Hadith Text & Context

A man committed fornication with a woman. So the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) ordered regarding him and the prescribed punishment of flogging was inflicted on him. He was then informed that he was married. So he commanded regarding him and he was stoned to death.

Abu Dawud said: This tradition has been transmitted by Muhammad b. Bakr al-Barsani from Ibn Juraij as a statement of Jabir, and Abu 'Asim has transmitted it from Ibn Juraid similar to that of Ibn Wahb. He did not mention the Prophet (ﷺ). But he said: A man committed fornication, but did not know that he was married; so he was flogged. It was then known that he was married, so he was stoned to death.

Legal Rulings & Jurisprudential Principles

This hadith establishes the critical distinction between punishments for unmarried fornicators (flogging) and married fornicators (stoning). The initial punishment was applied based on apparent evidence, then corrected when full marital status was confirmed.

Scholars derive that legal rulings must be based on available evidence, even if incomplete. When new evidence emerges, judgments must be revised accordingly. The principle of "certainty is not overruled by doubt" applies here - the initial ruling stood until definitive proof of marriage emerged.

Scholarly Commentary

Imam al-Nawawi explains that this demonstrates the necessity of establishing all legal conditions before applying hudud punishments. The man's marital status was a prerequisite for stoning, which wasn't initially known to the authorities.

Ibn Qudamah notes that this case shows the wisdom of Islamic judiciary - punishments are not applied hastily but only after thorough verification of all conditions. The gradual application reflects the Sharia's concern for justice over swift punishment.

Al-Qurtubi emphasizes that this hadith proves the complementary nature of flogging and stoning punishments - they are not alternatives but apply to different categories of offenders based on marital status.

Transmission Analysis

Abu Dawud's careful documentation of multiple transmission chains demonstrates rigorous scholarship. The variations between narrations show how scholars evaluated different versions while preserving the core legal ruling.

The mention of different transmitters (Muhammad b. Bakr, Ibn Juraij, Abu 'Asim) reflects the science of hadith criticism where scholars compare narrations to verify authenticity and understand subtle differences in wording.