was made in the presence of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and he approved and permitted it; thus, its permissibility is known from the tacit approval and explanation of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. Now that revelation has ceased, no person has the right to add any remembrance or supplication from himself in prayer or in any specific act of worship. In fact, our jurists (fuqaha) have said that if, after the first tashahhud, someone recites (اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ) (O Allah, send blessings upon Muhammad) either forgetfully or intentionally, then prostration of forgetfulness (sajdah sahw) will become obligatory upon him. In the Shari‘ah of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, later people have no right to make any addition. (Sharh Muslim: 2/212)

The question is: when it is established that revelation has ceased and the Shari‘ah is complete, and later people have no right to make any addition in the Shari‘ah, then is it not an addition to fix the celebration of Mawlid al-Nabi sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, to invent new forms of salutations (salawat), and to specify various types of supererogatory acts of worship for conveying reward (isal thawab) without any Shar‘i specification? How have all these matters become “commendable”? There is allowance for sending salutations (salat) in the first tashahhud; in fact, some Imams have even declared it obligatory, yet prostration of forgetfulness (sajdah sahw) has been prescribed for it. Similarly, if a worshipper sneezes during prayer, he may say “alhamdulillah” (all praise is due to Allah) with his tongue. However, according to one narration from Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah, his prayer will become invalid. So, can those matters which the followers of Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah have innovated after him be considered commendable in his view?

Benefits and Issues:
➊
The fact that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) himself entered Makkah wearing his own clothes is evidence that, apart from Hajj and Umrah, a person may enter Makkah without being in the state of ihram, according to the circumstances.

➋
Ibn Khatal had first become a Muslim.
The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) sent him on an assignment and dispatched an Ansari as a servant along with him.
When the servant made some mistake (error), Ibn Khatal killed that Ansari.
He then seized his property and became an apostate.
Therefore, for this reason, the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not grant him protection,
and ordered that he be killed.

(1) "Helmet" — In some narrations, it is mentioned that it was a black turban. (Sahih Muslim, Al-Hajj, Hadith: 1358) It is possible that at one time it was a helmet, and at another time a turban. Or, a turban was tied over the helmet, or the helmet was over the turban. Whatever the case may be, this establishes that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was not in the state of ihram, because he had not come with the intention of performing Hajj or Umrah. Ihram is obligatory upon the one who enters Makkah Mukarramah with the intention of Hajj or Umrah, whereas the Hanafi opinion is that whoever wishes to enter Makkah Mukarramah must necessarily assume ihram when passing through the miqat. This narration is contrary to their position.

(2) "Ibn Khatal" — His name was Abdullah. After becoming Muslim, he killed a man and became an apostate. He began composing satirical poetry against the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). Since, in retribution, this person was liable to be killed, and for the crime of apostasy as well his killing was necessary, and satirizing the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was also a cause for the death penalty, therefore, on the occasion of the conquest of Makkah, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) ordered his killing. To save himself, he clung to the covering of the Ka'bah, but how could such an accursed person be granted pardon?

(3) "Kill him" — Generally, killing is prohibited in the Haram (sanctuary). The criminal should be taken outside and punished. However, on the occasion of the conquest of Makkah, the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was, for a short period, given special permission to carry out killing within the Haram, and then it was made forbidden until the Day of Judgment.

Takhrij:
«أخرجه البخاري، الجهاد، باب قتل الأسير وقتل الصبر، حديث:3044، ومسلم، الحج، باب جواز دخول مكة بغير إحرام، حديث:1357.»©Explanation:
From this hadith, it is understood that the punishment for an apostate and for one who displays a disrespectful attitude towards the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam is execution, even if he is hiding within the coverings of the House of Allah (Baytullah).

Benefit:
This hadith proves that utilizing means for one's protection is permissible. This does not contradict reliance (tawakkul) upon Allah.