Some people raided the camels of the Prophet (ﷺ), drove them off, and apostatised. They killed the herdsman of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) who was a believer. He (the Prophet) sent (people) in pursuit of them and they were caught. He had their hands and feet cut off, and their eyes put out. The verse regarding fighting against Allah and His Prophet (ﷺ) was then revealed. These were the people about whom Anas ibn Malik informed al-Hajjaj when he asked him.
Hadith Context & Legal Analysis
This narration from Sunan Abi Dawud 4369 describes a grave crime involving theft, apostasy, and murder. The perpetrators committed multiple capital offenses: they stole the Prophet's camels, killed a believing herdsman, and abandoned Islam. The punishment administered—amputation of limbs and blinding—was specific to these particular circumstances and represents the maximum deterrent for such comprehensive rebellion.
Classical scholars explain this severe punishment was not merely for theft but for the compound crimes of highway robbery (hirabah) combined with apostasy and murder. The Qur'anic verse referenced (likely 5:33) prescribes severe penalties for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, including execution, crucifixion, amputation, or exile.
Scholarly Interpretation
Imam al-Nawawi comments that this case demonstrates how punishments may be combined when multiple crimes are committed. The blinding was an exceptional measure due to the severity of their rebellion and murder of a Muslim.
Ibn Qudamah in al-Mughni explains that the primary punishment for highway robbery with murder is execution, but the Prophet combined punishments here due to the unique circumstances of their apostasy and direct attack upon the Muslim community's leadership.
Scholars note this ruling is specific to its context and doesn't establish a general precedent for blinding as a standard punishment in Islamic law.
Legal Principles Derived
The hadith establishes that crimes against the state and community leadership may warrant enhanced punishments.
It demonstrates the flexibility in applying prescribed punishments (hudud) when multiple crimes intersect.
The ruling emphasizes the gravity of apostasy combined with violent crimes against Muslims.
Scholars caution that such combined punishments require careful judicial consideration and aren't to be applied arbitrarily.