The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) would accept a present, but would not accept alms (sadaqah).And Wahb bin Baqiyyah narrated to us, elsewhere, from Khalid, from Muhammad ibn Amr said on the authority of AbuSalamah, and he did not mention the name of Abu Hurairah: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) used to accept presents but not alms (sadaqah).
This version adds: So a Jewess presented him at Khaybar with a roasted sheep which she had poisoned. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) ate of it and the people also ate.
He then said: Take away your hands (from the food), for it has informed me that it is poisoned. Bishr ibn al-Bara' ibn Ma'rur al-Ansari died.
So he (the Prophet) sent for the Jewess (and said to her): What motivated you to do the work you have done?
She said: If you were a prophet, it would not harm you; but if you were a king, I should rid the people of you. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) then ordered regarding her and she was killed. He then said about the pain of which he died: I continued to feel pain from the morsel which I had eaten at Khaybar. This is the time when it has cut off my aorta.
Types of Blood-Wit (Kitab Al-Diyat) - Sunan Abi Dawud 4512
This narration from Sunan Abi Dawud contains profound legal and spiritual lessons regarding the distinction between gifts and charity, the permissibility of accepting presents, and the legal consequences of intentional poisoning.
Legal Distinction Between Gifts and Charity
The Prophet's acceptance of presents while rejecting sadaqah establishes a fundamental legal distinction. Gifts (hadiyyah) strengthen social bonds and are permissible for all, while charity (sadaqah) is purification for the giver and inappropriate for prophets who are already purified.
Scholars explain that prophets are above receiving purification alms, as their spiritual state transcends such remedial measures. This distinction carries into Islamic jurisprudence where rulings differ for gifts versus obligatory charity.
The Incident of Poisoning at Khaybar
The Jewish woman's poisoning attempt reveals multiple legal principles. Her confession establishes the intentional nature of the crime, making it subject to qisas (retribution). The Prophet's subsequent order for her execution demonstrates that intentional poisoning constitutes murder under Islamic law.
Bishr ibn al-Bara's death created a blood-wit obligation, though the narration focuses on the capital punishment aspect. Classical scholars derive from this that poisoning with lethal intent carries the same legal weight as direct physical killing.
Miraculous Elements and Legal Implications
The sheep "informing" the Prophet of the poison demonstrates divine protection of revelation. The woman's statement "if you were a prophet, it would not harm you" shows her testing prophethood, making this both a criminal act and theological challenge.
The Prophet's prolonged suffering from the poison until his death shows that delayed consequences of criminal acts still maintain legal responsibility. Scholars note this establishes liability for injuries that manifest over time.
Jurisprudential Conclusions
This hadith forms the basis for diyat (blood-wit) rulings regarding poisoning deaths. The compensation would be equivalent to that for intentional killing unless forgiven by heirs.
The incident also establishes that accepting food from non-Muslims is permissible when there's no reasonable suspicion of harm, as the Prophet only detected the poison through divine means after consumption began.