A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (ﷺ) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.
Hadith Text & Context
A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (ﷺ) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.
This narration from Sunan Abi Dawud 4362 addresses the legal ruling concerning one who insults the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ). The incident occurred during the Medina period when the Islamic state was established.
Legal Analysis (Fiqh)
The ruling demonstrates that insulting the Prophet (ﷺ) constitutes a capital offense under Islamic law. Classical scholars consider this among the hudud (prescribed punishments) for which no blood money (diyah) is due.
The perpetrator's action, though extrajudicial, was validated by the Prophet's ruling. This indicates the gravity of the crime and establishes that proper authorities may execute such offenders without liability.
Scholarly Commentary
Imam al-Nawawi states: "Whoever insults the Prophet (ﷺ), whether Muslim or dhimmi (protected non-Muslim), is killed according to consensus." The absence of blood money emphasizes that this offense transcends ordinary homicide.
Ibn Taymiyyah explains: "Protection of the Prophet's honor is among the greatest obligations, surpassing protection of one's own honor or life." The ruling safeguards the sanctity of prophethood.
Jurisprudential Principles
This hadith establishes that sabb al-rasul (insulting the Messenger) nullifies one's covenant of protection if they are a dhimmi.
The ruling applies regardless of the offender's religion, though implementation requires Islamic judicial authority. Modern scholars emphasize that individuals cannot take such matters into their own hands without proper legal process.